JK Rowling’s King Lear-like dispute with her ‘children’ is tragic to behold

Sean O’Grady wonders what we might learn from the dramatic rift between the Harry Potter author and the child stars of her movie franchise who turned against her because of her trans views

JK Rowling photographed with Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint at a ‘Harry Potter’ premiere in 2010 (David Fisher/Shutterstock)

What are we to make of JK Rowling’s latest intervention on trans rights? I think an overwhelming sense of sadness, above all else. because of her trans views

I admit that I’m not a member of the Harry Potter fandom, though many grown-ups are, but I’d hitherto always admired JKR’s personal achievements. Who wouldn’t? She’s been hugely successful and was once greatly loved. I also think – this is surely an uncontroversial view – that the young actors who helped make such a success of the film adaptations of her popular novels have proved themselves deeply talented people.

So, what happened to cause such a dramatic rift between Emma Watson, Daniel Radcliffe and the woman whose books turned them into stars? Rowling’s recent acerbic comments state that the actors can “save their apologies” and she has also suggested she won’t “forgive” them for questioning her trans views – ouch.

She’s never sounded more like King Lear. And she appears to have experienced a similar fall from grace: “How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have a thankless child!”

The relationship between author-progenitor and actor-offspring, if I can put it that way, is always complex – but in this case, it used to be rather sweet. Once upon a time, it was nice to see them all proudly palling out at the Oscars. Rowling’s own story, too, used to an inspirational one – and not just for aspiring writers. Her mentees loved her.

Now, though, there is a tragic, Shakespearean quality to the rift that has emerged between them and around the whole Potter industry, such that JK Rowling’s name was almost completely erased from the credits of the Fantastic Beasts production. Rather than gushing tributes and talk of days gone by, some of those concerned pass thinly-veiled (or glaringly overt) sulphurous remarks about one another.

It doesn’t take much for the trouble to start. Go watch a gong get accepted at an illustrious awards ceremony or read an interview or essay and you’re likely to hear a disapproving or conflicted remark about Rowling from Harry, Hermione or Ron.

And, on what seems to be the slightest encouragement from an internet commenter, you are also likely to witness an acrid reply from the most famous living writer in the world. A recent exchange went like this:

FarRightHooligan: “Just waiting for Dan and Emma to give you a very public apology … safe in the knowledge that you will forgive them.”

JKR: “Not safe, I’m afraid. Celebs who cosied up to a movement intent on eroding women’s hard-won rights and who used their platforms to cheer on the transitioning of minors can save their apologies for traumatised detransitioners and vulnerable women reliant on single sex spaces.”

I think it’s fair to say there’s been no reconciliation. Even though the young rebel actors haven’t actually offered any apologies, their as yet hypothetical apologies have been pre-emptorily scorned. It’s that bad.

The abuse Rowling receives often reaches the point of being grotesque; even dangerous. But while Rowling declares that “gender dysphoria is a real and very painful condition and I feel nothing but sympathy for anyone who suffers from it” – and denies she is a transphobe – her critics maintain she is turn acting dangerously towards trans people and stoking hatred and danger towards those simply trying to live their lives in peace.

Her comments in the wake of Scotland’s new hate crime bill, for instance, certainly have an impact on the lives of ordinary families.

Even the outside observer with no skin in the game will be able to see, with bemused disappointment, the Harry Potter-esque transformation of Rowling from kindly, almost maternal figure bringing harmless joy to a troubled world, into the supposed wicked witch of Womanworld. Lady Voldemort, you might say, for her many haters.

It is bewildering to note the level of ire directed at such a small segment of the British population – and a vulnerable one, at that. One only needs to look at the terribly tragic murder of Brianna Ghey to see how toxic conversation around trans rights – and the treatment of trans people, particularly trans youth – has become. The recent publication of the Cass review only highlights this further.

Some years ago, partly from professional necessity, I was schooled by some younger colleagues, concerned by my well-meaning but profound ignorance when it came to “gender ideology”. I was more than happy to learn what was, to me, new terminology about pronouns and forms of address – and it was a necessary lesson in the hurt that misgendering engenders. We must all move with the times and try our hardest to be humane and respectful.

As for where we are in the argument, it seems to me that once the useful intellectual distinction between sex and gender is made, however contentious, the very real practical problems of accommodation can be approached. We must try to find some consensus and some means to make equal rights work and to do so in a way that causes the least harm and distress to those concerned.

In fact, the practical issues seem to centre on a small number of areas, ones where there is genuine difficulty in making peace and progress. As is well known, these are basically: competitive sports; women’s safe spaces, including changing rooms and toilets; prisons; refuge hostels; and the treatment of children. I freely admit that I can’t square these circles easily, but I do know that only this week a thoughtful and well-researched report by Hillary Cass has tried to bring some sense and reason to ensure the welfare of trans children. I would suggest that similar exercises are undertaken to, for example, ensure fair competition in sports; and the prevention of abuse of trans rights by those sentenced to a prison term.

Suitable experts, and others, can give evidence and a fair minded and respected judge can make recommendations that can be picked up voluntarily by public and private bodies, or turned into law. For example, in her latest posting on Twitter/X, Rowling argues that “no study has ever demonstrated that trans-identified men don’t have exactly the same pattern of criminality as other men, and because, however they identify, men retain their advantages of speed and strength”.

If she is incorrect in her assertion, let her be called out on it. If not, then that is exactly the kind of claim that can be researched and where some sort of data can be collated by an inquiry to inform policy making, under the chairmanship of someone as judicious as the respected paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass.

Whether it is called “woke” or not, interrogating these kinds of assertions thoroughly would represent a step forward in balancing human rights, and trying to end the alienation of trans people as a matter of practical policy making. The Cass Review, while not without its critics, gives one hope because it seems to have attracted quite wide support – and it has quelled some ugly aspects of this particular culture war by treating it as an objective clinical question, rather than a political one.

Like most people, the constant arguments on social media are debilitating and actually useless, because they have no effect and no impact on policy or the law. And all the while, trans people are those who are, in the majority, suffering.

While it looks far too late for any sort of magic reconciliation between Rowling and her previous protégés, it’s not too late for the rest of us to continue schooling ourselves – and demanding fair and just treatment for those in crisis.