← Back

J.K. Rowling, whom I once admired for writing a children's series in which people who are different learn what makes them special and go on to fight against prejudice*—has publicly declared her bigotry against trans people. I consider it somewhat of a sin to burn books, so I recommend turning your Harry Potter books into art.

Page from Harry Potter and the Order 
	of The Phoenix with with a transgender flag covering all words except: 
	trans people shouldn't let straight cis people injure us or stop us
	from being who we are
Trans people shouldn't let straight cis people injure us or stop us from being who we are. Sex is not as they suppose.

*Addendum February 2022

Having revisited the Harry Potter Series with The Shrieking Shack Podcast, I've realized that the books failed to deliver a meaningful message of tolerance in any meaningful way.

Let's put aside the obvious problematic aspects of the work: the fact that the slavery of house elves is textually justified, that the goblins embody antisemitic stereotypes, that Cho Chang's name is a poorly-considered mashup of Asian-sounding phonemes. These criticisms are justified but at this point so well-trodden as to be uninteresting.

Let's also put aside the fact that the politics of the series are a bland, ineffectual liberalism: that Harry's life ambition is to become a cop, that there's no serious effort – or even a gesture – towards doing away with the magical torture prison, the supremacy of wizards over other magical beings, or their refusal to support the muggle world in any meaningful way. While the entire political thesis of Harry Potter is "Let's keep everything the same, but be nicer to people I guess" – that's essentially the position of one of the major political parties in every western democracy in the world. I don't demand that every work of art accord to my politics.

However, Harry Potter fails even in its attempt to deliver a trivial message of tolerance and kindness. While the first book presents wizards as a minority of quirky, creative types that are looked down upon by the likes of Vernon Dursley, the books show no tolerance towards those that J.K. Rowling doesn't herself identify with.

Essentially every appearance of the Dursley's is accompanied by fat-shaming. The same goes for Crabbe and Goyle, and perhaps half the Slytherins generally -- being overweight is presented as a sign of poor moral character.

Similarly panned are characters who dress in an especially feminine way — such as Umbridge, Aunt Petunia, and Rita Skeeter. The latter is particularly heinous because of the references to her long fingernails and her cutesy dress contrasting with her otherwise "mannish" appearance. In light of Rowling's awful comments on trans people. it appears completely plausible that Rita is intended to be trans.

Rita Skeeter raised one heavily penciled eyebrow. [...] Rita's clawed fingers were hastily snapping shut the clasp of her crocodile-skin bag. “How are you?” she said, standing up and holding out one of her large, mannish hands to Dumbledore.

Despite of her surface-level critique of traditional femininity, Rowling makes no serious effort to push beyond the roles traditionally ascribed to women, so long as they don't go too far to dress the part. Getting married and having a baby right out of High School is the ideal result for female characters in Harry Potter. Even Tonks, who was heavily queer-coded, ends up marrying Lupin and becoming a mom. The whole plot was set of by Lily being such a good mom that she magically saved her son from Voldemort – who, we find in pensieve flashbacks, is evil because Marope conceived him without true love and was unable to instill goodness in him.

Hermione's character randomly changes to fill whatever is required of "the girl" character. Despite her otherwise limited emotional intelligence, she's called upon constantly to explain to Harry and Ron what girls are thinking. She also becomes their mom when required. In the seventh book, she even takes responsibility for packing their clothes. There's a brief moment of thoughtfulness when Hermione gets upset at Ron for expecting her, as a girl, to take care of the food on their camping trip – but this turns out to be a result of the Horcrux making them both cranky, and there is no serious character growth on the boys' part or challenge to the requirement that women in Harry Potter be nurturing.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with women being nurturing – but no other positive concept of womanhood appears in Harry Potter.

These books are full of unchallenged stereotypes. The centaurs embody the trope of a savage indigenous people. While Umbridge's prejudice against them is presented as bad, they way that she gets her comeuppance is by being carried off by the centaurs and, implicitly, raped – essentially, confirming her prejudices against them as correct. The only "good" centaur is Firenze, who essentially abandons his people to become just like the wizards. The idea that Bane and the other centaurs' grievances against wizards could be justified – and that reconciliation should be bidirectional – is not considered.