The wizarding world of Harry Potter has been a fantasy realm that many have happily indulged in since 1997. The capabilities of a storyline as deep and fleshed-out as J.K. Rowling’s Hogwarts makes it easy to lose yourself in every nook and cranny that Rowling has masterfully detailed in the book series. For decades, while the wider public has unearthed nearly every last secret the books and movie renditions have to offer, there’s also been a large amount of skimming over some of the more uncomfortable subtleties in Harry Potter. Fan theories love to discuss which characters would fall in love if things were slightly different and who would still be alive. However, the subtexts of why certain characters got married to each other, and why certain individuals were killed off while others were spared and celebrated for their heroic deeds—those warrant taking a closer look at. 

Some may argue that Harry Potter is a product of its time, and that the types of harmful stereotypes perpetuated by the books were more normalized at the time that Rowling wrote them. What this opinion fails to consider is that the hatred and bigotry towards multiple different minorities manages to seep into every corner of the wizarding world, and the person authoring those words is an outspoken transphobic, homophobic and all-around bigot. By this point in time, it is a well established fact that Rowling donates big bucks to anti-LGBTQIA+ organizations such as For Women Scotland, an organization that has been lobbying for governments to adjust gender-based language in various laws. Rowling even founded her own anti-trans foundation bent on delivering sex-based rights only to women assigned female at birth. These biases, among others, manifest aggressively in the Harry Potter series. Take racist names like Cho Chang and Kingsley Shacklebolt and the portrayal of goblin bankers as rudimentary anti-Semitic stereotypes. Or, consider Rowling explicitly confirming on social media that lycanthropy is a metaphor for HIV and furthering common homophobic stereotypes by depicting werewolves as feminine men who mainly attack children. 

Over the past five years or so, as Rowling’s bigotry has manifested more publicly than ever, many former Harry Potter fans have made an active effort to take a step back. Refusal to fund any of Rowling’s projects—the books, the movies, the video games—is a helpful advancement. However, projects that put their own spin on the wizarding world, such as fanfiction and secondhand consumption of Harry Potter media (from libraries or used book sales) is still accepted as ethical by many who disagree with Rowling’s opinions. While it’s true that borrowing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows from your local library or writing fanfiction about Harry Potter and Draco Malfoy dating is nowhere near as morally questionable as donating to The J.K. Rowling Women’s Fund, there is more effort that can be made in terms of triumphing Rowling’s hate.

By continuing to consume Harry Potter, or Potter-adjacent content, we submit (or at least passively accept) the bigoted stereotypes that serve as the foundation for this fantasy realm. Hatred is inextricably woven into the fabric of Harry Potter’s world, and there is little that can be done to separate the enjoyable plot points from the explicit biases they are tied to. Interacting with Rowling’s fictional world, even without throwing her money, means continuing her harmful legacy in society as a whole. Consuming Harry Potter content in an era with thousands of other fantastical worlds to give our attention to is a conscious choice, one that can be changed with as little as a simple thought and a small amount of effort to keep searching for better work to support. If we want to truly condemn Rowling and the misdeeds she has committed against minorities everywhere, the best we can do is to simply let her art go.