In this article, I will talk about everything that bothers me as a Potterhead, a journalist, a woman, and, at the same time, a Millennial. I apologize for reinforcing the stereotype of Gen Z that this generation has not yet managed to stop talking about Harry Potter. However, it is precisely these factors that led me to decide to discuss the content of Joan Rowling’s cult work and its transphobic ideology in an article.

I won’t force you to accept my opinions, but I will try to explain why I am interested and why I still think it is important to talk about those books, the first part of which was published in 1997. In addition, literary critic Temuka Zoidze, journalist Elene Khachapuridze, and film journalist Beka Maisuradze will discuss with me what role Rowling’s work played in their perception of equality and what they think now that the same author has shown us to be an enemy of equality.

I should also mention that the idea for this article came to me when, while on a business trip abroad with three Georgian colleagues, I had to argue until four in the morning about what kind of example Hermione Granger’s character sets for girls — positive or negative. As a Potterhead who has read the books many times, and even mentioning the number of times I have seen the movies doesn’t make me look that good, and as a girl whose life, overcoming obstacles, and achieving success were so crucial to Hermione’s character, I wasn’t going to admit that she wasn’t a good example of feminism. My colleagues, including Elene, tried to explain that there is another side to the perception of the character, which sets unfairly high standards for little girls and pushes them to be perfect, flawless.

Shortly after this discussion, the author’s transphobic comments and statements became relevant again in the world media, which took the form of a fight against transgender people. All of this together prompted me to look at this issue from all angles, together with people who have read the books multiple times and have different opinions.

Let’s start with what Harry Potter taught us

Elene, Beka, Temuka and I agreed that during the childhood and adolescence of millennials, when the education system did not pay attention to the principles of equality, respect for differences, and the importance of inclusion, children’s books played an important role in the perception of correct values in the conservative and patriarchal environment of that time.

“As soon as I opened the book, I knew I was entering something special: this wasn’t just a fantasy space — it was an orderly, morally grounded alternative world where there were rules, including rules of empathy, compassion, and courage. At an age when a person begins to perceive the world beyond themselves, for me it was a refuge that taught you not to run away, but to act.

Harry Potter was not a fairy tale about adventures. It was a story about how an oppressed child can grow up and fight with dignity not only against monsters, but also against moral difficulties. It was a book that showed billions of people that it is possible to be “different” and still be important,” — this is how Beka Maisuradze evaluates her experience.

Elene Khachapuridze started reading this story at the very age when the doors to the magical world opened for Hogwarts students. She was 11 when the first book was translated and 21 when the final part of the film adaptation was released. She says she was part of this saga for 10 years.

“When I started reading it, it was more of an adventure book for a long time, in which the friendship between the characters was fascinating. I was also a girl who was friends with boys, and I especially liked that. With each new chapter, the seriousness of the book grew in value — in terms of discussion, thought-provoking for the reader, for the child, especially when school doesn’t give you that. I perceived many different layers, gender, rights, but I didn’t really have the time to verbalize and criticize it at the time,” she says.

“I looked at these characters, especially Hermione, critically later. It was before Joan Rowling “failed” and made statements for which she received a lot of criticism. It was just that her position on a number of issues made it clearer to me what criticism I had. It became clear why an author who thinks like this could have such views in the book. I would also like to say that I still love Harry Potter very much, it is an important book, and despite the criticism that I have today, I think it did an important job for my generation. Maybe for many future generations as well,” explains Elene.

Temuka was 12 when she discovered Harry Potter. He asked his mother to buy him the book, and he says that after that, “what happened to all Harry Potter readers” happened to him. He saved up every penny and bought all seven books, which he reread several times. He is not a fan of screen adaptations — he emphasizes that he does not watch them every Christmas and partly shares the joke about millennials that it is time for Potterheads to grow up. But, this book still remains a story that instilled a love of reading and, in the context of school extracurricular books, made her feel that reading literature can be enjoyable.

“I grew up in the mountainous Adjara region, in Khulo, and like everywhere else in Georgia, I lived in a mostly conservative environment. I couldn’t learn to accept many things in my real world. Harry Potter filled this gap in time and taught me how important loyalty, protecting the oppressed, equality, encouragement, friendship, and courage are in life. Accordingly, I think that, in general, the 7 parts of Harry Potter, as a text, teach adults equality and respect for those who are different,” he says.

My story is similar. I read the first book in a store where a relative of ours worked. Unfortunately, back then, I couldn’t afford to buy it, and every time I went to the store, I would silently read a few pages, then a few chapters. That’s how I finished 3 books. Since 2007, my family has been collecting books for me, and I’ve been keeping these books for 18 years now. Back then, I wasn’t just fascinated by magic wands, dragons, and Quidditch — I liked reading about a smart girl who was constantly on adventures with her friends and, despite the fact that her upbringing pushed her to follow the rules, she didn’t hesitate to break them to protect her ideals. This girl became my hope and example at a time when school and society were asking me to be either a good person or a rebel — I saw that it was possible to be both.

The book also made me think about class conflict and the abuse of power. Although the conflict between “Pure-blood” and “Muggles” did not exist in the real world, the generalization of these examples helped me understand that in the real world, people who do not fit into the established order are also oppressed. It made me think that you don’t have to be big to fight for the oppressed — you can think about this even when you are in your first or second year at Hogwarts, or when you are a teenager in the real world.

During the interviews, all four of us agreed that the book was truly progressive for its time. But it was precisely in this process that differences of opinion also emerged — it was progressive then, but from a modern perspective, it also shows many flaws, especially when the author destroys the principles of equality right in front of your eyes.

“Harry Potter was undoubtedly a progressive text. Not only because it was the first to address strong political themes in children’s literature on such a large scale, but also because it was able to show children the problems of institutional power, the role of misinformation, the real danger of discrimination. It was not common practice to tell children that the press could be hostile, that the Ministry could lie, that schools could not be sufficiently protected. Rowling said all this. She said it at a time when even adults often did not understand all this.

In this regard, his text was ahead of its time. However, time passed and a paradox emerged: the text, which for years taught us how to hate discrimination and blind obedience to authority, suddenly changed its context with the words and positions of the author himself. Nevertheless, Harry Potter still remains a kind of gateway that opens the way for children to the idea of social justice,” says Beka.

Elene says that as she grew up, she found her perspectives conflicted with the narratives described in the book, especially Rowling’s attempt to create an ideal female character. She believes that, ultimately, she created an exception to the female character that is easier for a patriarchal culture to accept.

“If you look closely, Hermione doesn’t make mistakes or show any weakness in the book. She’s always kind, honest, a good friend, a good lover, a good student — she doesn’t make any mistakes or behave incorrectly anywhere, at any stage. It’s impossible for a person to live their life, especially during that period, as a teenager, without making mistakes. Harry and Ron have conflicts, they don’t talk to each other, they’re jealous. This isn’t evil, it’s part of being human, that you can be jealous of your friend, behave incorrectly, and hurt them through negligence. Hermione is a character who doesn’t have such a flaw. I think this is the author’s mistake, she had such an ideal fixation, creating an ideal female character. I have no doubt about Rowling’s intention, that she wanted to set a good example for girls,” says Elene.

“In a patriarchal culture, if you are a perfect woman, everyone will love you. If you are flawless and do everything perfectly, this environment will be generous towards you, it will not oppress you. Also, patriarchal culture is characterized by liking rare exceptions and leaving room for them. Then if they tell other, millions of women — the problem is in you, you don’t want it enough, otherwise a person is both successful and appreciated.”

Ultimately, it turned out that Hermione was created as such an exception, who is so good that it is impossible not to say anything about her, not to appreciate her or not to see her. In my opinion, the problem is precisely that the culture does not forgive women for their mistakes in the same way as men. In fact, we have the right to make mistakes. You tell so many girls, if you are perfect, if you study well, if you follow discipline, if you have the right values and a strict structure, you will be fine,” says Elene.

This is the part that Elene and I didn’t agree on from the start, but I completely agree with her opinion on the unfair standards set for women. Hermione, compared to other characters, is definitely more ideal, but I wouldn’t call her flawless. In my opinion, the character’s teenage transformation, personal fears and weaknesses, as well as her courage and strength, are contrasting. She also makes mistakes, like an ordinary person, but not so many that they overshadow her goodness.

That’s why I liked Hermione even when she couldn’t make a polyjuice potion like an A-student and covered herself with cat fur; even when she, in love with Ron, cast a Confundus curse on his opponent and made him lose the game; when she couldn’t express her feelings, got jealous, and threw magical birds at Ron; when she hit Malfoy in anger at lies and injustice; when she started a liberation struggle for the elves and made mistakes in the process. It may seem like an attempt to read too much into things, but it helps me see that Hermione also messed up, made mistakes, and was human, just like everyone else.

Elene thinks that Hermione’s persona will no longer be a role model for the new generation of girls, because it embodies things that they struggle with. I disagree with this, because I still see girls who want to be Hermione or Ginny when they put on their robes at holidays. At the same time, I think that new, much more versatile characters are really needed, a generation has already grown up with Hermione’s face and attitude, and now it is their duty to create better examples for little girls.

“What narratives existed then? That a boy is smarter than a girl, more of a leader. Rowling has toxically condensed all of this and given it to this girl. As a result, she is smarter than the both boy characters, and is a leader in critical decisions. Harry is also a leader, but he makes decisions more in the context of courage and self-sacrifice, while Hermione is more strategic, able to play a decisive role in critical moments. She took all of this and seemed to prove that whatever culture imitates for boys, a woman can do it too.

Of course, this played a good role for girls of our generation, we can’t deny that. But when the new generation came along, the narratives changed. Now, in teenage, feminist discourse, other types of narratives are advancing — that emotionality should not be taken away from women, but should be normalized for men as well; that admitting weakness is not a problem. The new generation of girls are struggling with these ideas, and Hermione can’t give these girls any voice. On the contrary, she is everything they are trying to resist,” she adds.

Beka and Temuka say that from a feminist perspective, the Potter series has many strong characters, both protagonists and antagonists. Beka thinks that Hermione, with her “excesses,” has become a symbol of the feminist revolution and has taught us a lot. Temuka emphasizes that, in general, literature is not spoiled by female characters, and in Harry Potter series, not only the main, but even secondary female characters play an important role.

“There are girls who have power not only with their magic, but also morally. Boys who are free from the so-called toxic masculinity pattern, etc. Hermione Granger was one of the most important characters for me in this regard. Not everyone liked her, some considered her too smart, some considered her too confident, too rule-oriented, etc. But it was precisely because of these “excesses” that she became a symbol of the feminist revolution — a girl who didn’t expect anyone to save her, who decided for herself what was right; who went into battle because of principles, not feelings. Hermione taught us that it was possible to be incomparably smart, convincingly principled, and, at the same time, full of love,” says Beka.

We also partially agree that, despite the many female characters, they are not sufficiently represented. For example, Minerva McGonagall, who is one of the most powerful witches and an experienced teacher, is constantly in the shadows. In my opinion, it is also unfair that the fanatical attitude of one of the main evil characters, Bellatrix Lestrange, towards Voldemort’s fascist struggle, was ultimately connected by the author not only to the idea, but also to feelings for the leading man. This was reflected in the play Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, written after the end of the Potter series.

We can’t leave this story without mentioning the special female character of the Potter series, Luna Lovegood, who, in my opinion, empowered many children. Luna was not afraid to be different from others and did not give up her forms of expression just because her peers did not accept her for who she was. She was a victim of unfair treatment, bullying, and as a result, she was ostracized by her classmates, but she did not give up her own identity. In the end, she managed to show people the world as she saw it, made the right friends, and played a decisive role in the fight against evil.

I can’t forget Molly Weasley, whose character wasn’t developed in many ways, but she was a strong mother not only to her children but also to Harry, participated in a conspiracy against the Dark Forces and, in the end, defeated one of the most evil wizards. Just like Ginny, who is rarely seen in the films, but who grew up as a little girl surrounded by many brothers, in the book she becomes a powerful witch over time.

Why are we criticizing Rowling?

As you’ve already read, we all agree that the author played an important role in the fight for equality, and she didn’t just limit herself to books. Years ago, Rowling openly spoke about being a victim of domestic violence and sexual assault and publicly supported women who spoke out on these issues. She had a charitable foundation for women and children and was involved in a number of projects.

Her controversial views and public fight against trans people began when she tweeted her support for Maya Forstater, who was fired from her job for making transphobic comments. She then criticized the article for using the term “people who menstruate.” This was followed by criticism, and criticism was met with a response, which further escalated the situation and led to a large-scale campaign against Rowling. There were also death threats, book burnings, and a change of name for the “World Quidditch Association.”

One of the world’s most famous female writers stood firm, saying that women like her, who are empathetic to transgender people because “like women, they are victims of patriarchal violence,” should not be accused of transphobia because they “believe in the reality of sex.” She later wrote a blog where she tried to explain what she thought about sex and gender. She said that she did not support transphobia, and moreover, she tried to convince people that she supported transgender people and wanted them to be protected.

The director of the international human rights organization called the post transphobic, writing that Rowling, “as one of the most famous women in the world and someone whose work inspires countless LGBTQ youth to imagine a world of acceptance and inclusion, has an added responsibility to ensure that her words do not cause harm.”

Rowling’s statements were condemned by actors who participated in the film adaptation of her own story. For example, Harry Potter actor Daniel Radcliffe wrote that transgender women are women and that any statement to the contrary is an attempt to undermine the identity and dignity of transgender people.

“Transgender people are who they say they are. They deserve to live their lives without being constantly questioned about their identity and told that they are not who they say they are,” said Emma Watson.

Feminist authors and queer theorists wrote that Rowling’s statements were not about defending women, but rather “maintaining power for those who are already in a privileged position.” Questions were also raised about her feminist views.

Rowling responded to the criticism with more stubbornness and public transphobia. She refused to acknowledge that her statements were harmful to transgender people. It got to the point that the organization she funded filed a lawsuit in court, thus clearly damaging the rights of transgender people.

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 is defined as the biological sex assigned at birth. This means that even with a gender recognition certificate, trans people are not legally considered to be in line with their gender. Rowling celebrated the decision on Twitter with a photo of herself in a masculine style, holding a cigar and whiskey.

When it comes to Rowling’s transphobia, respondents did not have different opinions. We all agree that it clearly contradicts the principles of inclusive feminism and damages her own legacy.

“Rowling’s posts, comments, and public stances toward trans people were not simply ‘expressing one’s own opinion.’ It was and is an amplification of structural violence by someone in power. When it comes to defining a woman solely by her biological characteristics, it excludes an entire group that is already under constant threat. In such a situation, ordinary ‘opinion’ becomes a means of shaping policy,” says Beka.

He explains that the root of inclusive feminism is the idea that being a woman is not defined solely by biology and that transgender women are women — fully. She says that in doing so, Rowling contradicts the principles she taught in her own books.

Temuka says that Rowling’s personality has been completely devalued for her because she fights against transgender people while defending women’s rights, which in itself is anti-feminist.

“If you are a feminist, you first recognize not biologically determined advantages or disadvantages, but that there is gender, a social construct that limits our roles in social life, or in the case of men, often gives rise to privileges. If we agree that there is gender, which is artificial and performative, then it should not be strange to imagine that there are people who express these gender roles differently or seek entirely new forms.

If you question the right of transgender people to have the same opportunities as people of any other gender, then you can’t claim any equality,” says Temuka.

He also adds that he has read her detective novels, and the author’s real attitude towards feminism and equality became more apparent there.

“It’s true that not all of this is visible in Harry Potter, but Rowling also has a separate detective series called “Cormoran Strike”. I have read two parts in Georgian and, in my opinion, it is there that her real ideas about gender, masculinity and femininity are clearly visible. My personal observation, as a reader and literary critic or sociologist, is that Joan Rowling has her own femininity complex and, in general, femininity is not as deeply felt as masculinity. At one time, her initials were shortened so that readers would think she was a man and perceive her as a serious author, but the “Cormoran Strike” series was published by an already recognized female author under a male pseudonym of her own free will,” says Temuka, explaining that she has portrayed female characters negatively, and men — on the contrary: “And, she has portrayed a transgender character in an especially comical and hysterical way. This does not mean that a transgender character cannot be bad, but the way she portrays it, it shows her personal attitude and mood, and not that it was authentic for this book, for the literary plot.”

According to Elene, Rowling is a feminist of that generation when women had to prove that they were as smart as men: “She is a child of this culture, of the engraved codes, and, from a feminist perspective, she thinks that a woman should be flawless, the coolest, and the smartest, and she has a similar attitude towards transgender people. She is tangled in her own thoughts.”

At the same time, the problem for Elene is not just what Rowling said — but also how she reacted when the error was pointed out.

“She persisted in this mistake. She didn’t let it be over, she went into a spiral, she started spewing hatred. That’s what hurts the books, not what she said in the first place. It’s as if she felt like she raised such a great generation anywhere in the world, and how dare these children belittle her. That’s exactly what happened. She started to completely reject, ridicule, belittle, and spout hatred towards the most oppressed group.”

After exchanging critical opinions, we all talked about the ultimate consequences of Rowling’s statements and actions for her legacy and Potterheads. Beka says that these books have always been a kind of internal guide to justice and compassion for him. So when the author who taught all this herself contradicts these ideas, it is disappointing, but it does not change the feeling towards the text itself.

“On the contrary, the ideas contained in it are now more important. Now that the author herself stands against these ideas, it is our duty, the readers, not to give them up.”

“When a person who once fought against oppression becomes part of oppression herself, naturally, a crack appears in her legacy. This does not mean that we should erase everything. It means that the concepts she brought up: equality, freedom, truth, we should still use them when necessary, regardless of what and how the author says,” says Beka.

Temuka tries to separate the author and her work, but despite this, he says that if he hadn’t read Rowling’s work before, he wouldn’t want to now. At the same time, he is not a supporter of Cancel Culture and doesn’t think that we should ban authors and stop reading their books because of unacceptable opinions.

According to Elene, it is very difficult to separate the author and the work, because the author’s values determine his work, and it may be right to separate, but it does not work. As an example, she cites the comments of those Potterheads who wrote to the author on a transphobic post that his book was a help when they felt excluded.

As someone who has always opposed the idea that “sports and politics” and “art and politics” should be separated, I will continue to speak from the same perspective — Rowling’s statements are political and ultimately became politics that damaged the lives of many people. She used the fame, influence, and finances she received from selling books that became an example of equality to undermine the principles of equality and human rights. I do not think it will be possible to find the right values again in the new work of a woman who was once presented as a face of feminism, but has now become a transphobe, to understand again how important solidarity and the fight against oppression are. However, I remain of the opinion that Harry Potter had all this and its value cannot be lost. Precisely because these books made us think about many things as teenagers, we can now more boldly criticize their author.