We also disagree on whether art can be separated from the artist. I firmly believe it can, children reading Harry Potter aren't reading a pamphlet of hurtful rhetoric - whatever her political views may be, the story is one worth sharing with children. When they are old enough to understand the nuances of wider political positions they can be filled in on the gaps - but in the meantime, I don't want Trans children to be the only children on the planet not to have read Harry Potter. Pick the books up from a charity shop if you don't want to endorse her writing but don't deprive a child of excellent story craft on the grounds of political censorship.

And, as with a lot of the dialogue around pressing issues, there's a lot of 'offence' being taken rather than dialogue being constructed and insight being gained. I'm more in the Eddie Izzard camp on this one. I think Rowling's views are problematic but I also think there's a 'you cannot hold us accountable' narrative emerging from the extreme ends of the Trans community where weaponised offence is preventing discussion. These are complicated moral and ethical questions, explored in cases like Bell v Tavistock - batted around the courts system as a necessity for safeguarding and balance. Rowling is an author, she can't make the laws but her views and public profile are unhelpful. Knee jerk reaction doesn't generally help either from her or from anyone. It's one of the reasons I don't social media anymore

If you haven't read me vs James Finn on questions of Trans-rights in the classroom, you might enjoy it. It shows the LGBTQ+ activist vs the moderate view in a practical way. Heads up, you might hate it. https://medium.com/lucid-nightmare/whack-a-woke-james-finn-special-86d6cb79aa11