J.K. Rowling Has Anti-Trans Fund From Harry Potter Wealth
J.K. Rowling has created a new organization that is a "legal fighting fund for women protecting their sex-based rights," furthering her financial commitment to funding anti-trans legislation.
The UK Supreme Court made headlines last month for its ruling that meant that trans women can no longer be legally considered women. Rowling herself celebrated the move and had contributed the equivalent of $92,000 to the group that brought the case against the Scottish government.
Last week, the Harry Potter author posted on X saying that she'd "happily fund" legal action "on the basis of sex discrimination." She then confirmed that she'd support a cis woman incarcirated with a transgender woman who wanted to sue, writing, "I'd give financial backing to any woman who wanted to sue because she suffered detriments through being incarcerated with a man."
The "J.K. Rowling Women's Fund," which appears to have been created recently, is a private fund, meaning that it gets its money from Rowling's personal wealth. This means that others cannot donate, as she clarified on X, "I looked into all options and a private fund is the most efficient, streamlined way for me to do this."
For one, the group funds women and organizations who believe they have been made to comply with "unreasonable inclusion policies" or who have faced professional difficulties because of their "expressed beliefs." Screening questions include asking organizations whether they have "been forced to adopt policies regarding female-only spaces or trans inclusion that you fundamentally disagree with."
The news of Rowling's fund comes as HBO has finalized the casting for their series based on the book. As per Forbes, she's estimated to earn around $20 million per year for her involvement in the series.
The creation of the fund subsequently attracted backlash, furthering calls for a boycott of licensed Harry Potter products. Meanwhile, Rowling has continued to post anti-trans rhetoric on X, including referring to trans women and "men in skirts" and accusing them of coordinating "a hostile takeover."
It's certainly not the first time people have called for a boycott — Pedro Pascal even chimed in last month to write of Rowling, "Awful disgusting SHIT is exactly right. Heinous LOSER behavior."
This morning, Forbes wrote that "Rowling's business empire is now larger than ever" and she is once again a billionaire.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
3 hours ago
- Forbes
Today's ‘Wordle' #1443 Hints, Clues And Answer For Sunday, June 1st
How to solve today's Wordle. Looking for Saturday's Wordle hints, clues and answer? You can find them here: Well, dearest Wordlers, it is June at last. The very best month of the entire year is here, so make the most of it. Get outside! Enjoy the summertime in all its splendor. Or be super lazy—it's Sunday, after all. And when you're done with all that, we have a Wordle to solve. Let's get to it! The Hint: Not gentle. The Clue: This Wordle has two vowels and two consonants in a row. Okay, spoilers below! The answer is coming! FEATURED | Frase ByForbes™ Unscramble The Anagram To Reveal The Phrase Pinpoint By Linkedin Guess The Category Queens By Linkedin Crown Each Region Crossclimb By Linkedin Unlock A Trivia Ladder . . . Today's Wordle Every day I check Wordle Bot to help analyze my guessing game. You can check your Wordles with Wordle Bot right here. HOIST is usually a second guess for me, but I decided to try it out as an opener today and it was quite good. 17 words remained and I had a yellow and green box. COUCH was an iffy second guess, given the two C's, but it left me with just three words to choose from: DOUGH, BOUGH and ROUGH. I picked one out of the hat and got lucky! Today's Wordle Bot We start with a clean slate in June after I stomped the Wordle Bot in May. Today I'm off to a good start with 1 point for guessing in three and 1 for beating the Bot. The Bot gets 0 for guessing in four and -1 for losing. Our opening June score is: Erik: 2 points Wordle Bot: -1 points The word 'rough' goes back to Old English ruh, meaning 'hairy' or 'shaggy.' This in turn comes from Proto‑Germanic *rūhaz ('rough, coarse'), which itself likely derives from a Proto‑Indo‑European root *reu‑ ('to wrinkle, shred'). Over time, the sense shifted from 'coarse or bristly' to the more general idea of 'uneven, harsh, or not smooth.' Let me know how you fared with your Wordle today on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook. Also be sure to subscribe to my YouTube channel and follow me here on this blog where I write about games, TV shows and movies when I'm not writing puzzle guides. Sign up for my newsletter for more reviews and commentary on entertainment and culture.
Buzz Feed
7 hours ago
- Buzz Feed
Which Hogwarts Student Are You?
Want to see what your Hogwarts outfit would look like? Share your magical style in the comments! Editor's Note: BuzzFeed does not support discriminatory or hateful speech in any form. We stand by the LGBTQ+ community and all fans who found a home in the Harry Potter series and will work to provide a safe space for fans. If you, like us, feel impassioned about trans rights, learn more or donate here.
Forbes
10 hours ago
- Forbes
Tariff Uncertainties, Part 4: A Little Q&A (Maybe It's About China?)
(Photo by GREG BAKER/AFP via Getty Images) This Spring, economists everywhere, amateur and professional, got a new study assignment: tariffs. An old-school, back-burner policy issue, the tariff question jumped out of the history books (the McKinley presidency, Smoot-Hawley 1930, etc.) and onto the front pages here in 2025. 'Liberation Day' created such a storm of controversy that, like so many of us, I was diverted from other plans and forced to deal with it, to learn the vocabulary, to recall the history, and to pick apart the complex uncertainties. The result for me has been three installments so far (here, here and here) with several more to come, I expect. In writing for Forbes, my general principle is to avoid editorializing (there is certainly more than enough of that out there) but the new tariff proposals are so bewildering that inevitably many of my friends and correspondents have wanted to know 'What-I-Think'. And so – A couple weeks ago I got a query from a reporter, who posed a number of questions about the Trump administration's tariff gambit – which I tried in good faith to answer, based on the current and highly imperfect state of my knowledge of the subject. It occurred to me afterwards that these brief and relatively unencumbered responses might serve as a preliminary and partial statement of my conclusions about some of this. One of the questions cited below referenced a recent and now quite widely cited paper by Stephen Miran, formerly of Hudson Bay Capital and now Trump's choice as the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. Titled 'A User's Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System,' it puts forward a provocative thesis: because the dollar is in effect the world's reserve currency, it is overvalued due to 'inelastic demand' for dollar-denominated reserve assets by foreign central banks and many others. In other words, there are many economic actors globally who need to hold dollars for various reasons unrelated to the real economic value of our currency or our economy. These buyers are willing to pay a premium to acquire dollar reserves, and the price of the dollar is bid up. This creates trade imbalances because U.S. dollar-priced exports are overvalued and become uncompetitive, whereas U.S. consumers' dollar-priced purchasing power for undervalued foreign imports is stimulated. QED, growing trade deficits. Miran's thesis invites a much more substantive assessment than what is provided here. In a future column, I expect to address the general question of 'elastic' or, as I prefer to call it, 'price-insensitive' demand for Treasury Bonds, which is a larger subject than the trade policy perspective alone would suggest. So what follows is the colloquial Q&A, more or less unedited, from my email exchange with that reporter. It may be in some respects clearer, and more concise, than the analyses comprising the more substantive columns mentioned above. (The reporter's questions are in bold.) I think it is best to assume that Yes, there is a plan – rather than dismissing it all because it may look disorganized or haphazard. Trump's tactical modus operandi is to keep people guessing and off balance. This studied unpredictability may be confusing to many and annoying to some, and perhaps it is intended to confuse and annoy. It certainly overturns the traditional 'diplomacy' model of patient, dignified, long-term multi-lateral convocations of bureaucrats laboring over detailed trade agreements (e.g., the 'Uruguay round' - which involved representatives from 123 countries, working for 7½ years, to produce 26,000 pages of trade agreement documentation – or the subsequent 'Doha Round' which has been grinding away since 2001 without reaching a conclusion). As to what that endgame is — My best guess is that Trump actually would prefer to end up with a global trade regime based on low and balanced tariffs. At the G7 summit in Canada in 2018, he shocked the other world leaders by calling for the elimination of all tariffs and trade barriers – 'No tariffs, no barriers. That's the way it should be' — I think he wants to equalize or 'reciprocalize' the trade landscape among major trading partners. (China may be an exception.) In any case, I think the era where the U.S. runs a kind of parallel Marshall plan by allowing highly asymmetric trade arrangements to continue is coming to an end, one way or another. I think the principal long-term financial impact will be on the value of the dollar. Traditional trade theory would say that as the U.S. tariffs are imposed the dollar should appreciate and exporting countries' currencies should depreciate. This is what happened with the first round of Trump tariffs in 2018. The dollar gained strength and the Chinese Yuan (for example) devalued. However, the initial currency movements now are in the opposite direction — a somewhat weaker dollar and some appreciation of currencies like the Korean Won and the Taiwanese dollar (which has been the most severely undervalued currency in the world). This would suggest that a strategic re-alignment of exchange rates may be underway, which would address the issues raised in the Stephen Miran paper (see below, Question 4). Some have said that the dollar's reserve currency status may be affected, perhaps diminished somewhat – which would have many ramifications, including a rise in the cost to the U.S. for financing its deficits. I'm not sure about that. Capital outflows from China are the thing to watch most closely. Unlike the other major currencies, the Chinese currency has not appreciated significantly since Liberation Day and is at or near its lowest point since 2007. Initially it dropped in value, and has recovered only a little, apparently with massive help from Beijing. Gain in value of major currencies vs the USDollar, April 1 to May 23 2025 The struggling economy in China, the effects of tariffs imposed by the U.S., the EU, Canada, and just about every other country in the world restricting Chinese exports, along with other domestic constraints will put pressure on the Yuan — and as it depreciates, capital flight risk will intensify. It is difficult to measure, especially given China's steady elimination of statistical measures related to the economy, but by most accounts capital has been draining from the country since 2020, and the pace is accelerating. This is the most serious risk for the Chinese regime right now, I believe. It is also probably the most important long-term effect of the tariff war. Capital Flight from China accelerating Miran's is a very important paper, with many interesting observations. I would simplify the basic argument as follows: just as the massive purchases of Treasury bonds by the Federal Reserve in course of the various rounds of quantitative easing drove up the price of Treasury bonds (duh!), the massive accumulation of dollars (and Treasurys) by foreign govts and others will have the same effect. Both sources of demand are price-insensitive – the purchasers have other reasons to want or need to hold dollars or Treasurys and don't care about the price per se. From this insight — which is so obvious once it is stated that I am chagrinned not to have made the connection myself! – many other interesting corollary observations flow. Short answer is No. Smoot-Hawley happened almost a century ago, in a very different economy, both in the U.S. and globally, and has no real bearing on tariff policy today. [Much more to say on that, for a future column perhaps – but the conclusion is solid.] This may well be the end of the WTO as we know it. The WTO was created to put order in the global trading economy. It was born out of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) system, which was itself born out of the post-war 'Marshall Plan for trade' regime alluded to above [and described in detail in my first Tariff column]. The WTO is a manifestation of geopolitical idealism. But it has failed to create or manage a fair trade regime, despite its high aspirations. The proliferation of non-tariff trade barriers in particular has raged on, with the level of complaints surging from many countries (not just the U.S.), and mostly aimed at China. The Chinese have made it clear that they are going to follow a protectionist path (a self-sufficiency model, they might call it) ever since the unveiling (in 2015) of the 'China 2025' plan. The WTO should be revamped, or replaced, by a new regime with real enforcement powers, and the will to exercise them against bad actors. Well, we should begin any answer to that question by defining our terms. If globalization refers to the current highly asymmetric international trade regime, rife with not just tariff imbalances but massive currency manipulation and even more significant levels of government subsidy for 'national champions' to provide competitive advantages… well, yes, I think that form of globalization is on the way out. And to the extent that globalization focuses on manufacturing, that too is going to change. One thing that is under-commented generally is the role of services in global trade. As manufacturing (in the West) follows the path of agriculture downward in terms of employment and GDP share, due to inexorable technological progress, and we become even more committed to a service economy, the nature of 'globalization' will surely evolve. 'Fairness' will have different manifestations. And 'global trade as fair trade' — that high ideal is gestating, and it is hard to say exactly how it might emerge as a concrete reality. A truck passes by China Shipping containers at the Port of Los Angeles, after new tariffs on Chinese ... More imports was imposed by President Trump, in Long Beach, California on September 1, 2019. - Washington moved ahead Sunday with new tariffs on Chinese imports as it stepped up a high-pressure campaign aimed at coercing Beijing to sign a new trade deal even amid fears of a further slowing of US and world growth. (Photo by Mark RALSTON / AFP) (Photo credit should read MARK RALSTON/AFP via Getty Images) China is going to be the center stage of the next phase of global trade policy. Behind all the sound and fury attending Trump and his Liberation Day antics, there is a sober consensus cohering in the West (and Japan, Korea, India, even SE Asia) that China is the real problem for global trade. Tariffs against Chinese imports are going into place all over the world. The country's massive export subsidies, over-production, gross dumping policies, currency manipulation, and numerous forms of bad economic misbehavior are eliciting protectionist responses almost everywhere, which will crimp China's ability to stimulate its flagging economy through its accustomed export-driven channels. A weakening Yuan and accelerating capital flight will push them to the edge. China is in the weakest position to survive a trade war without serious consequences.
