San Francisco Bookstore Removes "Harry Potter" Books Over J.K. Rowling's Anti-Trans Views

A wave of protest swept through San Francisco’s independent bookstores in late June 2025, as shops began removing J.K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter” books from their shelves.

Booksmith, a fixture in the Haight Ashbury neighborhood, announced its decision on social media and in-store, citing Rowling’s launch of the “J.K. Rowling Women’s Fund” as the catalyst for this move.

The fund, bankrolled by Rowling’s earnings from her bestselling series, pledges legal support to those fighting for what it terms “sex-based rights” in workplaces and public spaces.

Booksmith stated it did not want to contribute “in any way” to Rowling’s efforts, regardless of the significance her stories once held in the lives of the staff.

In a direct message to customers, the store recommended buying used copies if they still wanted to explore the world of Harry Potter, listing alternative fantasy novels as well.

Soon after, Castro’s Fabulosa Books joined the protest, making their stance public and refusing to buy or sell Rowling’s works.

This movement by queer-owned and operated bookstores signaled a tangible act of allyship within an increasingly divided social climate.

Booksmith and Fabulosa’s actions echoed a broader conversation about the intersection of literature, economics, and activism.

The decision was described as a reluctant but necessary step, with staff acknowledging the formative role Harry Potter played in their own lives.

As the protest gathered attention, it ignited fresh debates about freedom, commerce, and the power of consumer choice.

J.K. Rowling has become an increasingly polarizing figure in the years since the conclusion of her famed book series.

Her outspoken views on gender, particularly her defense of “biological sex” and opposition to trans-inclusive policies, have been met with criticism from LGBTQIA+ advocates and former fans alike.

In May 2025, Rowling announced the creation of her Women’s Fund, dedicated to supporting legal battles over “sex-based rights,” which critics argue targets transgender protections.

She has repeatedly doubled down on her beliefs, framing them as necessary defenses of women’s rights and public safety.

Rowling’s public persona has shifted dramatically, moving from beloved children’s author to a figure at the center of heated social and political debate.

Her statements and philanthropic moves have drawn praise from some quarters but provoked condemnation and organized boycotts from others.

Some point to her online presence—celebrating legal rulings or criticizing what she describes as “unreasonable inclusion policies”—as evidence of a broader campaign against trans rights.

Rowling has maintained that her positions are not rooted in hatred, but in her experience and belief in the primacy of sex-based definitions.

Still, for many activists and booksellers, her actions cross a line from debate into targeted advocacy with real-world consequences.

The backlash from queer and trans communities, as well as from within the broader literary and fan worlds, has only intensified with each new statement or initiative.

As her critics organize and take visible stands, Rowling remains defiant, continuing to use her wealth and influence to champion causes she views as essential.

San Francisco, long considered a stronghold for LGBTQIA+ rights and activism, quickly became the epicenter of the anti-Rowling protest in the literary world.

Booksmith’s decision reverberated through the city, inspiring other independent bookstores to reevaluate their relationship with Rowling’s works.

Fabulosa Books, located in the heart of the Castro, issued its own statement, declaring Rowling’s ongoing activism incompatible with the values of the store and its community.

The owners described their actions not as censorship but as a matter of conscience, a refusal to profit from or promote an author whose public stances they viewed as harmful.

Both Booksmith and Fabulosa made clear they were not trying to erase Harry Potter or dictate personal reading choices, instead urging fans to purchase used books or explore other fantasy series.

The stores’ social media posts and window signs explained their rationale in stark, personal terms, referencing the deep connections many queer staff felt to Rowling’s stories growing up.

Other businesses in the area voiced support, while some community members questioned whether such boycotts were effective or simply symbolic.

As Pride week approached, the actions of these bookstores gained extra resonance, serving as both a protest and a call for solidarity.

The debate spilled over into local media, with interviews, op-eds, and letters highlighting the spectrum of responses within the city’s diverse literary and LGBTQIA+ scenes.

Even as critics charged the bookstores with performative activism or economic self-sabotage, supporters framed their choices as essential acts of community self-defense.

The ripple effects suggested that even small acts by independent booksellers could ignite a larger national—and even international—conversation.

The J.K. Rowling Women’s Fund, announced in May 2025, quickly became the flashpoint around which protests and debates coalesced.

Rowling described the fund as a streamlined, privately financed mechanism for aiding those who lose jobs or face legal consequences for resisting trans-inclusive policies.

The fund’s official statements avoid direct mention of transgender people, but critics—including Booksmith and Fabulosa—insist its purpose is clear: to support legal resistance to trans rights in the UK and Ireland.

The timing of the fund’s launch, coming on the heels of a UK Supreme Court decision limiting trans women’s access to women-only spaces, further fueled the controversy.

Rowling’s social media presence, including celebratory posts and candid defenses of her activism, has only reinforced perceptions of the fund’s intent.

Many LGBTQIA+ advocates accuse Rowling of leveraging her considerable fortune to roll back hard-won protections for trans people.

The fund’s establishment marked a new chapter in Rowling’s activism, moving from commentary and social media engagement to organized, legal action.

Reactions from the literary and publishing worlds ranged from cautious statements to outright denunciations, reflecting the deep divisions her involvement has caused.

Rowling’s defenders argue that the fund is a legitimate expression of her right to free speech and philanthropic autonomy.

Meanwhile, her critics warn that such efforts risk legitimizing exclusionary practices under the guise of protecting women.

The fund has become both a symbol and a practical tool in an ongoing, high-stakes battle over the future of gender rights in the UK and beyond.

The removal of Harry Potter books from San Francisco’s bookstores has revealed rifts within the city’s own literary, LGBTQIA+, and fan communities.

Many staff and customers describe feeling conflicted—torn between their personal attachment to Rowling’s stories and their rejection of her public positions.

Online forums, bookstore comment sections, and local media outlets quickly filled with a range of perspectives, from staunch support for the boycott to passionate defenses of literary access.

Some critics of the protest warn of slippery slopes and censorship, arguing that pulling books based on an author’s views undermines open discourse.

Supporters counter that financial boycotts are a powerful, nonviolent means of resisting harmful activism and sending a message about community values.

Prominent voices in the LGBTQIA+ community, including local writers and activists, weighed in on both sides, often citing their own formative experiences with the Harry Potter series.

The debate over the protest highlights the challenge of separating art from artist, especially when the artist’s actions are perceived as directly targeting vulnerable groups.

Bookstore owners emphasized that their decision was not about erasing Rowling’s work but about declining to contribute new profits to her current campaigns.

Many pointed out that the books remain available at libraries, online retailers, and secondhand shops, reducing concerns about true “banning.”

The controversy even prompted some to revisit conversations about how bookstores curate their shelves, which always involve value judgments and business decisions.

Ultimately, the events in San Francisco forced a public reckoning about the limits of protest, the responsibilities of commerce, and the meaning of allyship in an era of polarized politics.

The fallout from Rowling’s activism has also touched those most closely associated with her stories—the actors who brought her characters to life on screen and stage.

In recent years, stars like Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson have publicly distanced themselves from Rowling’s views, expressing support for trans rights and the LGBTQIA+ community.

The author has, in turn, criticized these former child actors, making it clear that reconciliation is unlikely.

Meanwhile, other cast members, such as Tom Felton, have taken a more neutral stance, expressing gratitude to Rowling for creating the world of Harry Potter while avoiding direct comment on her activism.

Some, like actor Pedro Pascal and musician Boy George, have openly clashed with Rowling on social media, condemning her rhetoric as bullying or exclusionary.

The ongoing debate has complicated the legacy of the Harry Potter franchise, raising questions about the responsibility of public figures to respond to controversies tied to the works that made them famous.

For some fans, the divide between the author and the actors has made it easier to retain affection for the series while disavowing Rowling’s personal views.

Others see the conflict as an unavoidable reminder of the ways in which creators and their creations are inextricably linked, for better or worse.

The broader entertainment industry continues to grapple with similar questions, as issues of representation, inclusivity, and social responsibility come to the fore.

As the debate continues, each new statement from Rowling or her critics adds fuel to a fire that shows no sign of burning out.

Social media has been a central arena for both Rowling’s advocacy and the response from her critics.

Rowling’s Twitter posts, blog updates, and public statements have reached millions, amplifying her views and shaping the public narrative.

Activists and supporters on both sides use platforms like Instagram, X, and Facebook to share news of bookstore boycotts, counter-protests, and alternative reading lists.

Bookstore announcements, window signs, and protest statements quickly go viral, sparking national and international conversations.

Social media has also enabled fans to organize grassroots responses, from hashtag campaigns to online petitions and fundraising for trans-supportive organizations.

High-profile clashes between Rowling and celebrities like Pedro Pascal and Boy George often unfold in real time, drawing further attention and media coverage.

The rapid spread of information and opinion has heightened the stakes, making every move by bookstores, authors, and activists a potential flashpoint.

For many, social media is both a tool for activism and a battleground for the culture wars swirling around issues of gender, rights, and inclusion.

The immediate feedback loop of likes, shares, and comments creates a climate of intense scrutiny and, sometimes, harassment for those who take public stands.

As the controversy persists, it’s clear that the dynamics of modern protest are inseparable from the digital platforms that mediate so much of public life.

Social media ensures that even local bookstore decisions can resonate globally, shaping perceptions and influencing outcomes far beyond city limits.

Though sparked by decisions in a single city, the actions of San Francisco’s bookstores have prompted reactions across the country and even internationally.

Coverage in national outlets—from Deadline to Fox News to The Independent—has amplified the debate and invited commentary from a wide spectrum of voices.

Some bookstores in other cities have expressed solidarity, while others argue that the best response is to promote a diversity of voices rather than remove books.

The controversy has reignited longstanding debates about “cancel culture,” free speech, and the obligations of cultural institutions in polarized times.

Internationally, Rowling’s status as a global author ensures that any significant action taken in protest of her activism attracts worldwide notice.

Activist groups and advocacy organizations have used the moment to raise awareness and funds for trans rights campaigns, seizing the media spotlight.

Publishers and booksellers outside the U.S. are also watching closely, aware that their own communities may face similar dilemmas in the future.

The conversation touches on questions that transcend any one city or country: How should art be treated when its creator’s views become controversial? What is the role of the marketplace in shaping culture and values?

For supporters of the protest, the hope is that bold action will inspire reflection and positive change.

For critics, the concern remains that such boycotts stifle dialogue and limit access to important works.

Either way, the decision of a handful of bookstores in San Francisco has proven just how far—and how fast—a local stand can reverberate on the world stage.

Booksmith and other bookstores have responded to the protest not only by removing Rowling’s books but by celebrating and recommending alternative fantasy literature.

Staff compiled lists of books by authors such as Ursula K. Le Guin, Rick Riordan, and others, seeking to redirect enthusiasm for magic and adventure toward new voices and inclusive worlds.

Customers were encouraged to seek out used copies of Harry Potter if they still wished to read the series, in order to avoid financially supporting Rowling’s activism.

The emphasis on literary discovery is as much a part of the protest as the boycott itself, aiming to broaden horizons and foster resilience within the reading community.

Many see this as an opportunity to highlight the richness and diversity of the fantasy genre, showcasing works by queer and trans authors often overlooked in mainstream publishing.

The movement also invites fans to reflect on the power of stories—and the responsibilities of those who tell and sell them.

Bookstore staff, customers, and local writers have contributed to events, readings, and discussions exploring the intersection of literature, identity, and activism.

In the process, the protest has become a catalyst for renewed engagement with the questions of who gets to tell stories, whose stories are celebrated, and how communities can use culture as a force for good.

Rather than retreat from controversy, San Francisco’s bookstores have leaned into it, reaffirming their roles as spaces of dialogue, imagination, and resistance.

In doing so, they offer a model for how communities everywhere might respond to moments of moral and cultural reckoning.

As the dust settles in the immediate aftermath of San Francisco’s bookstore revolt, the significance of these decisions will likely be debated for years to come.

Supporters of the protest argue that taking a principled stand—even at the cost of profits or convenience—is a vital act of conscience in times of rising intolerance.

Critics remain skeptical, warning that such actions may alienate readers, reinforce divisions, or have only symbolic impact in an era dominated by online sales and digital media.

Yet, the protest has succeeded in forcing a wider conversation about the role of cultural institutions in shaping social values and responding to contentious issues.

By removing Harry Potter books from their shelves, bookstores like Booksmith and Fabulosa have reframed the act of reading as one with ethical and communal dimensions.

The debate has illuminated the challenges and possibilities of resistance, especially for small businesses operating in fraught cultural landscapes.

It has also highlighted the power—and the limits—of protest in influencing the course of public debate, business practices, and the meaning of inclusion.

The legacy of these decisions may ultimately rest not just in what was removed, but in the creativity, resilience, and solidarity inspired in their wake.

As San Francisco’s bookstores move forward, the questions they’ve raised will continue to ripple outward, shaping conversations about literature, rights, and justice for a long time to come.

The Harry Potter books may have vanished from a few city shelves, but the magic—and the debate—remain very much alive.