Daniel Radcliff (aka Harry Potter) Net worth $110 million
Emma Watson (aka Hermione Granger) Net worth $80 million
Rupert Grint (aka Ron Weasley) Net worth $50 million
Katie Leung (aka Cho Chang) Net worth $5 million
The majority of the Harry Potter actors’ fortunes is the pay and fame of being in JK Rowling’s wildly successful Harry Potter franchise. Money made after the franchise is likely related to their fame of being in the storied movie series.
In 2019, JK Rowling entered the transgender debate with several thoughtful tweets, the first one supporting a British woman who was fired for having ‘absolutist’ views on biological gender. Since 2020, Radcliff, Watson, Grint, and Leung have continually condemned JK Rowling for her transgender comments. In 2020, Radcliff penned an essay for the LGTBQ+ organization The Trevor Project stating in response to Rowling’s online statements, “Transgender women are women. Any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional health care associations who have far more experience on the matter than either Jo or I.” Watson stated, “"Trans people are who they say they are and deserve to live their lives without being constantly questioned or told they aren't who they say they are." Grint proclaimed, "I want my trans followers to know that I and so many other people around the world see you, respect you and love you for who you are." "I firmly stand with the trans community and echo the sentiments expressed by many of my peers. Trans women are women. Trans men are men.” Leung tweeted links to black trans organizations. All were in response to statements Rowling has made on Twitter and in interviews.
Social medial and mass media fanned the flames. Rowling’s comments were immediately and consistently branded ‘controversial.’ Adult fan clubs rebelled. Calls for boycotts of Harry Potter merchandise and video games became more frequent. Adult Quidditch leagues abolished the name ‘Quidditch’ to distance themselves from the creative personality that created their world of make believe.
Evanna Lynch (aka Luna Lovegood) seemed to stand alone in defense of Rowling. Lynch, who grew up during religious violence in Ireland, issued this stern warning to cancel culture: "During the height of the Troubles, the way of dealing with it was to kind of shut down people who disagree with you. And I do see a parallel in today’s whole cancel culture thing. I just don’t feel comfortable with this idea that if you don’t like what people are saying, you silence them." She further warned based on her experiences with violence and human nature/mob mentality that "I do think the next step is violence, really. I think it’s a similar mindset." Transgender activists disallow any opposing views or even a discussion on the topic and Lynch’s fears of mobs resorting to violence to silence any opponents of pro-trans stances is not far off.
Absolute moralism is dangerous. Adherents to contemporary proponents of abortion and transgenderism believe in their cause which is their right in a free society. However, to suggest that one’s views are universally correct and therefore the only ones allowed to be spoken is far down the path of totalitarianism. This is how Nazi Germany and Marxist countries got their start. They culminated in the deaths of millions using state sanctioned censorship and violence.
In addition to being closed minded morally, Ratcliff is also absolutist in his convictions on the safety of gender affirmation. The actor (non-doctor) echoes the non-scientific and populist culture that gender affirmation is all benefit and no risk. Not so. The science is far from settled, especially with the explosion in patients seeking such care. 1/30,000 used to be the usual background rate of transgenderism. 1.3% of adolescents now claim to be transgender. Exponential increases are curious and most debate concerning if schools and social media are irresponsibly amplifying transgenderism are stifled by cancel culture. Long term health effects, especially for hormone and surgical transitions are far from known. As a physician, I don’t deny gender identity and transgenderism’s existence, but I do advocate for full research into the societal, health, and financial impacts of the movement to first ‘do no harm.’ An American College of Cardiology research session pointed out the following:
“In the study, people with gender dysphoria who had ever used hormone replacements saw nearly seven times the risk of ischemic stroke (a blockage in a vessel supplying blood to the brain), nearly six times the risk of ST elevation myocardial infarction (the most serious type of heart attack) and nearly five times the risk of pulmonary embolism (a blockage in an artery in the lung), compared with people with gender dysphoria who had never used hormone replacements. Both estrogen and testosterone are known to increase the clotting activity of blood, which could explain the increase in clotting-related cardiovascular events, researchers said. Those taking hormone replacement therapy also had higher rates of substance use disorder and hypothyroidism.”
Aside from their contempt for freedom of speech for others outside of their own heads, the antagonist Harry Potter actors are guilty of a far greater moral crime. Surely they had to have known about the undertones of Christianity, family values, free speech, and other virtues firmly embedded in the franchise. This is why many parents, including me, loved the storyline. In later movies, when they came of age as young adults, they could have protested the franchise and quit. They didn’t. They continued to earn multimillion dollar paychecks. Not until the violent and popular transgender movement began to emerge in 2019-2020 did they speak up about Rowling’s alleged immorality as a person and author of the storied franchise. Even now, there is nothing stopping them from donating profits, interest, and promotional benefits gained directly and indirectly from association with Rowling’s profitable venture. They have not. They could ‘put their money where there mouth is’ and donate all of the ‘ill gotten’ loot from Harry Potter to LGTBQI+ charities to benefit the cause that seems to have consumed their lives as an example to others to follow suit and reject ‘immoral culture’ of today. They have not.
In the end, the Harry Potter actors are nothing more than short sighted, selfish, populist windsocks who take money in one hand and then punch the person who provided millions in profits with the other hand. Shallow, non-thinking human beings whose greatest lines were handed to them on silver platter in the form of a script and in real life can only insult the provider of their immense wealth for quick fame amongst their woke fan base. Truly hypocritical and miserable creatures indeed.
John Hughes, MD
Veteran of Iraq/Afghanistan
Co-Chair of www.americanism24.org