Progressives are denouncing JK Rowling this week, insisting that she has ruined Harry Potter in a single tweet. One can almost hear them cry, “burn the books!” What’s puzzling about this is that JK Rowling is hardly a conservative opponent of all things liberal. On the contrary, she’s the consummate liberal with all the right opinions for an elite culture producer. So what opinion of hers could possibly warrant such severe sanctions? What could she say that has the power to ruin Potter forever? Rowling wrote a single tweet in support of Maya Forstater, a tax expert who was fired from her job at the Centre for Global Development for stating on social media that a person cannot change their biological sex. Yet Forstater was not merely fired for stating a biological fact, she lost a test case over it in a UK Court. Forstater’s termination was based on the crime of using “offensive and exclusionary” language. In a 26-page judgment Judge James Tayler ruled that Forstater’s termination was just.  The employment judge concluded from “the totality of the evidence that is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.” That is a judgment of extreme prejudice against biological reality. But it is also a judgment in perfect conformity with gender ideologues who have learned how to use liberal institutions as a weapon to achieve their gnostic-political aims. They are not satisfied that they have the power to get people fired for holding science against them. They want total conformity, absolute obeisance, and they are intent on getting it through both law and culture. That’s why the iconic JK Rowling is such a prime target. She is the quintessential culture-maker whose magical tales helped a post-Christian culture retain the husk of liberal Christianity while finally shedding all the most demanding transcendent commitments. Judge Tayler demonstrated the compliance of law to the new religious ideals, but Rowling did not. Rowling’s support for Forstater was measured. She showed her deference for sexual liberality. She even began in support of cross-dressing. But her crime came in her concluding sentence: