No amount of nostalgia for a book series we read as children would ever make it okay to promote a woman who is currently using her money and influence to harm transgender people.
At best, your obsession with a piece of children's media is embarrassing, at worst it is actively harming members of your community who are already marginalized. No matter how many times you view the movies (or, now, see the rebooted show) or read the books, you will never have the magic of youth again, so it is time to grow the fuck up and realize that our actions have consequences. We all have a responsibility to uphold the dignity of each of our community members, and I argue that promoting an author that is using her money and influence to harm transgender people is not upholding anyone's dignity at all. Get over it.
Obviously, since I am a youth librarian, I will always advocate for Harry Potter to be on the shelf. It is not my job to decide what you watch or read, and as a public librarian I will always fight for you to have access to information, stories, and knowledge. But that doesn't mean I have to promote the book or movie series. Indeed, I refuse to. I never put the books on displays or in book lists or develop programs around the series. If you ask where to find the books, I'll gladly show you where they are, but I want to promote new stories with fresh perspectives. I want to promote books by authors who are helping their communities, not harming them. I don't want to promote books written by billionaires.
Often when this topic is brought up, someone says we must "separate the art from the artist."
I think that separation of art from the artist is possible, but not in the way that people typically use the phrase. I think that sometimes an artwork can become very influential in spite of instead of because of the author's view on humanity. That influence can then be seen in other artworks written by other artists who do not share the same political or philosophical outlook on life as the original artists. Artists like Frank Miller and H. P. Lovecraft are both people that I think fall into this category. They were both horrible people, real assholes, but they also wrote influential works that are still being referenced today.
However, some people use the phrase "separate the art from the artist" to excuse the abuse of harmful artists. The reality is there is no genuine way to separate the art itself from the artist's viewpoint, because the viewpoint of the person who made the art will, obviously, shape the art. The artist's views on politics, ethics, and humanity will be able to shine through the artwork itself. The misogyny, racism, and transphobia and overall viewpoint of Miller, Lovecraft, and Rowling all can be found in their work.
Rowling's biases are obviously in her books, and once you are an adult who has higher literacy you are able to see them more clearly. The one Black student doesn't have a father figure, the only Irish student likes to blow up things, nearly every fat character is seen as disgusting and sometimes outright evil. There is a whole storyline of enslaved people who do not want to be free. Rowling has directly said that werewolves in her books were a metaphor for AIDS, which means that Fenrir Greyback, the werewolf that explicitly preys on children, is supposed to represent a man with AIDS who attacks children. Hmmm, yeah, surly JKR's intense attacks against LGBTQ+ people has nothing do with that mindset. The character Tonks, who shape shifts, could easily be read as genderfluid, as she begins the story as a person who hates her first name so she goes by her gender neutral last name and has a very punk aesthetic. But by the end of the series, she is softened a lot and even lets her husband feminize her by calling her "Dara," a name she originally hated and wanted to distance herself from. This frames transgender identities as temporary, and a thing that can be changed by simply being in a straight marriage.
All of these biases and more are embedded deeply into the text of these books. It is not an exaggeration to say this. Sometimes people will insist that we shouldn't be critical of Harry Potter in this way because it is "meant for kids."
Yes, Harry Potter is meant for kids, but I ask you: why are we so comfortable with children reading about and absorbing these sorts of biases? Why are we comfortable telling children that if they're fat, their bodies are disgusting? Why are we okay with telling children that if they have a sickness such as AIDS, they are monstrous? Why are we fine with telling children that enslaved people actually wanted to be slaves? Or that gender nonconformity is actually something people always grow out of? And indeed, why are we okay with adults continuing to use a biased book series to define personality traits about themselves by adding their Hogwarts House into their bios?
The reality is people want the best of both words. Adult fans want Harry Potter to be taken seriously to justify their fandom, and yet they also do not want anyone to critically look at Harry Potter as a serious piece of art.
I will refuse to watch the new rebooted show. I refuse to promote it. In addition to being a way to harm transgender people, in addition to being a show that is based off a very biased book series (which IS ENOUGH TO BOYCOTT IT), it... doesn't even look good. Based off the recent teaser trailer, the lighting looks flat, the costume design lacks originality and is so obviously reminiscent of the original movie series, and the weak attempts at making the story appear more progressive, like having Snape be played by a Black man, will make the main characters appear racist when that was not even a point of contention in the books.
Over all, this is an incredibly goofy choice to reboot this series when the movies are not even 30 years old and the creator of the books is a fucking loser ass TERF. Get real. We're so over it. Read some new fucking books, watch some new movies, tell new stories.