How JK Rowling funded a legal battle that curtailed trans rights in UK

Author JK Rowling has come under renewed scrutiny after reportedly donating £70,000 to For Women Scotland, the group that initiated the legal challenge resulting in a landmark UK Supreme Court ruling on transgender rights, according to a report by MSNBC.
This week, the court ruled that trans women should not be legally recognised as women under specific legal contexts—a decision hailed by some as a protection of sex-based rights, but one that has alarmed transgender individuals and advocacy groups across the country.
Supporters of the ruling argue it reinforces legal safeguards for biological women in spaces such as prisons, changing rooms, and competitive sports. Critics, however, view it as a major setback for transgender rights, effectively reversing hard-won civil protections.
Rowling, who has been outspoken on issues relating to gender and women’s rights, appeared to celebrate the judgment on social media. She posted a photo of herself holding a cigar and glass of wine on a yacht, with the caption: “I love it when a plan comes together.”

Meanwhile, resharing her own post from the judgement day Rowling took jibe on the LGBTQ community she in a post on X said, "To those celebrating the fact that I'm smoking a blunt: it's a cigar. Even if it decided to identify as a blunt for the purposes of this celebration, it would remain objectively, provably and demonstratively a cigar."
The ruling coincided with HBO’s casting announcement for its upcoming Harry Potter television reboot, naming veteran actor John Lithgow as Dumbledore. Lithgow had previously gained acclaim for playing a trans woman in The World According to Garp, a contrast not lost on observers given Rowling’s prominent role as executive producer of the series.
For Women Scotland had argued that legislation failing to distinguish clearly between biological sex and gender identity diluted protections for women. Rowling’s financial support for the organisation is seen by her supporters as part of her broader advocacy to preserve sex-based rights.
The case has drawn criticism for excluding testimony from trans individuals or trans rights organisations. Many advocates say potential witnesses were deterred by concerns they would not be taken seriously or might face public backlash. A similar lack of trans representation was flagged in the NHS-commissioned Cass Report, which examined gender-affirming healthcare for youth.
Internationally, the ruling reflects a broader trend of increasing legal and cultural challenges to transgender rights. In the United States, federal and state-level measures have restricted gender-affirming care and banned trans athletes from school sports, among other moves.
While trans rights remain deeply influenced by geography and political context, the UK judgment has become a flashpoint in the global conversation. Advocates are calling for more inclusive dialogue as legal and cultural debates continue to unfold.