The rift between Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling and actress Emma Watson just flared up again, and it’s not pretty. After years of Watson aligning herself with “transgender” activists and actively promoting attacks against Rowling for her defense of women’s spaces, Watson is now attempting to soften her tone and suggesting that she has always considered herself a friend to Rowling, despite their differing views.

In a recent interview on the “On Purpose” podcast, when asked about the public clash between herself and the woman who made her famous, Watson stated that she still “treasures” Rowling and could never “cancel her out completely.”

Watson finally felt safe enough to change her tune, saying she even owes Rowling “a great deal of gratitude” for her role in her life. She also seemed to demonstrate a bit of confusion as to why anyone would have gotten a different impression about the state of their relationship.

On paper, it sounds like a nice gesture. In practice, it reads as damage control.

Rowling, never one to hold her tongue, wasn’t having it. She took to X with the kind of sharp sarcasm she’s perfected over the years, often using it to swat down anyone who tries to insult her intelligence. Her response this time was no different. Her thoughts on the matter, likely directed at all the actors from the “Harry Potter” movies who have participated in the anti-Rowling mob, are what she had likely been holding back for years: “You don’t get to publicly misrepresent me for years, encourage hostility toward me, and then expect everything to be fine once you decide the backlash is inconvenient.”

In her scathing response to Watson’s poor attempt at bridging the gap, Rowling pointed out the privilege that Watson has been afforded in life, having become a global star at a young age and therefore never having to live with the consequences of the movement she has firmly stood behind. “Like other people who’ve never experienced adult life uncushioned by wealth and fame, Emma has so little experience of real life she’s ignorant of how ignorant she is,” Rowling explained. “She’ll never need a homeless shelter. She’s never going to be placed on a mixed sex public hospital ward. I’d be astounded if she’s been in a high street changing room since childhood. Her ‘public bathroom’ is single occupancy and comes with a security man standing guard outside the door.”

To underscore Watson’s ignorance, Rowling reminded people of her own pre-Harry Potter life — years spent in poverty and even in women’s shelters. Those experiences shaped her fierce commitment to women’s rights and explain why she’s so determined to protect female-only spaces, especially now as trans activism increasingly challenges them. “Has she had to strip off in a newly mixed-sex changing room at a council-run swimming pool?” Rowling asks of Watson. “Is she ever likely to need a state-run rape crisis centre that refuses to guarantee an all-female service? To find herself sharing a prison cell with a male rapist who’s identified into the women’s prison?”

The whole exchange feels like a mirror of the Harry Potter story itself, where loyalty and courage were always on the line. On screen, Hermione Granger embodied those values even in the toughest moments. But now, the actress who once played the series’ moral compass seems to be doing the opposite — abandoning conviction and shifting her stance only when it’s safe to do so.

In 2020, when Rowling first spoke out about the importance of women-only spaces, Watson joined the chorus condemning her. “Trans people are who they say they are and deserve to live their lives without being constantly questioned,” she tweeted at the time. The line was framed as a message of compassion, but in practice, it was one of many thinly veiled rebukes of Rowling that the author would choose to ignore.

Watson wasn’t alone — many in the “Harry Potter” cast lined up against the woman who gave them their careers. But Watson’s comments stung in particular because she claimed to be standing up for “friends.” As Rowling herself has often pointed out, defending single-sex spaces is about protecting women and girls from male violence. By painting Rowling as harmful, Watson effectively threw those “friends” under the bus for social approval.

Commentator Stephen Green described Rowling’s recent pushback as the author finally giving Hermione “the spanking she deserves” for her condescension and self-righteousness. And while his headline is figurative, the underlying point is clear: Watson’s words weren’t harmless. They fueled hostility toward Rowling, making her a target of online abuse and even real-life threats.

In reality, the apology tour rings hollow because it lacks accountability. Watson didn’t apologize. She simply denied that her inner feelings toward Rowling matched the outward hostility that she encouraged in the trans mob by not standing up for a friend when she needed her the most. So, it’s understandable that Rowling’s immediate reaction would be a verbal “avada kedavra” toward this half-baked attempt at ideological compromise. (Avada kedavra being the famous killing curse from the Harry Potter series.)

Let’s be honest — Watson’s original comments weren’t about deep conviction. They were about optics. At the height of the culture war over gender identity, it was fashionable for celebrities to pile onto Rowling. Speaking out in defense of Rowling at that time would’ve meant backlash, canceled events, maybe even career damage. Instead of courage, Watson chose safety. Now that the tide is shifting — more people are openly questioning trans activism, and Rowling has emerged more vindicated than “canceled” — Watson suddenly feels comfortable softening her stance. It’s easy to “treasure” someone when it no longer costs you anything.

There’s nothing wrong with reconciliation. In fact, apologies and forgiveness are crucial. However, a genuine apology must also include personal responsibility. That means acknowledging the harm caused when you join a mob, even indirectly. Watson didn’t just disagree with Rowling; she fueled hostility toward her, and that hostility had real-world consequences. Simply saying “I still treasure her” years later doesn’t undo the betrayal. Imagine torching a friend’s house because the neighbors told you to, and then years later saying, “I still treasure you, though.” It’s not exactly enough.

The broader lesson here goes beyond Watson and Rowling. When disagreements arise, especially over sensitive issues, it’s possible to voice your views without fueling hate toward people you claim to care about. That’s what accountability looks like — not silence, not easy apologies, but the courage to speak honestly without joining the pile-on. Watson has an opportunity here. If she really wants to mend fences, she could start by admitting she allowed social pressure to guide her words, at Rowling’s expense. She could acknowledge that her virtue signaling may have emboldened Rowling’s harassers. And she could commit to handling differences differently next time.

Rowling doesn’t need Watson’s validation. She’s survived years of cancel campaigns, countless hit pieces, and threats of violence, all while refusing to compromise her principles. Watson, on the other hand, risks appearing shallow if her gestures of reconciliation lack substance. True accountability isn’t about waiting until it’s safe to apologize. It’s about standing firm even when it costs you something. In the world of Harry Potter, that’s the difference between Neville Longbottom, who stood up to friends when it mattered, and Draco Malfoy, who only switched sides when the Dark Lord was losing.

For Watson, the path forward is simple: If you disagree with your friends, fine. But do it without adding gasoline to a fire that’s already burning someone you claim to care about. Otherwise, those words will always sound like too little, too late.