Do you really think JK Rowling's gender has harmed her earning potential? She was outed - if that's the word - as a woman - almost as soon as the books began selling and no one seemed particularly bothered.

It seems odd to pick a woman who is a billionaire as evidence of poor earning potential.

J.K. Rowling's publisher suggested she use those initials rather than her real name because it was believed that a fantasy authored by a woman would not be read by boys, and thus would have less earning potential[0].

Her success is evidence that the prejudice is unwarranted, and culturally waning, not that it doesn't exist, and certainly not that it never existed.

And there's a long history of women authors publishing under male names for similar reasons, the Bronte sisters being famous examples[1,2]. Although obviously in their cases, the stigma against women authors was much worse than in modern times.

Also, data shows that authorship still favors men considerably[3, 4], although women do sometimes dominate certain genres.

[0]https://www.capitalfm.com/news/jk-rowling-full-name/

[1]https://theculturetrip.com/north-america/usa/articles/12-fem...

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Bront%C3%AB

[3]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/feb/04/research-male-...

[4]https://pudding.cool/2017/06/best-sellers/

She used her initials rather than her given name to get past the hurdle of being published in the first place, while she was a single mum living on government benefits.