Again, you would probably have to cancel so many authors including some renowned writers of the classics, many of whom led questionable lifestyles and believed bizarre things, or who actively engaged in paedophilia, adultery, etc.
Poe married his 13 year old cousin.
Dickens was rumoured to have had many affairs and "moved in" his young sister-in law" and tried to get his wife committed to a mental asylum.
JD Salinger had many relationships with under age girls and was in a long term relationship with a 14 year old.
Victor Hugo was a regular user of brothels.
Lord Byron had a "relationship" with his own half sister.
L. Frank Baum (Wizard of Oz) advocated for the extermination of Native Americans.
Lewis Carroll was rumoured to have an unhealthy interest in children. His diaries and photography are interesting to say the least.
William Golding attempted to rape a 14 year old girl.
I would argue that incest, exploitation, paedophilia, adultery, rape, and advocation of genocide are invariably worse that stating some biological truths, no?
Should we feel unsafe around the classics section too?
Or as adults, can we accept that it is possible to separate the artist from the art, and that words are not literal violence?
Where do we draw the line? Do we dissect every thought, feeling and action of an author before we decide that we are "allowed" to read their work?
Obviously that would be ridiculous.
A final thought. Have you actually read what JK said? Her actual words?
What part do you disagree with? Or have you simply attached yourself to the unwarranted outrage, without deciding for yourself based on your own understanding of what she said? I would guess that the vast majority of those outraged by JKs words have not read the article which prompted this whole debacle.
And if you have, can you tell me specifically what part makes people feel "unsafe"?