not the person you were answering to (I specify as someone already got confused).

I think I see your point but I personally disagree with some of the premises.

Engaging with her media keeps her relevant and continues to introduce her and her beliefs to new people

I think this is at least partially inaccurate. Private conversations with people who already read the books/watched the movie have virtually no effect whatsoever. Introducing it to new people may have an effect, but I think it's marginal to the point of being irrelevant. I still agree that an impact exists though.

Plus, the media itself (especially the books) has its own issues.

Here I am not sure what exactly you imply, but I believe that it's perfectly fine to engage with media that has ideas, or language, we don't agree with (a point beautifully conveyed in the movie American Fiction). Regarding the "problematic" parts, they are all pretty much related to abstract analysis that are simply irrelevant for the target audience. It doesn't even matter if globins are actually inspired by Jewish stereotypes or not, even if it was the case and if it was done with bad intentions, none in the target audience will actually understand any of it or be conditioned by it.

And much like those who say they support trans rights and continue to vote for people like Trump anyways

I think this is a very unbalanced comparison. Voting has direct impact on policies, engaging with HP does not, and when it does (money to J.K.R., donation to parties, policy) is very indirect. If we need to apply the same standard for any indirect relationship, we fallback to the "As soon as you buy anything you are guilty" (doesn't even matter what you buy if you do with a card, for example). Obviously you are free to consider what you want a red flag, but personally I consider support of certain ideas, and concrete actions to provide that support, something to judge people on.