If “respectable” centrist voices didn’t constantly normalize these reactionary attempts to delegitimize the critique of traditional hierarchies of race, gender, religion, and wealth, launder them for a mainstream audience, they wouldn’t be nearly as successful.

It’s the same kind of argument as “We need to protect the children” from queer teachers, the central rallying cry for homophobic reactionary campaigns since the 1970s: The plausibility of the claim depends entirely on whether or not you accept the notion that queer people tend to be “groomers.”

The idea that the struggle of trans people for recognition, equality, and respect is inherently dangerous to women and must be rejected as a threat to women’s rights is only plausible on the basis of a fundamentally discriminatory worldview that is fully in line with the reactionary crusade.

Addendum - This thread isn’t even primarily about Rowling’s transphobia - but to the “She’s just protecting women!” chorus (mostly over on Twitter): Your line of thinking is predicated on the idea that trans people are inherently dangerous, rapists, predators… It’s grounded in transphobic ideology.