These comments have stuck in my craw. I didn’t necessarily want to take this bait, but I feel obligated to.
There is universe of difference between a response to a political stance and response because of gender, orientation, ethnicity. One is a variable belief, centered entirely around an individual decision to take that stance. It’s grounded in choice, and choices have consequences. Those consequences are especially true when these individual choices of belief are centered around actions that activity oppose the other side of the spectrum.
The other side is an immutable aspect of who a person is. People don’t choose their gender (or that they’re transgender), their orientation, or their ethnicity. A person doesn’t choose which country they’re born in or if they’re born into poverty. Those are just factual components of who the ARE. The only choice—when it’s possible—in those things is personal acceptance and a pronouncement of those elements of themselves. And there should never be a consequence for that because the only choice, internally, is be themselves and happy or lie and be miserable. Imposing hardships because of those things is nothing more than cruel harshness.
The recent backlash against JK Rowling isn’t because she’s a woman. It’s because she is continuously choosing to advocate beliefs and policies that harm who transgender people ARE. That isn’t to say there hasn’t been misogyny-rooted criticism against JK. I’m sure there has. But the difference in consequences due to a public stance and and pushback because of what a person is is obviously, unless willful ignorance is involved.
EDIT - The one middle ground is religion. That is choice that keys into personal self. It’s the only mutable “are” component of a person.