Buying Products That Profit Questionable Individuals or Entities

[Debater Slayer]

Why would non-binary and trans people have to necessarily be either 'man' or 'woman'?

I didn't say that non-binary people would have to be either; I'm saying that defining gender based on sex fails to account for their existence. If I called a biologically male non-binary person a "man" just because of their sex, I'd be mistaken and ignoring the nuance of gender identity.

As for trans people, for many of them who identify as a man or a woman, evidence shows that affirming their gender is a crucial part of their well-being:

Gender-affirming care, as defined by the World Health Organization, encompasses a range of social, psychological, behavioral, and medical interventions “designed to support and affirm an individual’s gender identity” when it conflicts with the gender they were assigned at birth. The interventions help transgender people align various aspects of their lives — emotional, interpersonal, and biological — with their gender identity. As noted by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), that identity can run anywhere along a continuum that includes man, woman, a combination of those, neither of those, and fluid.

What is gender-affirming care? Your questions answered

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No, oppose as in vilify those who employ such a tactic by implying they're "canceling" someone even though they're merely making a decision concerning their own money.

I think that's a misrepresentation of what is meant by 'cancel culture'. I've never heard anyone use the term in relation to an individual deciding to withdraw their own money from supporting a business or other commercial venture, for any reason.

And I don't think concerns about this cultural shift towards ostracization and pack mentality around judgements can be fairly described as vilification. Of course, I am generalising, and of course, I am speaking from my viewpoint, rather than @Shaul 's. We agree on very few things, and I might be misunderstanding them here. But I think it was pretty tidily summarised by former-President Obama.

Barack Obama takes on 'woke' call-out culture: 'That's not activism' - YouTube

I think some of J. K. Rowling's public takes have been much more distasteful than a boycott could possibly be. At least boycotting her doesn't spread misconceptions that have been used to restrict an entire group's legal rights.

Fair enough.
Again, I don't think it's vilification to question cancel culture, and I don't think a commercial boycott of a particular item is the real issue or intent when pushing back on cancel culture.
Rowling has received considerable numbers of death threats, rape threats, and more in relation to her comments. Whilst she has largely been able to float through unaffected commercially (or at least, unaffected enough) there have been definite attempts to silence her voice.

Do I feel sorry for her? No, honestly, not too much, although anyone threatening violence on another has crossed the line from troll to threat in my mind, and should face legal consequences. But apart from that I find her opinions run pretty contrary to mine in several key ways, and I don't think she's helped the conversation much in terms of nuance or substance. But those trying to shut down her voice have not either, in my opinion. Instead, they have made a determination about what is right, and are seeking to impose that on society without legal recourse. My care is not Rowling. She's made her money, her opinions are frankly pretty poorly informed and reflex, and (perhaps unfairly) I suspect her deeply held opinions on this matter are less savoury than her publically aired ones.

But I want a world where people fight those opinions with facts, with discourse, and with evidence. Where there is a requirement to invest thought, time and nuance into an issue if you want to comment on it.
Will that happen? Meh...it seems increasingly unlikely.

I'll not pretend I grew up in a golden age of enlightenment, as on many, many issues the world is much better informed and understanding now. But I think what some of the social media generation (some of whom are old enough to know better) forget is that the world grew and matured without social media, and that this sort of mob mentality is actually counterproductive, and causes polarisation. I often think people are much more concerned with virtue signalling that they are good people, that they are modern and educated and 'moral' (if you'd prefer me not to use woke...) rather than to actually help move the world one step further down the road of actual meaningful improvement.

Is most of what I'm saying here about Rowling? No. Honestly, I thought Harry Potter was a pretty crappy set of books, albeit useful in that it helped a bunch of kids discover reading (I was a teacher when it was being released). Even had to fight off a parent delegation who tried to get it banned due to it's glamourization of 'witchcraft'. But one of my daughters loves the movies, has some of the Lego, and will most likely want the game. If I thought exposure to this would lead to her having more negative views on trans people in any direct way, that would be one thing. But boycotting a product where Rowling at most gets a small royalty (whilst not something I have any problem with at an individual level) is not something I'll be doing.

Potter would be a fair way down a list of products I'm looking to personally avoid. Currently I'm busy trying to avoid chocolate with palm oil, and have spent some time with my daughter working out what we can do to promote alteration of Australia's labelling laws to ensure palm oil is clearly declared when used. Is that more or less important than boycotting Rowling? No idea.

In case I was ambiguous on any of this, I have no issue with you deciding not to buy Potter products on principle. I can understand why you might do this, and I also empathise with your comments around struggling to know when this is the right course of action, or how to even work out which products are worthy of boycott. But Obama was right. Life is messy, and nothing is pure. Just try your best, and leave room to judge people by more than their worst moments.

 

[Stevicus]

And I don't think concerns about this cultural shift towards ostracization and pack mentality around judgements can be fairly described as vilification. Of course, I am generalising, and of course, I am speaking from my viewpoint, rather than @Shaul 's. We agree on very few things, and I might be misunderstanding them here. But I think it was pretty tidily summarised by former-President Obama.

Barack Obama takes on 'woke' call-out culture: 'That's not activism' - YouTube

It makes sense that the "call-out culture," also often called "political correctness" has reached a point of diminishing returns. As a political tactic, it may have gained moderate successes back in the 80s and 90s, but now, it's being overused. It's become fossilized and less effective - like a medicine one takes too much to the point where the beneficial effects have diminished.

I also perceive it as a classist tactic. It's not for "social justice," but it's used as a vehicle for the rich to oppress the poor. A typical putdown from the elitist Ivy League crowd is to condemn people not necessarily for their hateful views, but for their culture and economic position in life, such as "redneck," "hillbilly," "trailer trash," or any number of pejoratives which are not political, but classist - economic and cultural in their scope. I don't see the "woke" crowd doing much to address that, so what good are they? Seriously.

Maybe their work would be more meaningful if they found some school where they don't allow People of Color to attend. Or maybe there's some place where they have "Whites Only" restrooms. Maybe they could use their energies towards injustices like that. Oh wait, I guess they can't, because all of that work was done before they were born (by the Boomers they so despise).

But I guess they gotta do something - anything, just to feel as important as those horrible Boomers, right? While the Boomers went up against George Wallace and the full might of the KKK, these woke kids today are going after the dreaded, horrible [cue suspenseful music] J.K. Rowling, an author of subversive literature which has influenced millions of youngsters. They've got guts.

 

[Koldo]

I didn't say that non-binary people would have to be either; I'm saying that defining gender based on sex fails to account for their existence. If I called a biologically male non-binary person a "man" just because of their sex, I'd be mistaken and ignoring the nuance of gender identity.

As for trans people, for many of them who identify as a man or a woman, evidence shows that affirming their gender is a crucial part of their well-being:



What is gender-affirming care? Your questions answered

But I am not defining gender based on sex. I am defining 'man' and 'woman' based on sex.

 

[Augustus]

The article proceeds with much more caution than J. K. Rowling did, though. "Possibly underestimated" is a far cry from her hyperbolic claims of an "explosion" in transitions or unqualified assertion that growing numbers of people are detransitioning. Her wording can understandably give the impression that droves of trans people are now detransitioning and regretting undergoing surgery or hormone therapy, even though she didn't provide any solid evidence whatsoever to back up such a claim.

The paper notes it as a growing problem and notes and increase in people "demanding urgent and hurried medical and surgical treatment" without adequate prior counselling and seeing it as a solution to all their issues.

JKR (correctly) notes a study that has shown a 4400% increase in teen girls seeking treatment. She also refers to a published scholar regarding the potential for 'social contagion', a view supoorted by other medical practitioners "Michael Bailey, an academic psychologist who studies sexual orientation and gender dysphoria at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, says his colleagues who treat gender dysphoria “all tell me that their primary group these days are adolescent females who were not known to be gender dysphoric [in childhood]. … This kind of case virtually never happened until recently—even a decade ago you didn't see them. I don't know what else to call this but an epidemic.”

In the UK, a major gender clinic is being closed down after it was criticised in a review and where "It is alleged children were “rushed into taking life-altering puberty blockers without adequate consideration or proper diagnosis”, with staff under pressure to adopt an “unquestioning affirmative approach”.

AFAIK there is nothing outright factually inaccurate she has said, despite claims to the contrary

Given this vast increase and studies about detransitioning will lag behind any new trends, and there are scientific papers suggesting it may underreported, the criticism seems excessive for what is really a matter of tone about a legitimate concern.

Why do you consider it it is hyperbolic to call a 4400% increase an "explosion"? It also seems highly likely to expect an increase in detransitioning over the next few years given the above evidence.

hat's the thing: Matt Walsh didn't really "highlight some issues with certain ideological gender theory"; he's a vocal opponent of LGBT rights based on his conservative Catholic beliefs and far-right political ideology. Among people who are being ideological about the medical aspects of trans issues, people like him are at the forefront.

For a high-profile author like her to casually voice support for him, knowing that this could lend credence to his views among a lot of her audience, strikes me as irresponsible at best. She doesn't have to endorse all of his views; just his views on trans and LGBT issues in general are harmful enough on their own.

She only commented on the film.

Does he say anything outright transphobic in the film? I've not seen it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think that's a misrepresentation of what is meant by 'cancel culture'. I've never heard anyone use the term in relation to an individual deciding to withdraw their own money from supporting a business or other commercial venture, for any reason.

And I don't think concerns about this cultural shift towards ostracization and pack mentality around judgements can be fairly described as vilification. Of course, I am generalising, and of course, I am speaking from my viewpoint, rather than @Shaul 's. We agree on very few things, and I might be misunderstanding them here. But I think it was pretty tidily summarised by former-President Obama.

Barack Obama takes on 'woke' call-out culture: 'That's not activism' - YouTube

I was specifically responding to the claim in the quoted post, not making a generalized statement about the various understandings of "cancel culture." It seems to me that the post was branding the boycott or calls for it as "cancel culture," but if that was a misreading, I'm open to any clarification from @Shaul about what he meant.

As for the video, my thoughts on it tie into my response to the following portion of your reply:

Fair enough.
Again, I don't think it's vilification to question cancel culture, and I don't think a commercial boycott of a particular item is the real issue or intent when pushing back on cancel culture.
Rowling has received considerable numbers of death threats, rape threats, and more in relation to her comments. Whilst she has largely been able to float through unaffected commercially (or at least, unaffected enough) there have been definite attempts to silence her voice.

Do I feel sorry for her? No, honestly, not too much, although anyone threatening violence on another has crossed the line from troll to threat in my mind, and should face legal consequences. But apart from that I find her opinions run pretty contrary to mine in several key ways, and I don't think she's helped the conversation much in terms of nuance or substance. But those trying to shut down her voice have not either, in my opinion. Instead, they have made a determination about what is right, and are seeking to impose that on society without legal recourse. My care is not Rowling. She's made her money, her opinions are frankly pretty poorly informed and reflex, and (perhaps unfairly) I suspect her deeply held opinions on this matter are less savoury than her publically aired ones.

But I want a world where people fight those opinions with facts, with discourse, and with evidence. Where there is a requirement to invest thought, time and nuance into an issue if you want to comment on it.
Will that happen? Meh...it seems increasingly unlikely.

I'll not pretend I grew up in a golden age of enlightenment, as on many, many issues the world is much better informed and understanding now. But I think what some of the social media generation (some of whom are old enough to know better) forget is that the world grew and matured without social media, and that this sort of mob mentality is actually counterproductive, and causes polarisation. I often think people are much more concerned with virtue signalling that they are good people, that they are modern and educated and 'moral' (if you'd prefer me not to use woke...) rather than to actually help move the world one step further down the road of actual meaningful improvement.

[snipped for character limit]

I have avoided social media for years due to what I perceive to be a toxic hivemind mentality, in addition to multiple other problems that I will detail below. I think some of the issues on the list could be grouped together into a phenomenon that some might rightfully call "cancel culture," but I don't see them as a function of left-wing vs. right-wing politics so much as a result of human nature, tribal mentality, peer pressure, internet anonymity, and dehumanization of others due to the distant nature of most online communication.

• The desire for approval from like-minded users often results in poorly reasoned but flashy posts. Simplistic takes replace elaborate arguments, and this is further amplified by built-in limitations like the character limit on Twitter or the especially toxic upvote-downvote system on Reddit.

• The dopamine rush from online approval, including "likes," has been scientifically evidenced, and this seems to me another contributing factor to the toxic climate on social media in pursuit of likes or other approving reactions:

Dopamine’s role in the need to get “likes” and social addiction

Constant craving: how digital media turned us all into dopamine addicts

Making a detailed, evidence-based argument might be more intellectually and ethically responsible in almost all situations, but if it doesn't generate as much peer approval as a brief soundbite or hot take, a lot of people will go for the latter instead. It's like an immature popularity contest where the "coolest" person gets an inconsequential reward in a virtual environment at the cost of propagating unproductive and dehumanizing speech.

• It's much harder to go against trends when everything posted is public and open to scrutiny, including from people who may not necessarily be even-keeled or responsible. The death and rape threats against J. K. Rowling are, of course, reprehensible, but they're not exclusive to "trans activists" or any other group. Public and even lesser-known figures of various political and religious persuasions have faced violent threats online from off-kilter individuals. For example:

Doctors subjected to online abuse and death threats by Covid deniers

C4 calls in security experts after presenter suffers online abuse

Dr. Fauci says GOP Sen. Paul's false accusations have sparked death threats

Man Pleads Guilty to Making Threats Against Dr. Anthony Fauci and Other Federal and State Health Officials

As the above examples make clear, this phenomenon of online abuse and threats is hardly exclusive to any specific political camp. With enough exposure and even a hint of having controversial views on some topics, almost any public figure becomes prone to receiving such unhinged messages and comments.

That said, I also think some views cross the threshold of civil, respectful discourse. When a public figure, not a random individual or someone with little influence, endorses banning same-sex marriage or abortion, for example, I don't see nearly as much relevance to Obama's point that "they also have kids" or that they may share some things in common with the groups against whom they support discrimination and stir up or inspire dehumanization. The practical outcome of their endorsement of specific policies or attitudes remains the same, and pushing back against this in ways such as boycotts and strong condemnation is perfectly valid and understandable.

I don't think any trans person—or indeed any other member of a group whose legal or social rights are at risk—who already deals with social or legal challenges is obligated to engage in a lengthy debate about why their identity even exists or why they deserve to get proper medical care. If they choose to do so, that's their prerogative, but I definitely don't believe it should be a default expectation. I see free speech and civility as means to an end, not an end in and of themselves. This is partially why I strongly concur with countries that ban Nazi speech or symbols under hate-speech laws and treat specific forms of speech as equivalent to incitement.

An influential multimillionaire celebrity complaining about being "canceled" from the comfort of their mansion just because they're facing backlash over tangibly harmful comments is not what I think of when I think of a genuine example of "cancel culture." They're not canceled, and they certainly haven't lost their ability to speak their minds—even though I think it's also quite understandable for some people to want an individual to be silent when said individual propagates misconceptions that result in harm for a group of people.

When I think of something I consider an actual example of cancellation, I think of people getting arrested over Tweets or mere dissent, such as Raif Badawi, or people getting attacked by mobs and terrorists, like what happened to Charlie Hebdo when they published the controversial cartoons. Private platforms that refuse to host specific kinds of views, on the other hand, are merely exercising their right to filter the content they publish. The people holding those views can still speak elsewhere, and they often do so. To equate this with being "canceled" seems to me to dilute the term beyond any meaningful utility.

I suspect we may have fundamentally different views on some aspects of this, because I reject the idea that a free market of ideas, so to speak, is necessarily conducive to a healthy or just society. In fact, I think it has been especially clear ever since the beginning of the pandemic that sometimes a "free market of ideas" can lead to deep harms both to specific groups and to society at large. Misinformation about the pandemic has contributed to many preventable deaths, and the question I have to ask at this point is whether the ability to publicly air such views outweighs the measurable harm they can cause.

Furthermore, in J. K. Rowling's case, her problematic takes weren't just during her "worst moments"; she has repeatedly doubled down on them and gone on to voice support for anti-trans individuals (Matt Walsh being an example I cited earlier). At this point, I think it's fair to take her at her word and condemn the damage she has contributed to instead of assuming that she was just making an ill-thought comment on a bad day.

When the impact of one person's speech becomes harmful enough, sometimes their silence (through legal means such as boycotts and criticism, not death or rape threats) becomes the preferable option. After all, no amount of reasonable responses or civility stopped the detrimental lies of Alex Jones or the flagrant antisemitism of Kanye West. A court ruling and a large-scale boycott (and social media ban) did, respectively.

 

[Debater Slayer]

But I am not defining gender based on sex. I am defining 'man' and 'woman' based on sex.

Which you're free to do, but you have acknowledged that this is your own preference. I don't think it's reasonable to then criticize people who refuse to use that definition in light of the lack of a universal definition of gender.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The paper notes it as a growing problem and notes and increase in people "demanding urgent and hurried medical and surgical treatment" without adequate prior counselling and seeing it as a solution to all their issues.

JKR (correctly) notes a study that has shown a 4400% increase in teen girls seeking treatment. She also refers to a published scholar regarding the potential for 'social contagion', a view supoorted by other medical practitioners "Michael Bailey, an academic psychologist who studies sexual orientation and gender dysphoria at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, says his colleagues who treat gender dysphoria “all tell me that their primary group these days are adolescent females who were not known to be gender dysphoric [in childhood]. … This kind of case virtually never happened until recently—even a decade ago you didn't see them. I don't know what else to call this but an epidemic.”

In the UK, a major gender clinic is being closed down after it was criticised in a review and where "It is alleged children were “rushed into taking life-altering puberty blockers without adequate consideration or proper diagnosis”, with staff under pressure to adopt an “unquestioning affirmative approach”.

AFAIK there is nothing outright factually inaccurate she has said, despite claims to the contrary

Given this vast increase and studies about detransitioning will lag behind any new trends, and there are scientific papers suggesting it may underreported, the criticism seems excessive for what is really a matter of tone about a legitimate concern.

Why do you consider it it is hyperbolic to call a 4400% increase an "explosion"? It also seems highly likely to expect an increase in detransitioning over the next few years given the above evidence.

I think it's irresponsible to carry out such irreversible medical procedures on minors without adequate medical evaluation, so we seem to agree on that part.

As for her claim of an "explosion," I find the wording to be a problem in the larger context of the essay because it seems to me to have a negative theme, especially considering that she makes other claims that are inaccurate (e.g., the one about "growing out of gender dysphoria" that we have already talked about) or repeats stereotypes about trans people (e.g., the idea that a lot of men will threaten women by identifying as women and using women's bathrooms).

This is a relatively new area of research, and we don't know definitively whether the increase in numbers of people seeking such treatment is due to preventable factors, as the essay seems to hint, or simply due to the increasing social acceptability of trans people and the larger access to treatment. In my opinion, the authoritativeness with which she worded the essay and the claims therein is unjustified and irresponsible given the novelty and relative lack of clarity of the subject and given her reach and influence as a public figure.

She only commented on the film.

Does he say anything outright transphobic in the film? I've not seen it.

I recall that he did, but I haven't seen the full movie, and I really don't want to rewatch any of the parts I've already seen. I'm more familiar with his comments outside that movie, anyway, and they do contain a lot of anti-trans sentiment:

The Daily Wire's Matt Walsh says he supports a universal ban on all gender-affirming medical care

Daily Wire host likens doctors providing gender-affirming care to the Nazis

Then there's this:

Right-wing podcaster Matt Walsh reportedly caught trying to trick trans people into being interviewed for anti-trans documentary

Conservative film crew continues to try and trick trans activists into appearing in mysterious documentary, Miss Nevada USA says

Calling for a blanket ban on gender-affirming care, when it has saved or significantly improved many lives, is quite different from highlighting issues with unconditionally resorting to irreversible treatment before proper evaluation.

 

[Koldo]

Which you're free to do, but you have acknowledged that this is your own preference. I don't think it's reasonable to then criticize people who refuse to use that definition in light of the lack of a universal definition of gender.

I don't criticize people who use those terms differently though. However, not using them like that because of a lack of a universal definition of gender doesn't make much sense, since the definitions I have provided have nothing to do with gender.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There has been some controversy around the upcoming Hogwarts Legacy video game primarily due to the association with Harry Potter and J. K. Rowling, with some calling for a boycott of the game in order to avoid indirectly contributing to J. K. Rowling's activism against trans people.

What are your thoughts on buying media or any other product that profits people who engage in harmful or hateful activism or who otherwise direct money toward causes you find unethical? Do you believe not boycotting the product makes one complicit, even if indirectly, or can one buy something that generates profit for an objectionable individual or entity without necessarily being blameworthy?

This also applies to buying products financing, say, the CCP, supporters of Putin, or any other entity or individual(s) that you may find unethical or hateful.

I really don't care. If I boycotted every person or company who behaves unethically, I wouldn't be able to buy anything at all. Rowling is not a transphobe in my book, anyway. Personally, I don't care about Harry Potter, either way. That's for children, sorry, and I didn't care about it when I was a child. I was already reading adult novels by that time.

 

[Rival]

I really don't care. If I boycotted every person or company who behaves unethically, I wouldn't be able to buy anything at all. Rowling is not a transphobe in my book, anyway. Personally, I don't care about Harry Potter, either way. That's for children, sorry, and I didn't care about it when I was a child. I was already reading adult novels by that time.

As I read this post I was listening to this lmao MARNIK x Alfons x Pule - Harry Potter Style (Lyrics Video) - YouTube

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Hi mate, in the interests of (a degree) of brevity, what you said around specific versus general responses on cancel culture made sense. We probably just interpreted intent a little differently. I daresay your interpretation might be correct, on reflection, but anyway...

I have avoided social media for years due to what I perceive to be a toxic hivemind mentality, in addition to multiple other problems that I will detail below. I think some of the issues on the list could be grouped together into a phenomenon that some might rightfully call "cancel culture," but I don't see them as a function of left-wing vs. right-wing politics so much as a result of human nature, tribal mentality, peer pressure, internet anonymity, and dehumanization of others due to the distant nature of most online communication.

I effectively avoided it entirely. I read Tweets occasionally, and I use some peripheral social media stuff for work and around beer. But never had Facebook, Insta, Snapchat, Tik Tok, Tweeted, etc.

All this despite being somewhat of a geek, and working in IT.

• The desire for approval from...
[Snip for length]
...and dehumanizing speech.

Totally agree. I think people either avoid thinking about or can't process just how deliberately some platforms steer them and present the world to them in skewed fashion. This is much more planned, researched and invested in than many seem to realise. I know many have looked at the recent Twitter Files expose as much ado about nothing, whilst others see it as some sort of left wing conspiracy. But for me it just confirms some of my basic issues with such platforms. The narratives and exposure aren't controlled by the users, and aren't transparently communicated in terms of moderation. Throttling content was done effectively in a very deliberate and secretive fashion, which should lead to some level of anger, I would think. It's certainly confirmation to me of some of my issues with the structures and oversights we are talking about.

But beyond that, I favour long form and considered discussion. That's always playing to a more limited audience for lots of reasons, but is now drowned out almost completely in much of the media, who use Twitter as a 'source' and a means of assessing interest points and trending topics. But it's not that. Not in my opinion. It's left us chasing shiny objects instead of having meaningful discussions.

• It's much harder to go against trends when everything posted is public and open to scrutiny, including from people who may not necessarily be even-keeled or responsible. The death and rape threats against J. K. Rowling are, of course, reprehensible, but they're not exclusive to "trans activists" or any other group. Public and even lesser-known figures of various political and religious persuasions have faced violent threats online from off-kilter individuals.

All true. But Rowling...a children's author with no particular expertise...makes some pretty dumb comments on trans issues. The appropriate response would be to laugh and point, and suggest she stays in her lane. Instead, what she says is picked apart because...well...she's famous, I guess.
People now take their sides on the issue, and offer pithy tweets about the topic, in an effort to score points for their team. She's either transphobic or not. But we suffer as a society because;

1) We spend time evaluating the utterances of a children's author on a complex issue. Perhaps we should take her lead on Brexit? Foreign Policy? Industrial Relations? No? But medical opinion on trans issues? Sure, that's shiny enough.

2) We draw hard lines where you can support Rowling and everything she has ever stood for, or not. You love Potter and hate transphobia, you are immediately placed in a position of intense cognitive dissonance trying to reconcile the positions, the whole struggle reinforced by an increasingly binary public discourse.

3) We put Rowling herself in a position where she needs to take a binary position (hey, she mostly did that to herself) but have also then put people like Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe into the same position. They need to make a call, put it on public record, have it soundbytey enough to live unchanged (for anything with nuance will surely be trimmed for effect) and then stop growing on the issue. If this discussion is the kernel for them to go do some research, it's kinda bad luck. Their opinion is demanded now.

I don't say any of this with much concern for those players. My concern is for the trajectory of public discourse, and the impact this has on young folk in particular (ie. My kids).

As the above examples make clear, this phenomenon of online abuse and threats is hardly exclusive to any specific political camp.

Totally agree. I'm left-leaning, maybe more than that by US standards. But I'm finding myself increasingly a militant centrist as a reaction to the idiotic processes and hiveminds on both sides (too often).

That said, I also think some views cross the threshold of civil, respectful discourse. When a public figure, not a random individual or someone with little influence, endorses banning same-sex marriage or abortion, for example, I don't see nearly as much relevance to Obama's point that "they also have kids" or that they may share some things in common with the groups against whom they support discrimination and stir up or inspire dehumanization. The practical outcome of their endorsement of specific policies or attitudes remains the same, and pushing back against this in ways such as boycotts and strong condemnation is perfectly valid and understandable.

Maybe. Colour me unconvinced.
Religious folk have been telling me for years I will end up in a literal hell, and I've had to constantly evaluate my thoughts on religion. It's fair to say I have strong thoughts, but amongst them is a belief that overly strong advocacy against religion...anti-theism if you will...simply isn't the most pragmatically effective means of promoting the world I want. Because only part of what I actually want is the removal of religions impact on me.

To put it another way...and to where I think Obama was heading...is that people are not made up of a binary opinion on one issue. That person who has ignorant ideas on trans issues might be well informed and an ally in another area. In Rowling's case, she's led to a large body of children becoming better readers.
I can try to offset the two, work out her overall impact. I can discount one, and say the other is more important and supercedes. I can see her as multi-faceted, hate one idea and support the other.

If she says ten cents from every book will be used to fund detransitioning clinics, I'm then forced to see the two issues as tightly linked. If she writes in a new character who is lauded for transphobia, or who detransitions, then again I'm then forced to see the two issues as tightly linked.
But right now I'm not, and I choose not to because it allows me to take a less hypocritical position, and delude myself less that I'm 'fighting the good fight'.

That last sounded harsh. I'm honestly not judging those who don't buy Potter stuff because they don't like her trans views. I just don't see it as a position they consistently hold. This is their push button issue. It's not mine.

I don't think any trans person...
[Snipped for length]
...

Whew, lots to unpack there, and I appreciate the thought and effort of your post.
Let me go high level on this, but happy to dive down further if the conversation holds value for you.

As you know, I'm not American. I live in the most liberal part of Australia (in broad terms), where we have a ban on Nazi symbology (which I reluctantly support) and had the longest lockdowns through Covid. Which I reluctantly supported. I also recently voted to keep that state government in power, and they were heavily re-elected. The traditional conservative party in my state has major issues even putting up credible opposition these days because they are seen as anarchistic based on their views around climate change, as well as some key social issues. I support gun control, mandatory voting, mandatory vaccinations, abortion, etc.

I'm not an advocate of unfettered speech, and I don't hold to unfettered markets (both commercial and intellectual) as being the right approach in all cases.

At heart I'm an egalitarian and a pragmatist. That combination leads me to support certain feminist positions, or affirmative action concepts even where they run contrary to my egalitarian principles. I see them as smoothing the path to a theoretical end line of equality.

However I see the opposite with these more binary and judgemental discussions involving people. I'd push back on Rowling's ideas, and anything directly related to them, but not on Rowling herself.
For me, the threshold to reach a point where she should be written off as a person hasn't been reached. But I have a pretty liberal allowance for that, compared to most.

That's not about support for unfettered free speech in an ideological sense really. It's more that I think the current public discourse is broken, and in this case free speech might lead to a better long term outcome than the current polarisation.

I'll freely declare that trans issues are somewhat problematic for me in a few ways, and I find the need to be pushed into binary positions on it frustrating and unhelpful.
Again, none of this is directed at you, which I hope is clear. These type of conversations are the antidote, not the problem.