I personally have massive problems with Rowling because of her transphobic views, as I am a transexual woman and she completely misunderstands us and has used her influence to make our lives hell in the UK. The rest of her political views aren't something I give much thought as she isn't nearly as influential in those areas

>Sidenote: If you're referring to the zombie-ant fungus, those go by Ophiocordyceps nowadays

Neat. I should probably explain why I called her that. She started noticeably becoming more unhinged a bit after she posted a picture of herself in a house that very clearly had a mould problem. Thus, as a way of coping, we (as in, the subset of the trans community I partake in) started joking that her views were caused by the mould

I can see how being personally affected would change the outlook on things like this.

It just seems to me that often people that are politically still "somewhat close" (Rowling) catch more flak than politicians that associate "transgender" with something inbetween "subhuman" and "delusional", but don't talk about it too much (because their whole electorate coulnd't care less about the topic anyway).

I had a similar impression with political fragmentation on the non-Trump side in the last US election.

But maybe the behavior is even net-beneficial in some cases, and you gain more as a movement by pushing against a Rowling instead of a Farage.