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.

▲

mghackerlady an hour ago | parent [-]

It comes down to influence. One politician can only do so much damage, whereas Rowling is very wealthy and can b̶r̶i̶b̶e̶ lobby many politicians

	▲	myrmidon 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Do you think Rowling has more political effect in the UK than UK politicians, or are you talking global influence here? My own somewhat cynical take is basically the Planck-principle: Actual progress mostly happens one grave at a time... I still think from a political effectiveness point-of-view, pushing against Rowling is almost completely futile, because she has no electorate to satisfy and her view (from what I understand, her focus is on "protecting" cisgender women/their spaces from maliciously misdeclared transgender women?) is strawmanny, but difficult to just dismiss/pick apart. But I can see now how perceived "betrayal" and actual public engagement with personal issues would elicit a much stronger response than an ideologically even more distant politician that just hates you quietly. Thanks for the discussion!