Did you read the article? It claims this sort of thing is happening, with links to back up the claims. You could try to rebut it, or link to a rebuttal, but you just plain state that it's not happening. And then go on to offer an alternative explanation.

But it's really easy to generate explanations of this sort. Like, say, maybe you're writing this piece, and people are approving, because you and they recognize that there are no valid criticisms of J.K. Rowling, and no danger to trans people, and you're just trying to absolve yourselves of guilt for having a reactionary response instead of a thoughtful one when someone disagrees.

But! you might--and should--object, trans people are in danger! You (or I) could easily document that.

Quite so. And yes, it matters. But doesn't it also matter if the claims in the NYT article about what Rowling is facing are accurate?

Wouldn't it be worth a few words, or a link, explaining why you think differently?