I guess we're talking past each other then, because I read and understood every one of the points you raise but you draw different inferences from them than I think are justified for a stance of "You asked for proof and here it is.", which is what you declared.

In almost every case, you are assuming rather than documenting a quite spectacular lack of charity on JKR's part in setting policies. This isn't particularly convincing unless someone's already convinced. If you want to document that if someone is already convinced that JKR is strongly anti-trans, JKR's statements are not guaranteed to disabuse one of that notion, then you have a very good argument indeed.

But almost everywhere else, the evidence doesn't clearly rise to the level needed to be clear, though it usually rises to the level needed to demonstrate plausibility.

For instance, you say, "Changing things means kicking [trans women who pass] out of women's restrooms," but do you document anywhere that JKR says that trans women who pass shouldn't be allowed to use women's restrooms?

Likewise, you claim she said that trans people don't exist. You don't quote her saying this, however. Instead, we find her saying things like, "Trans people need and deserve protection," and "I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman," and "I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people". How on earth does that add up to saying that trans people don't exist? Just because she teased some trans advocates for drawing a bad parallel it negates all that?

Your article itself was pretty good, but now you seem not to be bothering to fact-check yourself.

I don't really want to belabor the point. I don't think very much hinges on whether JKR is or is not transphobic, or to what degree she is anti-trans (as long as she's vastly overshadowed by the likes of Knowles and Carlson). Given the strength of sentiment expressed against JKR without much attempt to justify it--which basically just makes trans advocates look unhinged to random persuadable but slightly skeptical observers--I think it's valuable to try to explain the perspective. Even a not-very-solid defense of the position helps because at least it shows that there's a perspective worth considering.

But a prominent counter-narrative is: trans people and trans advocates are mentally unstable and lost in a damaging ideological fantasyland. This is absolutely not what one takes home from listening to accounts of trans people with substantial gender dysphoria. But if all one sees is people screaming that JKR is a horrible transphobe who denies that trans people exist because she says things like, "I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men. So I want trans women to be safe," it's hard to debunk the counter-narrative. Experience superficially coheres with that counter-narrative. It's not a good way to build support; it rather tends to erode it.

So I think it's helpful and valuable to explain why JKR-is-transphobic is at least a reasonable perspective (even if it doesn't reach the level of demonstrating that this is the only reasonable perspective). But retreating from evidence into increasingly strident statements seems to me to push in the wrong direction.