When did I ever say you couldn't criticize what JKR says?

I quoted you as saying "I'm all for intellectual diversity and debate" and then criticized you for not following through on the sentiment in your comment!

You ask, "Can you explain to me how it bolsters Max’s accusation of ideological bullying for me to state that, while JKR has a right to say whatever she wants, I also have a right to criticise it?"

But that isn't the part I objected to, and I don't see how you could have thought that it was because I quoted the relevant passages. I quoted Max also on wanting a climate of intellectual diversity and debate, and quoted the part of your reply (not the part you summarized above!!) that was objectionable. Rather than taking him at his word, your reply states (you do NOT argue because you offer zero arguments: you simply state) that he's arguing for the exact opposite of what he said he's arguing for. And then proceed to attack his character for what you said he said, even though he actually said the opposite. I pointed out that this kind of non-debate attack was the kind of thing he was complaining about.

This has nothing to do with whether you can criticize JKR! This has everything to do with criticizing the style of your answer!

I was pointing out that this doesn't look good.

I didn't even say you couldn't do it. Just that maybe you want to "more thoughtfully address what [Max] says". But whatever--it's your call.

And now you conclude that I think you shouldn't criticize JKR? Can you spell out the steps in your thought-process that led you to that conclusion?

You certainly don't need my permission to criticize JKR; you can do it regardless.

I also happen to think it's perfectly appropriate, though I don't think it's likely to be effective beyond the core group of Rowling-haters unless you make some halfway decent points.

How can you take an exhortation to engage in debate to mean that I think you shouldn't engage in debate or level criticisms?

I'm not even mad, just puzzled, because it's just so transparently wrong.

You said, above, "Using the term ‘ideological bullying’ to characterise my critique is a rhetorical method of shutting down the free speech of JKR’s critics. "

But let's look at what you actually said before.

Kaylin: "if someone says something I find to be transphobic (and guess what, cis people don’t get to define what is or isn’t transphobic) then I have a right to criticise what they’ve said. Free speech works both ways."

Max said nothing in his original story to contradict this. Neither did I in my reply to you. All good here!

Kaylin: "What you’re arguing for is free speech for some people, while invoking the empty signifier of ‘woke culture’ or ‘gender ideology’ or whatever else to justify suppressing the speech of the pesky minorities who disagree with you."

But Max said nothing of the sort! You're declaring that he meant for speech to be suppressed, sans evidence. How is charging that someone holds an offensive position, in contradiction to what they said, not a form of bullying? Do you not mean to intimidate or coerce by this--is he not supposed to feel cowed, or hesitate, or anything like that? I don't see how you could expect your argument to change his mind about anything, because you didn't make an argument; you leveled an accusation. And is your assumption that he meant the opposite of what he said not driven by presuppositions that you hold and share with a fair number of other people, i.e. "ideology"?

Kaylin: "You don’t want intellectual diversity and debate, you want intellectual hegemony to suit the dominant cultural status quo and the shutting down of any subversion of, or challenge to, that hegemony."

It's the same thing again: putting words in Max's mouth, then attacking his character with emotionally-laden phrases like "intellectual hegemony" and "shutting down any challenge". And if there were even a bit of evidence you presented for it, that might still qualify as a debate. But you presented: nothing! Not a word in support of your contention.

How is putting words in people's mouths and then attacking them for those words not bullying? Seriously? Even if you've guessed correctly about their point of view it's still bullying when you don't provide any reasoning or documentation, just declarations.

If you don't want your speech to be labeled ideological bullying--and I was pretty gentle the first time because I thought it might have been a mistake, but you've doubled down on it so now I'm pretty sure it wasn't--then how about you don't use ideology to motivate bullying behavior, eh?

It's not very bad bullying. As far as such things go, it's relatively mild. But I don't see any other way to characterize it even if you're completely right in your guesses because a key foundation of respectful discourse is to take people at their word or at least explain why you don't.

So when you say, "What you are saying is that I shouldn’t say these things, and nor do I have the right to, because you have mischaracterised my speech as ‘ideological bullying’." you are wrong.

I have not mischaracterized your speech. That's what you're doing. And you are continuing to do it with me as the target instead. Look!

"You are applying a double standard by saying that while JKR should have the right to say something, I should not be allowed to criticise what she says."

And yet...did I say a single time you couldn't criticize her? Did I apply any different standard to you or her? No. You will find exactly zero support for that charge in what I actually said. That's all you.

If your goal is to signal your commitment to people who are "on your side" with language about dog-whistles and claims that you know better what people mean than they know themselves (and people "on your side" have the same suspicions and will approve of you calling them out), then your choices of what to say make pretty good sense.

But I am objecting on principle because I think that this kind of conduct is, if witnessed by anyone outside of core supporters, actively bad for trans people because it gives an unfair impression of combative intolerance of anything less than an identical viewpoint. You'd better be exactly onboard, or Kaylin calls your words dog-whistles, tells you that you mean the opposite of what you said, and then calls you out for what she says you mean. It would be fallacious reasoning to generalize your specific behavior to all trans people or trans activists or whomever, but it's also a bad policy to count on people not to reason fallaciously because, well, we kind have a hard time not doing so.

It would be better if you either took a position against diversity and debate--that at least can be stated in a somewhat sympathetic fashion, e.g. "I'm not interested in debating whether trans identities are valid, and I'm not interested in the intellectual diversity to be cruel to people for who they are"--or you rose to the challenge, e.g. "The criticism of JKR isn't mostly mindless defamation, though: it is instead a direct criticism of her repeated support for people whose primary claim to fame is hateful attitudes towards trans people, sometimes hidden lightly under a guise of "questioning" or "biology". For instance, Maya Forstater...". Or you could not say anything. Among other options.

I strongly recommend that you reconsider your approach, because I think it's not just ineffective but actively counterproductive.

This doesn't mean not to criticize people! Criticize whoever deserves it, the more the better, as far as I'm concerned (not that my concern matters, ultimately)! But criticize fairly.