You know what I (quite genuinely) find is more god-complex-like?
The supremely confidence of the I-say-it-therefore-it's-true mentality we see in supporters of the ideology, alongside their astonishing indifference to what the evidence may actually show.
I'm entirely serious here.
JKR's essay is clearly written and carefully argued. OK, so I agree with it too, but I like to think (note the caution - no god complex here) I'm similarly capable of acknowledging those qualities in work with which I disagree.
It's so important that we retain the ability to distinguish, to some limited degree (we're all human) between our internal perception, preferences and potential prejudices, and the existence of an external "reality" (however one defines it!), which stands outside and untouched by that.
In this light, I find CoolforKats' perception "latest god complex fest" and similarly hyperbolic commentary genuinely ironic, if not a bit frightening.
That these people never say, "Well, she writes well, and makes some thoughtful points, but I emphatically disagree because" and instead assert an alternative reality to what's before their very eyes is, to me, far closer to a god-complex.
The debating style associated with trans ideology, as well as the ideology itself, is po-mo subjectivity taken to quite dangerous extremes.
If "I think, therefore I am," is to be human, then "I think [it is], therefore it is!" is to be god.