The fact that someone assumes there is an unspoken background to what JRM has said instead of taking it at face value and exactly as he has expressed it just implies that they are prejudging him.
When a public figure, who has made many previous public statements makes another one - it is not prejudging him to remember these statements and place this new one in context of his already publicly known views. That is applying critical thinking and it is a good and intelligent thing to do.
He has previously announced that he is against abortion 100% - even in the case of rape.
He is against same sex marriage because he supports the teaching of the catholic church. He doesn't mind people being gay as such - but he believes they shouldn't be allowed to marry, and that is the important issue.
He has 6 children and has never changed a nappy.
Post brexit he wishes to slash environmental and safety standards - claiming that regulations 'good enough for India' are good enough for us.
Here are some things he has voted against: gay rights, the smoking ban, laws that promote equality and human rights, allowing terminally ill people assistance in ending their life, an investigation into the Iraq war, the right to remain for EU nationals living in Britain post brexit, raising welfare benefits in line with prices, spending public money to create guaranteed jobs for young people, a tax on banker's bonuses, granting more powers to the devolved govts in the rUK, measures to prevent climate change, slowing the rise in rail fairs and greater regulation in gambling.
Here are some of the things he has voted for: use of UK forces in overseas combat operations, replacing trident with a new nuclear weapons system, the bedroom tax, reduction in spending on welfare benefits, increasing the rate of VAT, allowing employees to exchange access to employment rights for shares in their company, restriction of trade union activity, reducing capital gains tax, reducing corporation tax, raising England's tuition fees, ending financial support for 16-19 year olds in training and further education, reducing central funding for local govt, an equal number of electors per constituency, fewer mps, a stricter asylum system, the introduction of police and crime commissioners, mass surveillance of people's communications and activities, merging the police and fire services, selling England's state owned forests, culling badgers, HS2, phasing out secure tenancies for life, the privatisation of royal mail and reducing the scope of legal aid.
Rest assured, JRM is an evil evil man. His own voting record (publicly available on the internet) proves it to be so. He is no friend of the poor, the vulnerable or of women. He is the friend of big business, bankers and billionaires. And he uses his political clout to attempt to punish the one group and favour the other.
So he has said something that roughly aligns with concerns that women in general and feminists in particular have about self id? Whoopdee fucking do. It is not sloppy, or prejudicial to examine that in context with all else he has done. Sophocles is perfectly reasonable to assume that it comes from a place of bigotry - it sure as hell doesn't come from a place of feminism.
And if you're one of the posters who said you liked him - look at his voting record and for christ's sake rethink. He isn't a joke. He is a powerful man with backwards and harmful views that he hides behind well spoken, genial toffery. He is unbelievably dangerous.
A man like JRM echoing legitimate concerns that women have ultimately does us more harm than good. He is known to be evil , by those who bother to look into these things. The brocialists aren't gonna listen to him - but they will use the fact that a man like him has used one of our arguments against us.
He isn't being brave - he has nothing to lose. He has said far worse and had it laughed off. And he isn't speaking for us. So let's not crack open the champagne and start congratulating him yet, eh?