Was it in universities? And all those health care related sites which erase the word 'woman' and replace it with either 'people' (thus giving the impression that some health issue affects all people) or with some horrible synechdoche (vulva-owners or uterus-havers), do they do this because the trans activists keep complaining nonstop or do they do it because they want to do it for other reasons? And if it is the former, is it mainly, say, the nonbinary female-bodied people who complain or trans men or trans women or all?
It's absolutely universities, and it's adults, not just the students. A couple of the nicest, brightest women I know revert to bots with this subject. By which I mean they don't make sensible, reasoned arguments. They parrot all the lines. Debating the right to exist/are trans people not human/transwomen are women (so no need to explore any conflict of rights because the long, long history of penis havers oppressing vagina havers, and being bigger and stronger in order to do it, is erased...) it's honestly bonkers and as has often been said, religious in overtones. Nothing else causes such rabid, kneejerk responses. Pavlovian levels of indoctrination.
The writer in question (who is wonderful - my eldest loves her book) isn't yet 30, and is a Cambridge grad. They're woker than woke there - which makes sense, given how enormously privileged most of them are, and how wholly unchallenging transactivism is to that privilege - their SU policy on trans rights was written by the woman who had that shit fit over Selina Todd's speaking at a feminist event. It's entirely possible that the writer in question has no idea anyone she respects feels differently - obviously she'll know many women who do feel very, very differently indeed, but none of them will dare apprise her of the fact. Women feel this one out carefully before talking openly, if they think their career could be harmed by someone reporting them. And given her behaviour over this, that caution will have been wise.
It's very sad. That she could read Rowling's words, and see them as hateful - far less deserving of rape and death threats. The fact any young women can believe another woman is deserving of such abuse, simply for having an opinion on women's rights, and women's very legal and social definition, is appalling. How can they not see that they are blindly centring male interests - even in the face of such male-patterned abusive behaviour? How can they not see that such starkly sexualised, sexist abuse aimed at one of us, is abuse aimed at all of us? That was the central thrust of Women's Aid's words, when condemning it. Does she now feel unable to support Women's Aid, too?