From Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, the first description of a goblin. Setting the scene, if you will:
”The goblin was about a head shorter than Harry. He had a swarthy, clever face, a pointed beard and, Harry noticed, very long fingers and feet.”
I don't know how you could get “Jew” from this not least because none of the Jews I know have long feet. Of course, you can’t because that’s not how they were depicted. Goblins were always going to be shrewd on the basis that they control the money and other precious objects but that doesn’t equal Jewish. Not unless you’re trying to paint the author in a bad light and twist the facts to suit yourself.
Ditto the “denial of trans people in the Holocaust”. As a PP said, cross-dressing was surprisingly widespread amongst Nazi top brass and the cross-dressers who were killed were murdered for being gay, a political opponent or other persecuted characteristic. I have never seen any evidence that cross-dressing (which has now been appropriated by the Stonewall trans umbrella) was solely a cause of persecution and murder. Unless, again, you’re twisting the truth to suit your narrative.
Then we get to the slavery. The HP books were never about slavery, it was a side plot so criticism that this isn’t made a focus is unfair. It is quite clear throughout her books, however, on the need to stand up for what is right even if it means standing up to your friends. Which Hermione does with SPEW, even when she gets mocked for it (which I can understand because she becomes a bit of a zealot - oh, the irony of an over-enthusiastic activist…). But to see how Dobby and other house elves are treated by Harry, Dumbledore and the Order, and Hermione’s campaigning to make people realise that their food comes from a hidden army, contrasted with the treatment of house elves by the likes of the Malfoys and the Blacks, and Dumbledore’s open criticism of how Sirius had treated Kreacher which led directly to him hating wizards so much he betrayed the Order, shows exactly where Rowling’s sentiments lie. Unless you need to twist words to fit the truth you want to believe.
And lastly, I have never seen anything Rowling has said or written which is “anti-trans”. She has, in reality, been supportive of anyone’s right to live, dress, and date as they please. She has just said that some boundaries are not to be crossed with regards the parallel rights of others and, like toddlers told they can’t have any more Haribo, it elicits an almighty tantrum from those who think they should have special rights which trump those of others. Which is what we see again and again.