This is a really good, really concise summary of how the lines are drawn regarding that open letter. (Quick thread.)
Many of the signatories of the letter would no doubt say that even if one disagrees with Rowling, to urge people to disassociate themselves from her views on open debate because of her views on trans issues is exactly the kind of ideology-policing they're warning about.
It's the kind of thing, they'd say, that they had in mind when they talked about the "moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity."
But there's (at least) two big problems with that analysis.
First, Rowling clearly sees herself as, and many others see her as, a victim of the "intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism" that the letter decries. So when she appears as a signatory to the letter, it appears to give an imprimatur to that view.
And if you (generic "you") appear as a signatory to the letter alongside Rowling, you appear to give your imprimatur to that view as well. That may not be your intent, but it's a foreseeable effect, particularly given how vague (as I discussed in another thread) the letter is.
So yes, in this instance, criticizing the letter-writers for soliciting Rowling's signature, and criticizing the other signatories for appearing alongside her, strikes me as entirely reasonable—even from within the civil-libertarian framework in which the letter is grounded.
A lot of folks have a lot invested in the idea that there's only one civil-libertarian perspective on debates like these. But they're mistaken.
One addendum: I've seen several people suggest that the letter's *central* unacknowledged focus is discourse around trans identity. I think that's incorrect, based on my sense of which specific incidents it subtweets, but it's a reading the framing of the letter invites.
That's a problem with having Rowling as a signatory, as I noted above, but it's also a problem with the letter's studied ambiguity, as I discussed in this other thread:
