Evaluating words without context doesn't work. You have to evaluate the words people say in the context in which they say them. Language is socially constructed and the meanings of words change over time. "We must secure the existence of our people" doesn't really sound particularly ominous on its own, but I want to avoid someone who says that because there's a nonzero chance that association with them will put me in actual, physical, danger.

> Why are only millionaires your candidates for who people who could be powerless in this situation instead of the vast majority of the non-millionaire population?

I don't believe that's who Paul is advocating for, that's precisely the point. This piece by Osita Nwanevu is quite good on this point: https://newrepublic.com/article/158346/willful-blindness-rea....

> As for JK Rowling's essay, it's one of those things everyone should read for themselves. The vast majority of people reading it will not come to the conclusion that Rowling is anti-trans, and they probably agree with her.

That's the exact purpose of the language she uses. Morality is not as simple as gentle and convincing rhetoric, designed to play on the fears and sympathy of people who know nothing about trans people. The rhetoric that China uses to describe the Uighur population to the rest of the Chinese populace is quite similar.

> I'm not a fan of the "dogwhistle" accusation fad. I just see it as a fashionable way to accuse someone of saying something that they didn't say. Like people claiming the Harper letter is clearly anti-trans when the only "trans" in it is "transgression".

There's quite an extensive field of research into dogwhistle politics. Not reading into it doesn't mean it isn't real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics.

The claims that the letter itself is transphobic are people over-reacting and over-extrapolating. But what precisely do you think Rowling signed the letter in service of?