But people were most interested in what people in the Labour Party had to say about Corbyn and whether they were being factional about it. Along side the direct accusations of anti-semitism you get something along the lines of "Corbyn isn't doing enough to deal with anti-semitism in the Party" which obfuscastes the issue a bit. And, I think, quite a few of the people who were havering over Corbyn were doing so because they didn't want to be expelled from the Party or sacked from the Front Bench or whatever.

It's all a bit clearer and cleaner with Rowling regardless of which side you're on and less likely to have direct person consquences for the people who are thought leaders in the response.

Badiel's point was that the difference in behaviour of opponents of Rowlings on trans-issues and Corbyn's on anti-semitism reveals that it is still okay to be an anti-semite from the liberal left. I think my response to that is that part of the difference is that Corbyn could cost important people in the Labour Party their jobs and their position in the Party and they kept their heads down and equivocated in a way that people didn't with Rowling. And spectators were more closely watching what the Labour Party was doing. And the more equivocal tone got taken up by other people.

So there are reasons other than just an acceptance of anti-semitism for the difference in treatment of Corbyn and Rowling.

Including the lack of a direct statement from Corbyn and I can think of a few others.