Rowling claims Forstater was fired. She was not fired. She came to the end of her fixed contract and was not offered a new one.
Rowling claims Forstater asked "the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law". She did not.
The judgement is available online and prefectly readable so either Rowling is incredibly stupid to have misunderstood both of these points she has made or she has deliberately lied.
Your first counterpoint is really hair-splitting - fixed-term contracts continue to increase precisely so that people can be cut without being officially fired. It's a hole in workers' rights, meant for legitimate uses, that has sadly been exploited across the board in Europe. Thousands of workers now exist in this limbo where their contracts have to be renewed every few months for no other reason than to keep them pliable. Anybody familiar with the reality of progressive causes in Europe should know that, and Rowling likely does (she is very much left-of-centre). Forstater's was a firing in all but name, regardless of whether you agree that she should have been fired or not.
It is not hair splitting. It is a basic fact. Her contract ran out months after her co-workers complained about the hostile work environment she was creating and the warning she had received.
Being a tax specialist consultant retained by a think tank is pretty much a text book case of when you'd be on a fixed term contract.
Ending a fixed term contract is more or less equivalent of being fired. Fixed term contracts are widely used to avoid labour law giving stronger protection to permanent contracts. A fixed term contract is generally not a "consulting gig", it's a method to simplify workforce management for the employer.
So morally Mrs. Rowling is correct, I think on this matter and it is petty to point this out since that was not the crux of the matter.
