I believe that people who claim to be mad at Chinese human rights abuses are mostly genuine in their feelings. They also have a blind spot for the abuses of their own country and their allies. That blind spot probably comes from the part of ourselves that's very tribal, as well as a social and political environment that ignores and minimizes self-criticism.
Now, if we're talking about the US state department, then absolutely they're doing it for geopolitical interests. However, they're also reflecting the concerns of at least some of their citizens.
I'd also like to note that there's a moral equivalence argument to be made here. It's possible that China's abuses are actually worse than our own. Or maybe not. I just want to acknowledge that aspect of this argument, but I don't want to get into it because I'm not really informed enough to make it, and I'm certain that 80% of that impression is formed by skimming headlines and whatnot, which is not really a proper basis for debate.
A consequentialist analysis would say that attacking China when it is almost impossible to influence while ignoring the abuses of your own government is even worse than inaction, because you are giving even more power to a state that is pretty much as bad.
I would be much more amenable to agreeing with the people that claim to be mad at China in the US if the solutions they proposed didn't give more power to US, that has no fundamental difference in foreign policy than China. Economically isolating China, for example, does absolutely nothing to help the treatment of Muslims in Xinjiang, but gives a lot more power to the United States. But if the solutions that were being talked about changed the balance of power towards entities that didn't wantonly abuse human rights, I would entirely agree.
Therefore, I don't think it's whataboutism. It would be whataboutism if the claim was that China actually respects human rights because the US is worse. But the question is different - it's whether we should economically isolate China on the pretext of their human rights abuses, or not. Saying that the party that benefits from this and that is pushing it is fundamentally just as disrespectful of human rights is not whataboutism, it's a question of whether the proposed actions will do anything for human rights at all.
Now, if we're talking about the US state department, then absolutely they're doing it for geopolitical interests. However, they're also reflecting the concerns of at least some of their citizens.
I'd also like to note that there's a moral equivalence argument to be made here. It's possible that China's abuses are actually worse than our own. Or maybe not. I just want to acknowledge that aspect of this argument, but I don't want to get into it because I'm not really informed enough to make it, and I'm certain that 80% of that impression is formed by skimming headlines and whatnot, which is not really a proper basis for debate.