Well, claims of privilege might be fraught, but not claims that this or that position represents a violation of obviously stated principles. For example, if someone were to claim that Marx was a royalist, it requires no privilege to point out that such a claim is not born out by the writings of Marx. Likewise, to claim that Buddha did not believe in rebirth, or even if he did, did not think it important, is to ignore the persistent mention of the four types of aryas found all over the Pali canon.
Basically, Buddha's Dharma takes rebirth as the central problem of existence and proposes a solution to it. This is the central axiom of Buddhism.
Good example - although no one to my knowledge claims that Marx was a royalist, there are endless interpretive contestations about which bits of Marx are important and which are wrong or problematic and ought to be abandoned.
I think everyone here is obsessively hung up on Batchelor's claims about rebirth - we all agree that it's a bogus argument.
But as far as I can tell, his project is mainly about emphasising
existential and pragmatic elements in the sutta's, which are also clearly there in some respects. This is akin to western Marxists who reject the labour theory of value but retain the idea of commoditity fetishism.
Someone who is a card carrying communist might find that heretical, but others might find that an interesting reading, leading to fruitful theoretical and practical outcomes.
Those people are probably unconcerned whether the card carrying communists regard them as heretics; that's not really the point.....