I'm not the person you replied to, but if I may, I have a few qualms with your perspective.

First, The Telegraph - or any such publication, for that matter - is not a source of "serious" news. It communicates no official positions of specific individuals nor organizations that denied funding to Jaye; it relies on vulgar sensationalism as most newspapers and portals do (whence the bombastic titles about a film "feminists don't want you to see"); and in addition to that, the excerpts you posted are still Jaye's words, i.e. her side of the story. In short, I don't think this is a good place from which to argue that u/StabWhale must not have done her (?) research, and I don't accord much weight to that article.

Second, and I really feel the need to emphasize this, in reference to an earlier comment of yours about "attacking Jaye's character": do you not admit that this dynamic goes both ways? That it is not only Jaye who is under some online/media fire which impugns her character and motivations, but that her supporters create analogous fire WRT "feminists who refused to support her" - and that these counter-charges are happening at the very least with Jaye's tacit approval (if she herself hasn't taken part in them, which she well may have)? Nobody owed her their discretionary material nor moral support in the first place. She, and her supporters, have absolutely no business dealing in any sort of character-impugning speculations on why somebody didn't want to support her or withdrew their support. The whole attitude smacks of some serious entitlement; unless we are talking formal breaches of contract, or unless she has documented proofs for ideological bias in organizations which should not deny her support on those grounds alone, she should have had the decency not to even start a public discussion over the details of why her funding dried up, as she wasn't "wronged" in the process (wasn't "entitled" to any money to begin with) - especially as she must have known where such insinuations might lead.

And finally, I entirely disagree with your characterization that cutting funding amounts to "silencing". The practical effects may well lead there, but not giving somebody a platform, association or a form of support does not equal silencing. It equals a "you do want you want, but not with my support". Even if my support would have been the crucial part, it still doesn't negate the "you do what you want" part. Jaye's rights are not breached here, and we can all deal with charity (= no-strings-attached money given to people or projects at our own discretion) as our consciences allow. And as I've said, entering such lengthy, repeated speculations on other people's consciences, as a means of gaining traction and support, in absence of any sort of formal proof of any wrongdoing or even bias (all we have is Jaye's word, and even the contect of her word is rather tame), is distasteful to say the least - particularly when you have absolutely no formal nor moral claim to any sort of support.

Not even if they supported you before, or under different conditions.

On a somewhat personal note, I'm currently in a similar situation, although it doesn't actually involve direct monetary exchanges. I'm losing a form of support I'd grown to "count" with, but for which I recognize I was never "owed" in the first place. You might even argue I have grounds to have formed a reasonable expectation for that form of support to continue. But ultimately it doesn't matter; if I lose it, I will have lost out on something quite dear, but I will not have been "wronged" in any way. Whatever "expectations" were formed involved no contract. It seriously saddens me, but I have absolutely legal nor moral, in my view, right to impose upon them in any way or complain about it in public. It doesn't matter if everything was perfectly fine until a few days ago and now it's all hanging in the air. They don't owe me. They never did. Whatever I received so far, or hoped to receive in the future, was off their good will alone. It doesn't matter if they're, realistically, my only option to go about something. They didn't commit to anything. And in perfect honesty, if they really tell me "no further" (as I suspect), I hope I'll have enough grace to thank them for all the help so far received, without enquiring about the "why" (which is a very personal question after all, and would have been a particular form of audacity on my part if I pretended they explain themselves to me).