Atlantic has an article about "anti-trans feminism" and of course Mumsnet is mentioned

It's obvious from MK Fain's response that Kaitlyn Tiffany went in with a fixed idea on what article she wanted to write - T**Fs aRe sOooOoo mEaN! - and manipulated the information she was given to confirm her biases. Terrible journalism and far below The Atlantic's usual quality. I've had a subscription for years because they usually pride themselves on holding to a middle ground in an American media landscape that is otherwise a cesspit of partisan bias. I'll still keep my subscription because I believe in free speech and hearing all views but honestly it's disappointing.

Upside: I have discovered the clear thinking sanity of MK Fain.

I love this statement in her response:

‘The reality is that gender critical women, as a whole, are not hateful. Women as a class pose no genuine risk to men as a class; and women do not replicate patterns of male violence either on or offline at any meaningful scale.’

YES. All this stuff about 'T**Fs' committing 'literal violence' against TWs is BS. The men who murder and abuse transwomen do so based on patriarchal values rooted in misogyny and homophobia and you can bet none of them have read a single feminist idea in their lives, gender critical or otherwise.

I can’t get my head round how you can take all the detailed info that MK sent via email and make such a terrible article out of it?

Is it not just satire with signposting? Certainly makes a good job of the signposting.

I've never seen it either. It vaguely reminds me of JKR's tweet highlighting how wokespeak reduces women to bodily functions:

'People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?

So she may have misunderstood JKR and misspelled. But who knows? It's another aspect of the article that makes me think it's a spoof and if it isn't John Cleese has missed a trick.

Since when did anyone on reddit's gendercritical ever use the term "wombyn"? Maybe it's different over on Ovarit, but I doubt it.

O M G the response on LSA is absolutely brilliant. Crying with laughter at some of the comments.

https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/lsa-gets-a-shout-from-the-atlantic-for-being-a-terf-hideaway-prepare-for-an-onslaught-of-others.4176928/

Quote from the article: Many of these stories are told “with a sense of excitement, guilt, fear … it’s disturbing but thrilling,” Lavery, the UC Berkeley professor, told me. “All the usual stuff that people who get involved in extremist groups find.”

It's hilariously absurd. I wonder if the writer would classify the High Court as 'extremist' too.

Let's hope readers of the article might check out some of these places and draw their own conclusions.

There are two places I will not go with these TRAs and that’s back and forth. They can argue with themselves.

I loved that comment too, Plantmum.

The article doesn't mention trans men at all.

They say that gender critical feminists believe 'gender is fixed'

They've taken that bit out now. Here's the first paragraph before they edited it.

MK Fain in the email exchange:

"My specific opposition to the term "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" is that it's simply inaccurate. Radical feminism is for females, no matter their identity. This means that our work advocates for the interests of all women and girls, including those who identify as trans. We exclude males, again, regardless of their identity. It has nothing to do with their "gender identity" and everything to do with their sex. Additionally, I have seen how the term "TERF" is often accompanied by violent threats, material consequences for women, homophobia (usually against lesbians), and misogyny."

It's difficult to understand how this is an extreme statement.

On the other hand I don't understand the logic of Kaitlyn Tiffany claiming that "all feminism is critical of gender" and also that feminists should categorise people according to gender.

Singal's piece is so compassionate, while raising serious concerns.

[quote PlantMam]The Atlantic also published one of the first mainstream pieces on Desisters & Detransitioners, by Jesse Singal:

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/07/when-a-child-says-shes-trans/561749/[/quote]

To add clarification, as I think a lot of people don't realize this, Jesse Singal's piece was for the print edition.

The Atlantic is one of America's most venerable magazines. Singal's piece is longer, better written and would have been fact check to death.

Unfortunately a lot of magazines, including The Atlantic but also New York Magazine and even The New Yorker, employ crap internet writers with large social media followings for their websites, where they publish badly-written "hot takes" masquerading as articles that are almost never fact-checked.

The print edition of The Atlantic is also more small-c conservative than its web version for this reason.

But that's how you end up with a piece of crap like this sitting alongside Singal's. Unfortunately most people won't be able to distinguish between the two.

Someone on Lipstick Alley has shared a link to the email exchanges and interviews with the GC women mentioned on that article. Unsurprisingly, the journalist ignored what they actually said and wrote her own version to support the story she wanted to write:

4w.pub/my-whole-conversation-with-kaitlyn-tiffany-for-the-atlantic/

There is nothing actually mainstream about the genderist belief that human sex is imaginary.

Excellent quote Prawn

In the very first paragraph they equate 'radical' feminism with extremism, and talk about a woman becoming 'further radicalised'. They say that gender critical feminists believe 'gender is fixed' when that's not what gender critical feminists believe at all. And the article tells the lie that radical feminists dox, harass and bully trans women when we do nothing of the sort. It's just frustrating to have so many lies and misconceptions spread about online feminist communities.

It is frustrating and the lies are pernicious but also people are curious and new people do find MN by hearing about all these vile mothers getting together to plot the downfall of the known universe..

The misunderstanding of ‘radical’ as a descriptor is a bit of an issue. I have heard a guy in a senior position talking seriously about ‘militant’ feminists objecting to things when they actually mean ‘radical’ - those around them then started looking very nervous.. but it’s never been the feminists doing the intimidating around this issue.

The Atlantic also published one of the first mainstream pieces on Desisters & Detransitioners, by Jesse Singal:

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/07/when-a-child-says-shes-trans/561749/

www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/12/reddit-ovarit-the-donald/617320/

Eventually, her beliefs radicalized further: She became convinced that trans women are men, that the Pope was Catholic and bears poo in the woods.

This is what annoys me about this article - the tone of the journalist implies that ovarit and mumsnet are like those dark and extreme parts of the internet where young men are radicalised into terrorists as opposed to feminist websites where women just want a space of their own.

To understand feminism on Mumsnet all you need to do is visit www.lettoysbetoys.org.uk

For a bit of balance I'm just going to post a couple of Helen Lewis articles from the Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/11/feminist-aristocrats-who-want-daughters-rights/617067/

www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/07/why-millennial-harry-potter-fans-reject-jk-rowling/613870/

And whilst I'm at it:

www.amazon.co.uk/Difficult-Women-History-Feminism-Fights/dp/1787331288/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&crid=1KDPP4V25VYS5&keywords=helen+lewis+difficult+women&sprefix=Helen+lewis+%2Caps%2C186&tag=mumsnetforu03-21&qid=1607459834&sr=8-1

I wonder who she's related to. This isn't journalism or an op ed, it's just a piss poor rant.

The Atlantic used to hire decent writers. What a shame.

Glad to see this trash is getting the contempt it deserves over on LSA