[–] NotCis 139 points (+139|-0)

Thank you so much for posting this. Just...wow.

I love this: "The truth is, and I think you probably know already this, that there is no way we could disagree with gender ideology nicely enough to be "allowed". It's not about our tone, our crude jokes, or schoolyard name-calling. It's because we disagree with the fundamental premise that a man can become a woman simply because he says so. That is why we are called "hateful". I know this because I was labeled "hateful" for statements that contained nothing even remotely joking, namecalling, or crude. As was JK Rowling, and as were scores of other women."

[–] femuhnist 28 points (+28|-0)

Yes, that was my favorite part as well. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie literally just said "trans women are trans women" and that was enough to get her cancelled and vilified as hateful. It doesn't matter how nicely we say any of this.

[–] subaruiner 25 points (+25|-0)

lol that part stood out to me too and i just screenshotted it to post on spinster!

But if we speak gently they can ignore us. If we tie ourselves in knots with whatever euphemisms they're demanding this week, they can pretend we don't know what we're talking about.

This shit reminds me of white people getting salty about athletes kneeling for the anthem - "sure, of course you're allowed to draw attention to racism, but this completely non-violent, non-disruptive, non-hateful thing that you've chosen is just so darn noticeable. That's what I'm upset about."

There's no version of protest that is ok people like that. The goal is to make us shut up.

[–] mathwitch 97 points (+97|-0)

Women blossom in women-centred spaces. They become less inhibited about showing their intelligence, their wit, and their creativity when they know they’re not going to get torn down by men, or have to make space for the male desire for attention. There’s no pressure to be ladylike. That’s the joy of it.

This is so beautifully said, womenopausal. I can't be the only member who signed up here after years of lurking without posting on r/GC. Thank you, admins and mods, for creating a site which can grow beyond the pale possibilities of reddit.

[–] BlackCirce 93 points (+93|-0)

God this makes the Atlantic look really fucking stupid. How did the editor let that garbage hit piece through?

[–] Braidslap 61 points (+61|-0) Edited

Because the overlap between "People who support feminism" and "people who don't support trans rights" is limited. It doesn't really matter to them if gender critical feminists are misrepresented because very few people are actually on our side.

[–] Alecto 52 points (+52|-0)

I think it may be a generational thing. Older women who have passed through the meat grinder known as patriarchy--childbirth, marriage, divorce, seeing women earn rights contemporaneously, the invisibility that comes with aging, etc. They may or may not call themselves feminists, but will eagerly agree with a lot of radical feminist theory, including our analysis on trans-identified men.

[–] courage2courage 29 points (+29|-0)

Exactly, there's a generational boundary at play here. The women who lived through second-wave feminism haven't just upped sticks and vanished, as much as the rest of the world likes to consider them invisible. They still have their heads screwed on straight and laugh at the notion of giving away women's hard-fought rights to middle-class moronic men.

Millennials/Gen-Z who grew up online and associate feminism with cuddly libfem and sexy pop culture are the ones linking feminism with rights for men in dresses. And the men in dresses sit back and love it.

[–] 7yearbitch 26 points (+26|-0)

preach. if i were younger and had not yet experienced marriage, having children, & barriers to equality in my career due to my sex firsthand, i'd probably be fine with the "trans women are women" shit.

i think a lot of young women haven't yet realized the inescapable realities of the patriarchy. i'm an early 30s millennial so not super old, but i definitely have a much different perspective on womanhood than i did in my early 20s.

[–] [Deleted] 22 points (+22|-0)

I am certain I would have been more open to the TRA ideology if I hadn't had a child. I'm not implying childless people are ignorant, but I know that for myself, I wouldn't have grasped a lot of things radical feminists talk about had I not had a child. Going through pregnancy and childbirth changes your outlook on many things permanently.
Having a son also made me realize how male traits are visible right from the start. He was already capable of giving me a bloody nose (by accident) by the time he was 2 or 3.

[–] gnarlyfem 40 points (+40|-0)

Because the overlap between "People who support feminism" and "people who don't support trans rights" is limited.

That they know of. Totally anecdotal, but every single person I talk to who doesn’t have trans shit on their radar, are supportive of women, but question trans ideology when I bring it up very basic talking points. It’s usually very simple cognitive dissonance they never noticed. Like if being a woman isn’t just being female, then what is it? They then realize any answer is misogynistic.

[–] BlackCirce 32 points (+32|-0)

What I’m learning through this is that a lot of gains we see as feminist, many men (and women who don’t think of themselves as feminist) don’t see that way. They think girls and boys having separate bathrooms at school, or girls having their own sports, as just common sense. “Rape culture” and “me too” they might think goes too far. They might blame feminism for OnlyFans or divorce, but they don’t see a women’s only homeless/dv shelter as a feminist issue. It’s actually kinda wild.

[–] BlackCirce 37 points (+37|-0)

I mean I know papers have editorial slants but this is beyond the pale.

[–] Luckystar 35 points (+35|-0) Edited

At the core of these things are privileged white men. Yes, even the "we hate white men" stuff benefits them, because it attacks poor white men (Trump voters), and these privileged white men are able to signal that they're "the good ones".

Any time something suss is going on at a place like the Atlantic, I picture how privileged white men would view it. Take Netflix' "Cuties" for example -- people were defending it because "it was made by a woman of color!". Let's ask ourselves: Why is the only movie directed by a woman of color that gets into the mainstream is creepy pedo shit? Because that's the only movie directed by a woman of color that contains content that appeals to privileged white men (ie, pedo shit).

Privileged white men LOVE transgender politics. It gives them an avenue to look "woke" while simultaneously shitting on women. Gender ideology rests on the idea that women "identify with" our own oppression, and that it's not traumatic but rather "natural" for us (this is what they mean when they say "cis woman" -- a woman who identifies with what society says women should be). Then there's the whole neuro aspect of the debate, that argues men and women have different brains and transwomen are women because they have ladybrainz. What man wouldn't be enamored of a movement that says his superior place in society is justified?

[–] ShrewUntamed 11 points (+11|-0)

Let them know what you think!

Executive Editor, Adrienne LaFrance <adrienne@theatlantic.com>

Health, Science, and Technology Editor, Paul Bisceglio <pbisceglio@theatlantic.com>

Editor-in-Chief, Jeffrey Goldberg <jeffrey_goldberg@theatlantic.com>

[–] hellamomzilla 77 points (+77|-0)

To the mods who did interviews -- Tiffany couldn't include what you said because it was reasonable and respectful and she knew it would piss off the other side. There was no way to make any of your answers seem hateful or bigoted.

The mods ALL rock. Thanks for all you do.

[–] greenbeans 71 points (+71|-0)

I just love how clearly MK writes. Every sentence explains the GC viewpoint in such a calm and well-reasoned way. As she mentions, the majority of the population agree with us. It is ridiculous to label us as extremists. Anyone who reads this after reading the Atlantic article can see what a hatchet job it is.

[–] puddleofraine 70 points (+70|-0)

How anyone could read those incredible statements and responses from the interviewees and come up with the piece as published is just shocking to me. MK, girl_undone, and womenopausal were thoughtful, clear, and utterly reasonable; thank you for writing this and your amazing responses.

[–] Aquamarine 69 points (+69|-0)

Dang. Why did the Ms. Tiffany bother with the interview at all if she was going to, at best, ignore it and, at worse, outright lie? (Seriously, no one around here believes "gender is fixed." Sex being fixed, and gender being reliant on harmful stereotypes, is practically the only view everyone here shares.)

Oh wait. She did the interview in the hopes of getting a monstrous quote about how we're planning to kill everyone who identifies as transgender. When it didn't materialize, she made shit up.

[–] AmyHousewine 57 points (+57|-0)

Funny how "men in lipstick" is hate speech, but she doesn't get to the threats to rape TERFs to death with baseball bats by the dear, misunderstood TiMs.

[–] Alecto 48 points (+48|-0)

I would like to take a moment to remind everyone that, despite how they may act, 'man' is not a pejorative term.

[–] AmyHousewine 22 points (+22|-0)

And they are, in the images in question, wearing lipstick. Unless it's lip stain? Is that the issue, we're mis-categorizing the nature of the artificial pink pigment? The Atlantic is clearly an absolute stickler for accuracy.

[–] Luckystar 31 points (+31|-0)

I've had so many people say "Being trans is so much more than being a man in a dress" but when I ask them to elaborate, they are unable to.

Stonewall themselves says cross dressers are transgender too. This IS the position of the major LGBT organizations.

[–] diapason 3 points (+3|-0)

Well, yeah, of course they do, otherwise they couldn't claim Marsha P Johnson was transgender!

[–] yikesforever 17 points (+17|-0)

That they even made (are making?) a plushie of... with a baseball bat they called a 'terf masher'. The evidence is blinding that they are the hateful ones calling for violence.

Saying men can't be women is not violence. It's just the truth.

[–] Alecto 49 points (+49|-0) Edited

She did the interview in the hopes of getting a monstrous quote about how we're planning to kill everyone who identifies as transgender.

Whoop, there it is.

All 3 included relevant, quotable, and digestible tidbits on the motivations and actions of Ovarit and radical feminism. She deliberately used their weakest, obliquely-related quotes, then summarized Ovarit's oeuvre with quotes from our direct opposition, as if that would be a clear depiction.

Yellow journalism at its finest.

[–] womenopausal 5 points (+5|-0)

She only quoted MK, which is obviously very wierd since we're the actual admins...

[–] Alecto 2 points (+2|-0)

Exactly. I almost never see MK comment here, but you and girl_undone are active commenters and admins. I guess your opinions were too dangerous to unleash upon the public. You might have indoctrinated readers into tervenry with a single sentence of industrial-strength feminism.

[–] remquarqk 25 points (+25|-0)

She probbaly planned the entire piece before even starting her research, and it's probably a lot about wanting to make a better name as a liberal journalist.

[–] femuhnist 9 points (+9|-0)

Good point. She's young and despite being Atlantic staff, still pretty early career. This is a nice, high profile thing to get noticed by lefty journalists.

[–] Gracemtherese 1 points (+1|-0) Edited

Was it her idea or was she approached by a trans activist? At least one of the transwomen interviewed, Grace Lavery, is a college prof / activist. And why now? This interviews—and I suspect advice on follow up queries to GC feminists as well— must have been time-consuming for Lavery in the middle of the semester. I think this is the beginning of a push to roll back women’s civil rights during the Biden admin (and yes I voted for him)

Further, it is interesting, and alarming, that someone at the Atlantic gave this propaganda the green light. When Abigail Schrier was interviewed lately (after the failed Target ban), she said that multiple journalists went to their publication and proposed writing about her book, but were unsuccessful.

[–] chromodorisrex 67 points (+67|-0)

Thank you MK and thank you mod team for your hard work and dedication to women’s spaces in the face of violent threats and lazy attacks like this one. Please know how much you’re appreciated!

[–] Killer_Danish 64 points (+64|-0) Edited

Honestly, and I say this with all due respect, the constant classification of feminists' online participation as "hateful" simply because it is not ladylike, or, more specifically, doesn't conform to the patriarchy's current demands, is gaslighting. Patriarchy is what's hateful. I think you're scrounging a bit for examples to justify the narrative that you've been told and that, to be fair, you'll have to re-tell or else risk being called "hateful" yourself. I get it. Being canceled isn't easy.

Hit the nail on the head! Say the lies and omit the truth or be canceled.

[–] GCRadFem 52 points (+52|-0)

I think you're scrounging a bit for examples to justify the narrative that you've been told and that, to be fair, you'll have to re-tell or else risk being called "hateful" yourself. I get it. Being canceled isn't easy.

This is what stuck out to me about most of her questions. They were subtly (or not much at times) framed as almost a gotcha. She sounded as though she was trying to validate her point of view (or that which she heard from the genderists), rather than genuinely trying to understand or to be objective.

Thanks for posting this.

[–] [Deleted] 47 points (+47|-0)

oh this is excellent!! you should post this in the replies of the tweet by the atlantic & the author. people should be able to have ready access to both sides, especially when one of them is laughably biased and pushing an agenda.

Load more (33 comments)