233

Yes, I was shocked to see where this was published too. In the Opinion section, but the Times would never have published this a few months ago. The ice is finally beginning to thaw.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/opinion/the-far-right-and-far-left-agree-on-one-thing-women-dont-count.html

https://archive.ph/XIUfa

Yes, I was shocked to see where this was published too. In the Opinion section, but the Times would never have published this a few months ago. The ice is finally beginning to thaw. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/opinion/the-far-right-and-far-left-agree-on-one-thing-women-dont-count.html https://archive.ph/XIUfa

162 comments

[–] DraDra 58 points Edited

I am LIVING for the comments.

TRAs are going all out. The writer's twitter has ALREADY been permanently suspended https://twitter.com/annndreeaaaaa/status/1543652156342951936

It is very important that the NYT gets as much positive feedback for publishing this as possible. Please consider either submitting positive feedback or writing a letter to the editor. Make sure to name the article: The Far Right and Far Left Agree on One Thing: Women Don’t Count (and URL if necessary).

Submit feedback here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/homepage/contact-newsroom.html Letter to the Editor: <letters@nytimes.com> Letter to the editor guidelines: https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014925288-How-to-submit-a-letter-to-the-editor

or send an email to the editorial editors: <editorial@nytimes.com>.

It seems that she closed her Twitter account in April (and wrote a column about it) and then someone else started using the account and got suspended (see https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1543685983878668292). Very confusing.

[–] mrsmeyers 30 points Edited

This is unbelievable. There are people who have committed actual crimes that still have their Twitter accounts.

How anyone can think these creeps are an oppressed class is beyond ignorance.

I wonder if it's possible to pin comments? If so I hope yours gets pinned.

Twitter is going nuts over this. I only see negative reactions with 15k+ likes promoted, but when I clicked on the replies it was about even between people saying "wow the NYT is so gross" and "omg this article is spot on!" But you have to click to see "some replies might be offensive" to see people supporting it. It's crazy how they hide any dissent.

[–] hmimperialtortie AGP = evil 3 points

So where are these comments? I don’t see any in the article.

Hi sister tortie, You have to create an account (free) to read the article on the NYT website. At the bottom of the article is a pale blue-ish/grey bar saying "Read 2853 comments". Click on that to see the comments.

Comment section is now closed but you can write to <letters@nytimes.com> to express approval of article.

right under the main photo you should a few icons share, save, and comment (furthest on the right). Select the comment icon and it should take you there.

Or go to the end of the article you should see a blue bar saying Read Comments, if you click that it should bring them up.

It's a total pattern with them. the better and well-reasoned the argument, the greater the TRA backlash and tantrum-ing.

The author is definitely on the right track with this article.

What’s groundbreaking here is that she was allowed to publish this as someone who isn’t thrilled about Roe being overturned. The New York Times has conservative op-ed columnists and has for awhile. I do not know if they’ve said anything as blatant as this about the transgender stuff, but it seems like everywhere I’ve looked in the past, the left leaning publications would only platform conservative takes which is suspicious to say the least.

This! The more people on the left and moderates see that you don't have to be a conservative to object to this ideology, the more opposition we'll see to genderism by moderates and liberals. Breaking that automatic association that if you oppose genderism you are a conservative is what we need to win this fight in the U.S.

I saw a comment on Facebook from someone who watched the daily show episode with that idiot Veronica ivy (the cheating male cyclist.) Ivy said “if you really think trans women are women , then we belong in women’s sports.” This commenter said something like “I’m left wing , Democrat, completely support trans rights , hate trump. But I don’t think trans women should be in women’s sports . Maybe I’m not as left wing and liberal as I thought , this is distressing.” And then a bunch of other people replied “no we think the same , you are still left wing . This position is extreme.”

So yes , I absolutely agree with you. In the USA , any dissent at all to trans ideology is automatically cast as right wing so it has been very easy for trans activists to ramp up their demands. More and more left wing people have to start actually thinking and speaking out.

[–] Nediljka_Orwell PITA crone 46 points

It strikes me as incredibly odd (and depressing) that people can't figure that one out on their own. Agreeing with conservatives on this one single issue does not revoke your liberal card. It just reveals that you're someone who's not afraid to draw outside the Party lines now and then. Which happens! On all sides!

Common ground is not radioactive, FFS. It's where you stand and fight the enemy. Together.

Hitler loved dogs and was pro animal welfare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany)is means if you love dogs and are pro animal welfare then you are just like Hitler! Wait..were are you going? Why are you slowly backing up away from me?

I all seriousness, I don't know why people can't see how silly it is to be oh no, people I think are bad agree with something i agree with. This means that that is bad. It is one of the mosst illogial things I have ver heard of.

Which happens! On all sides!

I agree with your larger point, but on the right it’s not happening much at the moment. Part of the Trump wing’s effort to take over the Republican Party has been a cult-style purity spiral: you can’t just love the tax cuts or the right-wing judges, you also have to believe that Covid is a hoax and the election was stolen and Hillary something child abuse something pizza place blah blah QAnon blah blah lizards blah de blah I don’t even know. And yeah, on the left there are some misogynists trying to take the word woman away from women and give it to trans-identified fetishists, and if you disagree you must be a QAnon something something.

They're terrified of being labeled the things they regularly call conservatives.

But today, a number of academics, uber-progressives, transgender activists, civil liberties organizations and medical organizations are working toward an opposite end: to deny women their humanity, reducing them to a mix of body parts and gender stereotypes.

I cannot believe a woman was allowed to publish this in the times! Holy shit!

Planned Parenthood, once a stalwart defender of women’s rights, omits the word “women” from its home page. NARAL Pro-Choice America has used “birthing people” in lieu of “women.” The American Civil Liberties Union, a longtime defender of women’s rights, last month tweeted its outrage over the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade as a threat to several groups: “Black, Indigenous and other people of color, the L.G.B.T.Q. community, immigrants, young people.” It left out those threatened most of all: women. Talk about a bitter way to mark the 50th anniversary of Title IX.

OMG i cannot believe this is a mainstream leftie outlet. 😲

Women, of course, have been accommodating. They’ve welcomed transgender women into their organizations. They’ve learned that to propose any space just for biological women in situations where the presence of males can be threatening or unfair — rape crisis centers, domestic abuse shelters, competitive sports — is currently viewed by some as exclusionary. If there are other marginalized people to fight for, it’s assumed women will be the ones to serve other people’s agendas rather than promote their own.

Yes! And this nanny bullshit is precisely why we lost Roe!

Women didn’t fight this long and this hard only to be told we couldn’t call ourselves women anymore. This isn’t just a semantic issue; it’s also a question of moral harm, an affront to our very sense of ourselves.

This woman is dropping truth bombs and I am here for it!

But women are not the enemy here. Consider that in the real world, most violence against trans men and women is committed by men but, in the online world and in the academy, most of the ire at those who balk at this new gender ideology seems to be directed at women.

Because transgender ideology is, at its core, a misogynistic ideology. They don't care about protecting the vulnerable. Its about keeping females in their place playing cheerleaders and handmaidens to men in lipstick

And the comments are terrific!!! Here's a juicy one by Jackie in Missouri:

"It seems to me that the hierarchy is now: Men, zygotes, trans-women, non-binary, and biological women. We're at the back of the bus again."

WOW!!!!!! Not just beginning to thaw, this is CLIMATE CHANGE!

[–] Lipsy i/just/can't 65 points

Sweet hot DAMN! Looks like a certain number of Female staff writers' last fuck went out the window with Roe...

[–] ProxyMusic 50 points Edited

Looks like a certain number of Female staff writers' last fuck went out the window with Roe...

I suspect the sea change that seems to be taking place at the NYTimes is more likely because the editorial side of the paper is under new management. The appointment of a new executive editor and deputy editors was announced in April. At that time, the NYT said the new management team would take over some time in June.

The female staff writers at the NYT don't have the clout to bring about this kind of change the way you assume. The NYT is a profit-making business corporation first and foremost. Changes in the POV and coverage that occur at the NY Times, and similar changes that occur at other media companies like Warner Bros, come about because of what goes on in board rooms and the top-tier executive suites and on the stock exchange (and in the case of the NYT, in the high ranks of the DNC). In the chambers and corridors of power, as they say, not in news rooms.

What I noticed during Pride month (June) was the lack of opinion essays by trans and non-binary authors. In previous years,, there were 10 or more essays by these these writers. And, as I recall, the comments were not very supportive. (A lot of people commented about the writer’s narcissism.) Something has happened. While some articles are still gushingly woke, others have taken a more neutral stance when discussing trans issues. Trans people have attacked the articles, calling them transphobic. Maybe the NYT is returning to more objective, neutral reporting, which is what journalism is supposed to do.

Hate the break the news to you but the female staff writers at NYT have been part of the problem. These ultra Ivy educated elites may be female but they've been part of the Woke army completely out of touch pushing all this shit.

Nope. This is the NYT trying to recapture its position as a shepherd of public opinion, by trying to get back out in front of a movement that was running away from them.

Yes. And the editorial change happened in June, so I bet a bunch of women staff writers have been dusting off their work.

[–] Lipsy i/just/can't 5 points

Oh, interesting.

I guess no reason why it couldn't be both, esp WRT any Female writers who lived the pre-Roe years at all.

Either that or they saw the mostly positive response to the Bazelon article and realized their readers could tolerate different viewpoints.

Regardless, this is such a positive development, given that this is the most prominent newspaper in the United States and one with huge ripple effects on other media outlets.

If you can search back over the last two years, look for stories involving trans folk and trans rights, especially articles where the Times gives favorable slant to a trans person pushing women out of the way, check out the readers comments. They’re like 85% against, and articulate with intelligence and thoughtfulness. Meanwhile, editors pick from the 15% to highlight.

Ha, too right!

[–] Lipsy i/just/can't 8 points

Editors too, I gotta say.. At very least, the ones who greenlit this here firestartin' little piece😍 Guuuuurl

In other news, I looked out my window this morning and saw the most beautiful flock of creatures flying overhead. “Oink, oink,” they bellowed, as one.

[–] Eava 52 points

Pamela Paul is the new GC opinion writer. Pamela Paul became an Opinion columnist for The New York Times in 2022. She was previously the editor of The New York Times Book Review for nine years, where she oversaw book coverage and hosted the Book Review podcast. She is the author of eight books: “100 Things We’ve Lost to the Internet” (named a best book of 2021 by The Chicago Tribune), “My Life With Bob,” “How to Raise a Reader,” “By the Book,” “Parenting, Inc.,” “Pornified” (a best book of 2005 by The San Francisco Chronicle), “The Starter Marriage and the Future of Matrimony” (a best book of 2002 by The Washington Post) and “Rectangle Time,” a book for children.

Before joining The Times, she was a contributor to Time and a correspondent for The Economist. She was a columnist for The New York Times Sunday Styles section and Worth magazine. Her work has appeared in numerous publications, including The Atlantic, The Washington Post and Vogue. She has lived in Thailand, France and Britain and currently lives in New York with her husband and children.

She's GC? How in the world did she get hired by the NYT?????? I wonder if seeing Bari Weiss making $1million a month made the brass at the top take a second look.

I dunno if she is GC, but she was editor of the Book Review when it decided to review Helen Joyce's book - and selected Jesse Singal to write the review. So I have a sense she is clued-in. Once anyone intelligent and feminist starts looking into gender ideology and the trans movement, most end up being critical.

Is Bari Weiss actually making that much money from her Substack? Fucking good for her, she deserves it.

No, I was exaggerating. But she's making serious bucks. Here's an estimate of the top earners in 2020 if it gives you an idea. https://guzey.com/substack-earnings/. She started hers in early 2021 and almost immediately joined the top. She's got to be making more than Yascha Mounk at least. She definitely has way more subscribers than him. Them canceling her actually made her a rich woman.

[–] Eava 15 points

I don't know that they hired her because she is GC, or if she would even describe herself that way, but most of her columns so far have been pretty explicitly anti-gender ideology.

She took on the attacks on the author of The Men and anyone defending her. My husband, who is slowly waking up to gender ideology, Sent it to me when it was published. I couldn't believe it was in the NYT.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/12/opinion/sandra-newman-men.html?action=click&block=associated_collection_recirc&impression_id=fbd84702-fae6-11ec-9489-1bab11ba8a18&index=2&pgtype=Article&region=footer

Guess I have a few more books to add to my "to buy" list. I want to support her.

I will say proudly that my comment is among the top 35 liked!

Just spent the last two hours reading comments, upvoting those who support women. What a lift to see so many women coming out of the woodwork to validate the author's viewpoint.

This is fantastic. Most of the NYT articles I've seen that come close to being GC are either written by men or have weak language reading like "well, maybe we should kind of maybe consider the feelings of cisgender females????" But she just outright said what bullshit this is. And called out Planned Parenthood.

[–] EternaEspiral evil latina terf 1 points

I mean... She still says " transgender women" as if that was an actual thing that exists, but it's still not bad!

Load more (34 comments)