> How can you claim something to not be based on reality without even reading it?

I read the review; that was enough to determine the author wasn't arguing in good faith.

>news article based on the actions of the president?

I actually read the editorial piece that was suggested. The author is arguing based on a definition of toxic masculinity that dates back to the 80s, and not how it is used today.

> Every writer and journalist of The Atlantic is invalid and wrong, and seemingly complicit and guilty by association?

Nice strawman argument you have that. Why don't you actually argue against what I said?