There are things I dislike about the way Nina's been treated.
I wish that the Open Letter had been treated with a great deal more critical caution than it was - it was of questionable and never-identified provenance, tendentious to the point of being indistinguishable from parody, and clearly designed to cause confusion and alarm rather than to clarify the stakes or provide a sound basis for judgement. In the event, people shared it around without, it seems to me, quite believing what they were reading, but feeling nevertheless that there must be something in it (or that it was the best means available of conveying an unease that they felt but couldn't identify clearly, either for lack of precise information or because the basis of that unease was things that couldn't properly be made public).
I wish The Wire had been more forthright about why they didn't want her writing for them any more. It might have stung to be told "you've become a reputational liability and we're not prepared to stick our necks out for someone who's taken the kinds of stands you've recently been taking on things", but it would have been kinder in the long run than the mealy-mouthed way they actually went about it.
I wish the TerfsOutOfArt account had stated their case against her in a document signed by its authors, publicised it appropriately, then directed anyone they felt needed to be informed about the matter to that document. I dislike the mean-girls style of activism - whispering campaigns and leaning on people to dissociate themselves from the tainted person. No doubt it gets results, but it's the way to act if you want to destroy a person -and it can be done back to you just as readily.
If I compare these things to Matt XG's explicit, public, owned-by-him statement of what he thought the problem was and why he was no longer prepared to support her, it's like night and day. There are ways to do these things in a principled manner.