You are currently browsing The Arbourist’s articles.
The rest of the article reprinted here with the exception of the hyperbolic response from the trans groups in NZ that who were afraid to debate Meghan Murphy in person on live TV.
“Meghan Murphy is a radical feminist who believes transgender women aren’t women – views that have seen her banned from Twitter.
She was the star guest at Feminism 2020 on Friday – an event organised by Speak Up For Women that was originally going to be hosted at Massey University, but cancelled before being picked up by ACT leader David Seymour and hosted at Parliament.
Murphy told Newshub Nation on Saturday her position was “pretty straightforward”.
“I don’t believe that it’s possible to change biological sex, so I think that you’re born either male or female, and you remain male or female for life.
“Being a woman isn’t a feeling – it’s a fact. I guess I don’t quite understand what the purpose is in identifying the opposite sex.”
Murphy said she has concerns about “women’s rights as a whole”, but added she feels “total empathy” towards people with gender dysphoria, mental illness and their identities.
“The problem with trans is there’s no definition of transgender – it’s just an announcement,” she told Newshub Nation. “There’s no way to discern who is transgender. It’s just something that you say.”
***Update*** Just found the transcript!
On Newshub Nation: Simon Shepherd interviews Meghan Murphy
Simon Shepherd: It’s Transgender Awareness Week, the same week a feminist group, Speak Up For Women, has brought Megan Murphy from Canada to speak in New Zealand. Murphy is a radical feminist who believes trans women aren’t women, views that have seen her banned from Twitter. We asked representatives from several trans and rainbow organisations to engage in a debate, but no one was available. So I began by asking Megan Murphy to explain her position.
Megan Murphy: Sure, I mean, my position is pretty straightforward, in my opinion. I don’t believe that it’s possible to change biological sex. So I think that you’re born either male or female, and you remain male of female for life. So I disagree with the idea that you can identify as female if you’re male. I also, of course, have concerns about gender identity legislation and policies and the way that they impact women, and particularly women’s spaces where women and girls might be particularly vulnerable, so change rooms, transition houses, prisons.
We’ll get to those specific examples in a moment. Gender self-identification — what is wrong with a trans person declaring that they’re a woman, though, if that’s how they feel?
Well, being a woman isn’t a feeling, it’s a fact. I guess I don’t quite understand what the purpose is, in identifying as the opposite sex. I understand that some people suffer from, you know, what you might call gender dysphoria.
That’s right. And that’s a medically recognised diagnosis, isn’t it?
Well, the problem is that now gender identity legislation and policy isn’t based on any kind of medical diagnosis. I would disagree with the concept of gender dysphoria, but that’s sort of a more complicated topic we could maybe get into later. But right now, what we’re talking about is literally just a person announcing that they’re the opposite sex, based on nothing, not based on any kind of mental illness or whatever.
Well, there is one thing that we should raise, though. What about intersex people — the definition is people who do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies. Where do they fit into this?
Well, they don’t fit into this, because trans people aren’t intersex, they’re just males or females who don’t identify with the gender stereotypes attached to males and females.
Yeah, but you are saying that biologically you are one or the other, but these people are both or neither.
Well, actually, with intersex conditions, usually those people are male or female, and then they have an intersex condition. There’s some people that it’s more complicated and harder to decipher, but for most people, it’s actually not that hard to decipher, and they just have abnormalities.
Right, so, if someone chooses — if they are intersex and they choose to become a female, is that acceptable to you?
Well, I mean, this conversation really doesn’t have anything to do with intersex, so I’m not particularly interested in debating that issue. I think that’s separate. And, you know, I’m not a doctor, so that’s an issue between the person and their doctor, how they want to go about dealing with this condition.
Sure, but it doesn’t fit into your—
But what we’re talking about is a male who’s obviously male, clearly male, simply saying, ‘I’m a woman,’ and expecting to be accepted as a literal female.
The non-binary community is tiny; some studies here put it at about 1%. So why does a feminist like yourself feel threatened by trans people calling themselves women?
Well, I don’t know that it’s about me feeling threatened per se. Is that I have concerns for the impact on women’s rights as a whole, and particularly marginalised women. So, for example, when we’re talking about female prisons, the women who are in female prisons are among the most marginalised people in the country. And men are being transferred to these prisons and assaulting and sexually harassing these women.
Trans people have a high suicide rate here. There’s a study recently that more than 50% of them have considered suicide in the past year. They are very marginalised as well. Shouldn’t there be some empathy towards them?
I totally have empathy towards people who struggle with gender dysphoria, who struggle with mental illness, who struggle with, you know, their identities, who are marginalised in various ways. It’s really not about empathy or a lack of empathy. I mean, we’re talking about legislation, so it has to be about more than just how you feel. And really, what I’m concerned about is why no one in this conversation seems to have empathy or concerns for women and girls — I mean, they’re totally being left out and shut out of this debate.
And you are fighting for what you say has been the oppression of women over centuries. Do you believe that, in a way, this is also the oppression of another minority, or a marginalised society — that your opinions about them is marginalising them and oppressing them?
Well, I mean, my opinions about people who identify as trans are not offensive or judgemental or hateful in any way. I’m really just saying these basic things like you can’t change your sex.
Yeah, but some cultures have accepted this for years. I mean, there’s cultures around the world that have a history of gender fluidity. So why is it an issue right now?
I don’t have an issue with gender fluidity. And many of those cultures actually didn’t necessarily accept these people as literally the opposite sex. They accepted them as, you know, a male who adopted feminine stereotypes. Or there was, like, a ‘third gender’, but it wasn’t the same as what we’re talking about now.
So you’re saying that society— In your view, should society treat trans people differently, have a different category than male or female?
No. I mean, the problem with trans is that there’s no definition of transgender. It’s just an announcement. So there’s no way to discern who is transgender. You know, what does that mean? What does it mean to be transgender? It’s just something that you say.
The transgender community feels feminists like yourself are what they call exclusionary. They call you TERFs — trans exclusionary radical feminists.
Mm-hm.
So you’re excluding them from society. That’s what their argument—
I’m definitely not excluding them from society.
So why do you object on the terms?
And I’m not excluding trans people from anything. I mean, females who identify as transgender are welcome in women’s spaces, males who identify as transgender are welcome in male spaces and welcome everywhere else. What we’re saying, what we’re talking about specifically is men, so I really feel frustrated when people start talking about it as oppression of trans people or about transphobia, for example, because it’s really not about the trans identity. It’s really about biological sex, and that’s it.
These people feel like they’ve been trapped in the wrong body. That’s one of the things that you hear.
Well, it’s not possible to be trapped in the wrong body. You’re just born with the body and you deal with it. I mean, lots of people don’t like their bodies and wish they had different bodies, but, you know, too bad.
So, you’re a male; you’re always going to be a male. That’s right? You just cannot identify—
Of course. And everyone knows that. I mean, you have to agree it’s not possible to change sex. How would that happen?
Well, medically, it’s possible to change sex.
It’s not possible to change your chromosomes. It’s not possible to change your bones. It’s not possible to change your pheromones. I mean, you can get cosmetic surgery, so you can be a male with breast implants or you can get genital surgery, but that doesn’t literally change your biological sex.
Do you think that you have the privilege in this debate?
Definitely not.
I mean, you know, you are a cis-gender woman, and—
I am not a cis-gender woman. I don’t identify with femininity.
All right.
I don’t identify with sexist gender stereotypes.
Okay. All right. So you’re a woman.
I’m a woman. I’m a female. That’s right.
Okay. You’re a female. But you are not being marginalized, are you? I mean, because women are 50% of the population. So therefore you have the power in this relationship with people—
I mean, I— Me personally— This conversation really isn’t about me personally. It’s about all women and girls, and around the world, you have to agree that women still suffer enormously in many parts of the world. I mean, in Saudi Arabia, women still, you know, can’t function on their own. They’re not allowed to drive.
Sure. So, I guess the argument is with that kind of understanding, why do you not have an understanding of people who feel like they are in the wrong bodies and they want to identify as women and that’s what their natural state should be?
You know, we can’t base legislation based on a few people’s feelings, especially when those people are male and potentially present a threat to women and girls.
Okay. Well, let’s talk—
I mean, just because a man identifies as a woman, I don’t think that means he should be allowed access to women’s change room and be able to be there naked with his penis out around women and girls.
All right. So, they can—
I think surely you can agree that’s inappropriate.
Okay, so let’s talk about the practicalities. You say that a trans woman who hasn’t had a genital change should not be allowed into women’s spaces. Is that right? In women’s changing rooms?
Definitely.
Okay. So you shouldn’t share bathrooms. What about sport? Should trans women compete against other women in sport?
I mean, this is a really big issue, and I’m really glad that you brought it up, because males have an obvious advantage over females in most sports, and that’s why they compete separately. So, you know, women fought to have the right to compete on fair ground, and that’s being rolled back really quickly, and they’re being forced to compete against males. And there’s no— There’s nothing that a man can do, you know— These are men who have gone through puberty; they have male bodies. Even if they reduce their testosterone, that doesn’t mean that they—
Because many sports bodies do have levels of testosterone that are acceptable to have trans women versus women.
I know, but those men still have more muscle mass, their bones are different. You know, males have, like— their bodies are completely different than female bodies. They have different organs — they have bigger lungs, they have bigger hands, they have longer limbs, and you can’t change any of that by reducing testosterone.
What about self-identification on passports and drivers’ licences, these official kinds of documents?
I mean, I don’t see the point, but, again, I think that it’s dangerous to legally change a person’s sex, because what that means is that then that person, if he’s male and he has changed his sex to female on his ID and whatnot, then he must be accepted in women’s transition houses, in female prisons, in women’s change rooms.
Are trans women really a threat in those kinds of places?
Definitely not trans women. Men. Males. So, it doesn’t matter if you identify as trans or not. I don’t think that trans women are any more dangerous or predatorial than any other man, and I don’t even think all men are predatorial. But we know that the people who are predatorial towards women, who sexually harass women, who sexually assault women are generally males, not females.
So you’re saying that a male cannot change their spots if they’re a bad male, whether they be a trans woman or a male?
I mean, I hope that men can change their spots. By transitioning, they’re definitely not changing anything. That’s not the kind of change that we’re looking for.
You say that self-identification is a regressive ideology that’s trying to erase sex-based rights. So you’re saying that if somebody wants to self-ID as a trans woman, they’re erasing women’s rights.
I think that if ‘woman’ no longer has a definition and there’s no such thing as a women, then there’s no basis for women’s rights.
Nice to see a Hillary Clinton speaking up and addressing the fact that transgender ideology needs to be examined and debated in regards to how it affects women.
“To repeat, Hillary Clinton – that’s Hillary ‘basket of deplorables’ Clinton – has quite carefully and deliberately said that women have ‘legitimate’ concerns about transgender issues and those concerns should be recognized.
There are those, in the UK and US, who refuse to accept that questions and critical thinking about this issue are legitimate, and who refuse to acknowledge that those concerns are felt across the political spectrum. Even though the organized campaigns to raise those issues, especially A Woman’s Place UK, are mainly driven by women on the traditional left of the Labour party, there are trans rights activists and progressive campaigners who persist in claiming that this is all a confection of the wicked right.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the fact that Hillary Clinton is among those who say there are indeed legitimate questions here will quieten those claims, and maybe even prompt more people to start listening.
Or perhaps Clinton will simply be treated like all those other women who have dared to question transgender orthodoxy and find herself consigned to the ‘wrong side of history’ with the other witches and heretics.”
Time to examine trans ideology and what it means in society, the sooner the better.
Intersectionality is one of the positive additions that heralds from Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw. Her concept of intersectionality is as follows – “The main argument of this black feminist paper is that the experience of being a black woman cannot be understood in terms of being black and of being a woman considered independently, but must include the interactions between the two, which frequently reinforce each other.” Elegant isn’t it? Simply – one must consider the many axis of challenges and oppression that people face and how they interact with each other.
Intersectionality changes though once run through the mill of gender ideology. Intersectionality magically becomes synonymous with being inclusive which is distinctly not what the term means. I cringe when someone says that they are an ‘intersectional feminist’ because inevitably it means that they have gone down the rabbit-hole of regressive politics and now somehow believe that men should be centred in feminism because those men who choose to enact female sex stereotypes suddenly become the most oppressed people in society.
That friends, is grade ‘A’ bullshit. Feminism is necessarily an exclusive category, and it is reserved for those occupying the females sex class. One cannot refuse to be in said sex class, nor can others somehow magically identify into it. Patriarchy, whether you believe it exists or not, defines men and women into correspondingly dominant and subservient roles in society based on the immutable factor of which sex class you happen to be born into.
The embrace of this bastardized intersectionality leads to a great deal of confusion, as Andrew Sullivan illustrates in this excerpt.
“But now I’m confused, and I don’t think I’m alone. Slowly but surely, the term “sex” has slowly drifted in meaning and become muddled with gender. And that has major consequences for what homosexuality actually is, consequences that are only beginning to be properly understood. Take the Equality Act, the bill proposed by the biggest LGBTQ lobby group, the Human Rights Campaign, backed by every single Democratic presidential candidate, and passed by the House last May. Its core idea is to enhance the legal meaning of the word “sex” so it becomes “sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity).”
The Act provides four different ways to understand the word “sex,” only one of which has any reference to biology. Sex means first “a sex stereotype”; secondly “pregnancy, childbirth, or a related condition”; thirdly “sexual orientation or gender identity”; and last “sex characteristics, including intersex traits.” Yes, at the end, we have “sex characteristics” in there — i.e., biological males and females — qualified, as it should be, by the intersex condition. But it’s still vague. “Sex characteristics” can mean biologically male or female, but can also mean secondary sex characteristics, like chest hair, or breasts, which can be the effect of hormone therapy. So in fact, the Act never refers to men and women as almost every human being who has ever existed on Earth understands those terms.
The definition of “gender identity” in the Equality Act is “the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of the individual’s designated sex at birth.” Notice that this views “sex” as merely “designated” at birth. It seems to have no deeper meaning than a provisional social label attached by others. (That’s why the current trans-friendly terms for babies are not “male” and “female,” but “AMAB” — assigned male at birth — or “AFAB” — assigned female at birth.) It is as if we have redefined all of humanity around the tiny minority that is trans or intersex, so that the exception no longer proves the rule, but completely redefines it.
For a glimpse of what this means in practice, here’s a Canadian website, Sex-Ed School, relying on the resources of The Sex Information and Education Council of Canada. In this clip from their web series, the sex educators ask the elementary-school kids if “everyone born with a vulva is a girl.” Most of the kids say yes. But they’re wrong. The correct answer is that “our genitals don’t determine our gender and people born with vulvas can be boys.” Gender, the young kids are told, is “how you feel on the inside about whether you’re a boy or a girl, a man or a woman, if you’re nonbinary, feel like neither or both. People can also be fluid, feel more like female, more like a male based on the day or time. It’s all individual.” This is being taught to school kids ages 9 through 12 as fact by people who say they are sex researchers and educators.
And notice how “boy” and “girl” are in the very same category with the very same status as “fluid” and “nonbinary”. In the sex-ed course, the first lesson is not on the differences between men and women and how they make babies, as one might naïvely imagine. No, it’s on consent, not sex, and then there are episodes for gender and orientation, but still no lesson on sex itself, on the natural reproductive differences between boys and girls, which is how humans exist at all. The dolls they use for reference are sex-free, Ginger and Blue. The teacher tells us that one of them uses “they” as a pronoun. One lesson has the kids attaching toy versions of penises, vulvas, boobs, balls, which the kids assign at random. The teachers almost never say “boys” and “girls,” it’s always “people.” So some people have breasts and some people have penises.
In these lesson plans, here’s the definition of homosexuality: “a person’s sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted.” Homosexuality is thereby redefined as homogenderism. It’s no longer about attraction to the same sex, but to the same gender. I’m no longer homosexual; I’m homogender. But what if the whole point of my being gay is that I’ve always been physically attracted to men? And by men, I mean people with XY chromosomes, formed by natural testosterone, with male genitals, which is what almost every American outside these ideological bubbles means by “men.” I do not mean people with XX chromosomes, formed by estrogen, with female genitals, who have subsequently used testosterone to masculinize their female body — even though I would treat them with the respect and dignity they deserve in every context.”
How can we fight against sexism if we cannot define what a woman is, or what sex is? Reasonable people have to stand up against gender ideology, as it serves only to erode the rights, boundaries, and spaces of women.
Great Feminist Thoughts, go read the entire article.
No argument can be had if the parties cannot agree on the definitions of their terms.
It is not enough to defend the gender-critical stance by saying, “words have meanings,” because the meanings assigned to words can and do change over time. “Gay” used to mean happy or cheerful. Now it generally means homosexual (or, in regressive pseudo-liberal kweer culture, I suppose, maybe something closer to “nonconforming in some way and vaguely homoerotic”).
It is more useful to understand that our existing words were developed to describe our existing reality. Males and females exist in the human species as in all other mammals, so we created words to describe them. For deer we have doe and buck. For chickens we have hen and rooster. For humans we have man and woman. If we stopped using the word “woman” to mean “adult female,” adult females would still exist. Reality does not…
View original post 1,850 more words
bleatmop
The Intransigent One
Mystro
The Arbourist
Your opinions…