You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Meghan Murphy’ tag.
Do you think referring to a man as a she/her is stupid? Yeah, well you may have to watch your step and bite your tongue in Canada or face the consequences. Write your MP and get them started on amending these laws to include a lick of common sense.
‘Back in 2016, I fought tirelessly just to publish anything, anywhere, explaining my concerns about Bill C-16, Canada’s gender identity legislation. Almost no outlet would consider it (certainly not our publicly-funded CBC), except, finally, The National Observer, who did me the favour. As a result, I was invited (via a Conservative senator) to testify against the bill at the Senate — I and Pour les droits des femmes Quebec (PDF), a Quebecois feminist group, were the only women and feminists invited to speak against the bill, and I suggested a representative from Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter also make a presentation, to put forward a feminist argument in favour of women-only space.
Our arguments were completely ignored by our left wing political representatives in the NDP, as well as by the Liberal government that proposed the bill, and Bill C-16 passed almost unchallenged. I had suspected as much, but wanted it to at least be on record that there was some push back from women/feminists. The only person who really received any traction on his arguments was Jordan Peterson, who expressed concerns about “compelled speech.”
This trend has persisted ever since. Women’s concerns about the sexism and danger of gender identity ideology have been almost completely ignored by Canadian media and politicians, and the debate has been consistently framed as one of “good, progressive, open-minded people who care about the rights and safety of marginalized groups” vs “evil, religious right bigots who hate gays, lesbians, and trans-identified people.”
This has played out yet again in our attempts to challenge amendments to the “conversion therapy” bill proposed by the Liberals.
Last year, David Lametti, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, reintroduced proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, which would criminalize “conversation therapy,” commonly understood to be the practice of attempting to turn gay people straight. But the proposed amendments in Bill C-6 (which later became Bill C-4) conflated this homophobic practice with the practice of affirming “gender identity.” Lametti told the Canadian House of Commons that “conversion therapy refers to misguided efforts to change the sexual orientation of bisexual, gay, and lesbian individuals to heterosexual [or to] change a person’s gender identity to cisgender.”
By adding “gender identity” to the bill, the Liberals succeeded in conflating homosexuality with the postmodern notion that one can “feel” like the opposite sex, and that this feeling in fact means you literally are the opposite sex. The new legislation will criminalize those who profit from or advertise “conversion therapy,” including therapists and medical practitioners who do not practice the “affirmative model” — which means confirming an individual’s “trans identity” unquestioningly. Because adults do have the right to make their own choices about their bodies and whether they wish to undergo cosmetic surgery, what we are really talking about here are children and teens — individuals who are not equipped to understand the long-term consequences of medical transition on their bodies and lives, and are sent to therapists before proceeding to hormone blockers, hormone treatment, then surgery. Indeed, therapists should encourage these youth to wait it out, not to rush forward on a path to medical transition — this is the responsible thing to do. Instead, they are now obligated to take the opposite approach.
Yesterday, the Senate passed Bill C-4 with no objections, which means it will be essentially illegal in Canada to question or challenge a child’s declaration of transgender identity and their desire to socially and/or medically “transition” to the opposite sex.
This time around, feminist groups (and many other concerned individuals) did attempt to organize and speak against the bill, but were again ignored by the media, and clearly not taken seriously by politicians.
It is already difficult to question the legitimacy of gender identity ideology in Canada, and already practically impossible to access therapy that might allow a teen to grow out of their desire to transition, as so many do. This new legislation ensures it is now impossible to offer therapy that does not approach transition as the best path.
Moreover, the Liberal government is currently working to push through legislation criminalizing so-called “hate speech” online, which would surely include challenges to gender identity ideology and, for example, make it illegal to use correct pronouns to describe someone who prefers to use the pronouns traditionally reserved for the opposite sex.
Essentially, the Canadian government, considering itself ever-so-progressive, is criminalizing not only feminist speech, but free speech and critical thought as a whole. One will no longer be permitted to challenge government orthodoxy in Canada, and dissenters will not only be silenced, but punished under the law.
It is terrifying, and means an end to democracy and civil liberties in Canada.
The only solution is non-compliance — with all of it, though my solution has been to leave Canada, with the knowledge that I can no longer work and exist in my country without persecution. I will absolutely continue to speak and work for women’s rights and constitutional freedoms everywhere, including in Canada, but not based out of my home country. It is difficult for me to envision a free future when so few are standing up and fighting back, and when our political representatives refuse to respect and hear our concerns, voices, and rights. We the people are our only hope — and I hope we fail to comply.’
Meghan Murphy doesn’t hold anything back as she decries the tomfoolery of the gender-magic on display from the US federal government.
“Yesterday, we witnessed a historic moment: US assistant health secretary Rachel Levine was sworn in as the first ever female four-star admiral of the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. Wait, no. That’s not right… Let me start again.
Yesterday, the man President Joe Biden selected as assistant health secretary became the sixth man to be named four-star admiral of the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.
Yesterday, America became a laughing stock, as the president elected by the good people of America (not to be confused with the bad people of America) and all of mainstream media presented the appointment of an old, fat white man (with long hair!) as admiral of the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps as a historic moment.
“Dr. Rachel Levine, the nation’s most senior transgender official, made history again Tuesday by becoming the first openly transgender four-star officer across any of the country’s eight uniformed services,” NBC News reported.
The New York Times went even further, tweeting:
“Dr. Rachel Levine was sworn in as the first female four-star admiral in the history of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, a uniformed service of more than 6,000 health, science and engineering professionals.”
To be fair, they were only repeating what had been announced by the Biden administration, which was that “Admiral Levine now serves as the highest ranking official in the USPHS Commissioned Corps and its first ever female four star admiral.” But to also be fair, it is the job of the New York Times (and all media) to report the truth, not to simply parrot whatever the government feeds them. And, to be fair, Rachel Levine is not female and never will be. And, to be fair, everyone knows it.
What kind of planet are we living on wherein we all pretend putting yet another man into a role that has always been filled by men equates to “a giant step forward towards equality as a nation”? Or “a history-making show of diversity and inclusion”? Has there never before been a man who enjoys wearing women’s clothing in such a position? Do they screen men for fetishes before they can be appointed to admiral? Clearly they don’t screen them for having spent time as military officers, as Levine has not had any military career to speak of. I suppose his time spent in dresses makes up for his lack of service.”
Megan Murphy describes on of the common argumentative tactics used against women speaking up for their rights and boundaries.
“This is a common trope offered up by gender identity ideologues: that women fear men will use “trans” as a disguise to “trick” women. This misunderstands the feminist position on gender identity, which is not necessarily that trans-identified people are lying, or trying to fool anyone, but that it is simply impossible to change sex. They have, rather, been “fooled” by trans activism itself, into believing it is possible for a male to become female, through faith, insistence, surgery, or clothing choice. There is no “legitimate” transwomen, in that no man can ever become a woman, no matter how badly they want it or believe it. It’s not about trickery or cruelty, it’s about facts. The “fear” is not of trans-identified people or of dishonest men, playing at trans to access women’s spaces. The “fear” is simply of men, regardless of identity.”
A segment of the left has really lost the plot and gone of the rails. The idea that feelings are more important that material reality, that one should expect others to validate your personal choice and that sex is changeable have all originated from the political wing I used to call my home. It was bullshite like this that made me distance myself from the so called ‘progressives’ because much of their ideology is a regressive, male-centric circus shit shitshow of tragically absurd assertions and baseless presuppositions. Meghan Murphy writes on the Feminism Current about the superciliousness of the woke left:
“Last year, Sessi Kuwabara Blanchard published an article at Vice complaining that his heterosexual male friends didn’t want to sleep with him, writing:
“I’m single this Valentine’s Day, and I feel like shit. I feel undesirable, and I feel powerless to change that. Most of all, I want to know why the guys I crush on, namely cis, straight, male 20-somethings, won’t fuck me.”
When Blanchard discussed this problem with his friends, they tried to ease him into the truth, letting Blanchard know that pestering his male friends about this would only make him feel bad: “They said the guys I like won’t fuck me because they’re straight.” Blanchard wrote this off as “transphobia” — his friends were *gasp* “implying that heterosexuality is male attraction to women,” meaning he didn’t “make the cut.”
Despite Blanchard’s insistence that “desire is fluid,” the categories of “gay” and “straight” exist for a reason: this describes the vast majority of people’s sexual preferences. And there is very little politicizing can do about this.
A hard-to-hear reality I’ve made clear many times is that the crux of transgenderism, for many who identify as trans, is delusion. And that trans identity rests on others — the “woke,” as it were — playing along. When we use preferred pronouns, we participate in this, as we do when we refer to trans-identified males as women, and trans-identified females as male. Many claim this is simply an issue of being kind, respectful, and polite, but, in the end, these lies hurt trans-identified people, as well as the rest of us. The result is a group of males left wondering why, despite being told they are literally women, are not viewed as or treated as literal women. And women are left without rights, boundaries, or the ability to speak the truth.
The woke, I’m sorry to tell you, are liars. This is not a coincidence; it is the basis of their politics.
The answers to the questions asked by the woke are easy. But they pretend there is some long, deep discussion to be had about, as Blanchard puts it, “what it would take for someone to want to fuck me.”
The question is wrong, of course, and intentionally so. And the answer is obvious. If we were to engage with the truth, Blanchard and Violet would be less hurt by the answers. Instead, we’ve decided the lie is what is “nice.”
The time for ‘nice’ is fucking over. Entitled males need to step back and get themselves waaaaay back to their own lane.
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.
This is the talk that the transactivists don’t want you hear. They protested, they shouted, they tried to intimidate the Library and women organizing the event. Share this widely folks, do not let the woke totalitarians win.
Click the link to see the Q&A. This is what transactivists are trying to shut down. Do you see the hate? I most certainly do not.
Contact your MP, get bill C-16 revoked.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…