The campaign against Meghan Murphy

Just out of curiousity, what's the connection to the BC NDP?

Unfortunately, I don't think that most feminists really care, quiz. I think that many would actually support her ban from twitter.

Germaine Greer is in the same boat as Meagan Murphy and both are considered pariah's.

i may be wrong but I don't think so.

well i'm not a feminist nor are my friends but we're pissed. if you're right then no wonder we refuse the label.

mom considers herself a feminist but her friends don't and she says she can get them rolling against the NDP in Nanaimo and north Island and voting Green over this. i guess it would be nurses, teachers, assorted red necks and the 60+ voting crowd she is going to target.

i wanna know where feminist currents went.

thanks misfit for the article vote Green it is.

between Ms Oger attacking human rights and trying to take away a person's livelihood in a decidedly unfeminist way and the BC NDP pissing the teachers off their hopes to win the next election is slim.

Quote:

Already, simpson said they have faced attacks on Twitter for being critical of the VPL — which simpson said proved their point that trans people face public discrimination, spurred on by events such as Murphy’s.

Uh, were these "attacks" (whatever that's supposed to mean, in 280 characters or less) for being critical of the Library?

If so, that's not the same as "because you're one of those trans people Meghan Murphy talked about".

I love how this is already at the point of "hate speech".  Wait for arguments about "survival" -- they're next.  If "trans" teens are getting hassled at school, it's not because their peers hang on Murphy's every word.

Seems to me that trans activists aren't fighting for the right to be hired, or rent an apartment, or have their chosen name on their passport.  It really looks more like they're fighting for some kind of official proclamation that they're "real" women or men, not just in the legal sense, but in the social and biological sense too.

That's quite the bit of mind reading there, Magoo. Maybe you should advertise your services.

And actually C-16 - the law Murphy campaigned against - does concern discrimination when it comes to hiring, renting an apartment, or being turned away from businesses. Also, it concerns discrimination against gender identity and expression when it comes to being a victim of crime, like violent attack. Transgender day of remembrance was just a couple of days ago - November 21.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/11/19/transgender-canadians-violence-...

So no, it isn't just about someone getting your name wrong, and people are still free to hold whatever  attitudes they want.

Not sure what you mean, Magoo. People do still suffer discrimination based on gender when it comes to housing, work, and other things, contrary to your comment upthread. And many are also victims of violence because of it.

The fact that there is now a law concerning it (and in fact there already were provincial laws) doesn't end that.

And people still do deliberately refuse to recognize gender, so that isn't in the past either.

Smith wrote:

"And actually C-16 - the law Murphy campaigned against - does concern discrimination when it comes to hiring, renting an apartment, or being turned away from businesses. Also, it concerns discrimination against gender identity and expression when it comes to being a victim of crime, like violent attack."

you imply that Meghan Murphy is against transgender women having these rights and I don't think that this is what she was discussing at all in relation to Bill C-16

I am of the opinion that Meghan Murphy and Hilla Karvet were voicing their concern that Bill C-16 does not properly differentiate between biological women and transgender women and that biological women have separate histories and issues that biological women need to have the right to refuse services which are designed for biological women if that is what the women want and that biological women should be able to have the right to organize as women and not have that necessarily include transwomen at all times. There were no clauses inserted into the bill which allowed the rights of biological women to turn transwomen away for any reason.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4110634

The rights under C-16 aren't specific to transgender people. They apply to everyone.

And the case I mentioned did in fact recognize that Vancouver Rape Relief was allowed to discriminate against someone based on gender because of the nature of work they do.

But arguing for the "right" to turn people away is actually a recipe for disaster, if you think it through. That's not how this is going to be solved, especially on ground zero issues like public bathrooms and change rooms.

Quote:

Not sure what you mean, Magoo. People do still suffer discrimination based on gender when it comes to housing, work, and other things, contrary to your comment upthread. And many are also victims of violence because of it.

Do you think that's why trans-activists have it in for Murphy?  Because she's refusing them jobs or apartments?  Or committing violent crimes against them?

Or else what do you figure it's really about?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Do you think that's why trans-activists have it in for Murphy?  Because she's refusing them jobs or apartments?  Or committing violent crimes against them?

"have it in for"? A bit loaded, don't you think?  I don't know about "trans activists", but I know why I have a problem with some of her ideas.

For one thing she argued directly against protecting people from gender-based discrimination and violence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLFHuE5uzrk

And like those who argue orientation is a choice, it may not be on the same order as bashing or killing, but it does feed into the same hatred.

Again, not to say she isn't an important voice in some things, but like Germain Greer, this is one area in which she is on the wrong side of history.

Quote:

"have it in for"? A bit loaded, don't you think?

No, not really.  How should I say it?  Shall I go with "preoccupied with"?

Quote:

And like those who argue orientation is a choice, it may not be on the same order as bashing or killing, but it does feed into the same hatred.

I seem to recall that a few decades ago, when people thought that maybe Modern Science could find and isolate "the Gay gene", that some LGBT folk looked forward to that -- real genetic proof that they were born gay.

Others argued that we shouldn't be looking for some "Gay gene", because if we ever found one then homophobic states and individuals would probably refuse to recognize the legitimacy of someone who identified as gay but lacked that gene.  In other words, proving that being gay was "not a choice" would also mean that nobody could simply choose it.

The only real disagreement I have with trans-activism (or some trans theory) is that it seems necessarily underpinned by a belief in some sort of biological, hard-coded "femaleness".  I don't, personally, care if someone wants to live as a man or a woman, and I completely support their rights to work, rent, be promoted, adopt, and be safe.  But for now at least I have to draw the line at the idea that there's such a thing as a "woman's brain".  That sort of crap just brings us all right back to when women (ironically) couldn't get a job because of that "woman's brain".

And quizzical, so is it helping to protect my daughter by telling the people who challenge her going into bathrooms that they are in the right to stop her and question her?

(and at 13 she has been challenged many times just because of how she dresses and carries herself)

Is that where we are going? That she should have to prove to strangers that she is a woman just to go to the bathroom? It was the solution they came to in North Carolina, anyway.

Where did you get that idea?

Actually I said twice that it is a two-day-street, at least when it comes to those who don't recognize this as an intersectional issue. I have dealt with some on both sides of this.

Maybe go back and re-read this thread from the beginning if you don't believe me, though I just said it.

Post 226 Smith wrote in reference to Meghan Murphy:

"For one thing she argued directly against protecting people from gender-based discrimination and violence:"

Bull shit she did!!!

She argued against entrenching the terms gender identity and gender expression as the legally entrenched means to define who is a male and who is a female in Canada. She also argued that a clause needs to be placed in the bill which allows biological women to differentiate themselves from trans women and allow women the right to exclude trans women from biological women's activities and right to organize.

No one is saying that trans people do not deserve human rights and protections. They were arguing that the bill was poorly worded and hastily written without proper consultation from women's organizations.

And I agree. If a group of lesbian women want to hold a women's only music festival camp out weekend and have female bands playing and a time and place for lesbian women to enjoy the company of other women they should be allowed to do so without being harassed by transwomen.

women should be allowed to organize as women and to be allowed to exclude transwomen if they so choose. There are times and places where transwomen do not belong.

???

C-16 has nothing to do with defining who is male and female. It added protections for all Canadians based on gender identity and expression.

And if you watched her testimony she denied the existence of gender as anything other than a stereotype; she called it a trend, and a bandwagon. And she called the legislation a step backwards.

If you heard anything in there recognizing gender as grounds for human rights protection, please tell me where.

And I didn't change anything, quizzical. The question of neutral bathrooms is one of the most pressing of  gender issues. It isn't just that it affects a number of people I know. Sorry, but everyone needs to go to the bathroom.

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/vbz5qd/trans-americans-are-so-afraid...

Smith wrote:

"And if you watched her testimony she denied the existence of gender as anything other than a stereotype; she called it a trend, and a bandwagon. And she called the legislation a step backwards.

If you heard anything in there recognizing gender as grounds for human rights protection, please tell me where."

You still did not show one iota of evidence where she wishes for the denial of human rights protection for transgender people.

You claim that she denied the existence of gender as anything other than a stereotype. Well  femininity is based on stereotypes. In fact, a lot of stupid stereotypes which were used by men to keep women from seeking many jobs. The women's movement has been about fighting many of these very same stereotypes that you are criticizing Meghan Murphy for elaborating on at the Senate hearings into gender identity and gender expression. No one can draw a link between claiming that transgender women base their idea of femaleness on cliche stereotypes of women and having that mean that transgender people need to be excluded from human rights altogether.

You say that she called it a trend and a bandwagon. Well, it is not grounded by any sound science.  If she calls it a trend then that is her opinion and it too means that one cannot conclude that she wants transgender people to have no human rights.

You say that she called this legislation a step backwards. Well for biologically born women, i agree that the bill c-16 is a step backwards. Because it fails to make a clear distinction between men who feel that they are women and true women. Women and transgender women have two very different histories and needs. They are two very distinct categories of people who need human rights protections. Bill c-16 fails to make that distinction which is a very serious flaw in the legislation. It is an issue which still needs to be addressed and amended. Until that amendment is made and this is corrected, for biologically born women it is a step backwards. There is no link between expressing her concerns on this matter to her somehow denying that transpeople need human rights protection.

(self-delete.  Didn't realize which forum this was).

Oh FFS, quizzical. I have defended her being able to speak and to publish. Again, go back and read this thread; I think my response was one of the first.

But someone getting canned from  twitter for delibertately misgendering is something else entirely. That's not about standing up for rights; it is about being a jerk. Someone here doesn't want to be called a "cis-woman"? The decent thing to do is to respect that, and it is no different with trans people.

For that matter, claiming that twitter's new rule is about defending predators is just fearmongering, and playing into hateful stereotypes about transpeople:

So when we're talking about policy and legislation change that trumps women's rights and women's safety, these things like Twitter's new rules in their terms of service against "misgendering" and "dead-naming," what that means is that male predators are allowed to change their sex, change their name, erase their history. So if a man is violent, a pedophile, if he is a danger to people, to women and girls or kids in general, he's fully allowed to erase that history from the Internet and move on with his life and continue to predate.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/feminist-journalist-banned-from-twitt...

And Misfit, she argued against the very idea of gender as anything but a stereotype, and called C-16 a step backwards. How is that supporting gender protection?

As for the science, and the history, maybe you should read up a bit on that. It doesn't wash here any better than it does with climate denial:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender

Smith,

You still miss my point. What she said at the Senate Commuttee has nothing to do with denying transgender people human rights. She was critiquing her objections to the wording of the bill as it was presented for discussion and debate.

Misfit wrote:

And I would like to be clear about this. While yes I agree that gender identity is based on stereotypes the reality is that transgender people do feel that they are trapped inside the wrong bodies and that they do suffer discrimination based on those stereotypes that they believe makes them of the opposite gender. They do need human rights legislation and for that part bill c-16 was necessary and long overdue. My objection is the lack of clauses which would allow for a clear distinction between transgender people and biologically born women whenever biologically born women feel the need to make that distinction.

yup.

biological women's reality  is different than transgendered women period.

trying to shame us into disavowing who we are when 57 women have died this year alone for the crime of being a women.

will not be bullied into submission by patriarchy at play here. 

quizzical wrote:

Misfit wrote:

And I would like to be clear about this. While yes I agree that gender identity is based on stereotypes the reality is that transgender people do feel that they are trapped inside the wrong bodies and that they do suffer discrimination based on those stereotypes that they believe makes them of the opposite gender. They do need human rights legislation and for that part bill c-16 was necessary and long overdue. My objection is the lack of clauses which would allow for a clear distinction between transgender people and biologically born women whenever biologically born women feel the need to make that distinction.

yup.

biological women's reality  is different than transgendered women period.

trying to shame us into disavowing who we are when 57 women have died this year alone for the crime of being a women.

will not be bullied into submission by patriarchy at play here. 

 

Fine.  But trans/non-binary people are NOT part of the patriarchy, and they are not your enemy.

oh in this post i forgot to say search Blaire White. 

not a fan of her politics but she's interesting to watch a learn from re transgender realities.