Potentially devastating consequences for women
The Telegraph introduces the UK to Meghan Murphy:
As one of the lone voices unequivocally arguing that identifying as a different gender does not change one’s chromosomal sex (and, ergo, that trans-women are not actually women) Murphy was swiftly labelled a ‘radical’ feminist, as well as a bigot and a transphobe by her detractors, many of whom also accuse her of being Right-wing.
To Murphy, a once proud socialist with a Marxist father, it’s a laughable claim. But she feels betrayed by the Left. ‘The NDP [Canada’s equivalent to Labour] has fully vilified women who speak out about this,’ she says. ‘They won’t even have a conversation.’
On Monday evening she spoke at a sold-out event on women’s rights in Bloomsbury, where she received something of a rock star’s welcome, with extended applause and whoops of appreciation as she walked onto the podium. It makes our meeting at one of Camden’s most rock ‘n’ roll pubs the following afternoon feel quite appropriate.
The reason for Murphy’s visit is because a similar ideological battle is taking place on this side of the Atlantic. Last year the Government launched a public consultation on ‘gender self-ID’, a policy which would require little more than signing a statement – and no medical oversight – for anyone to obtain a legal gender change. The debate in the UK has been equally fraught, with accusations of transphobia liberally hurled at those who dare raise the potential practical impact of such sweeping legislative reforms.
Liberally in one sense but very illiberally in another.
Murphy has genuine sympathy for those suffering from gender dysphoria (the belief they have been born the wrong sex) but it is outweighed by her concern that trans activists’ increasingly rapacious demands, particularly in the name of trans-women, many of whom, it is believed, opt to retain their male anatomy, will have potentially devastating consequences for women and children in a plethora of areas from professional sports to domestic violence provision.
In Vancouver, she points out, a women’s rape shelter which denied services to trans-women was deemed ‘transphobic’ by local politicians, who subsequently voted to cut its government subsidies. ‘Women who are escaping male violence need somewhere to go,’ Murphy says. ‘And these places are going to lose funding unless they cave [to the demands of trans activists].’ It is for erstwhile uncontroversial statements such as these that Murphy has attracted such opprobrium.
Despite her public aura of bravado, Murphy admits the incessant harassment has taken its toll. In Canada she has lost friends who are afraid to associate with her for fear of damaging their ‘woke’ credentials, received obscene telephone calls, and even been reported to the police for alleged transphobia. ‘They obviously thought it was silly,’ she says, but nevertheless a policeman warned her to ‘be careful’.
‘I’m scared for my safety,’ Murphy confesses. ‘Lots of women are. I know people who’ve lost their jobs over this. Women are being silenced.’
Yes but pronouns. Pronouns, I tell you.
Now, THAT’S what I call brave.
Who needs ‘friends’ that will abandon them just in order to be seen as ‘woke’ to the latest lunacy? When the bubble bursts, as it surely will, and they come crawling back with egg on their faces, I hope Murphy tells them to take a running jump.
It’s because she’s commiting the Ultimate Crime: saying No to males.
In this case, it’s “No, I don’t exist to validate your Identitay. Women and girls matter.”
That can’t be allowed; if feeeemales start getting the idea that they (we) can say No to this, what else are they (we) going to start saying No to? The Doodz can’t be having that!
Burn the witch!
I was going to quote exactly what AoS quoted above, and add this quote from Murphy near the end of the article:
The most baffling thing to me about transgenderism (I mean, the political movement, as a large-scale social dynamic) is that people go along with it, or even promote it, when they might even believe it’s wrong on facts and unethical.
Just a little quote from Prof. You-Know-Who.
Who are these scummy villains? I hear you cry.
Oh!
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/05/22/mythcon-devolved/
Dave @ 4 – speaking as one who at least tried to go along with it for a time while not actually explicitly arguing for it, it had to do with uncertainty about what I knew and their confidence about what they claimed to know. Once they made it impossible for me to try to go along with it without explicitly supporting it, it became clear that they didn’t know a god damn thing, it was all just social contagion and bullying and information cascades.
Okay, I can see why people might not be happy with the inclusion of Karen Straughan – assuming that she’s who I think she is (GirlWritesWhat?). However, there are a huge number of women involved in various causes, even causes to which many are opposed, who might well be worth listening to, even if afterwards one continues to disagree with their views.
In order to find out what others think, we need to find out what they’re saying. That means I get to listen to a lot of people (mostly, but not exclusively, male) telling me I’m defective/not fully human/that I should be tortured and murdered, etc., but how can we fight against these bad ideas if we don’t actually understand what they are?
Even more so, if we don’t understand what other people take them to be – even if the people in question have mutated the idea beyond its original point?
Allow the other side a voice, cluecat? What a preposterous suggestion. Have you any idea how difficult it is to strawperson an argument when others are allowed to hear it? Christ on a popsicle stick! Next thing you know, people will be making decisions based on facts, and then where will we be?
Yes, AoS, you’re quite right.
How foolish of me to think we’re allowed to consider what people are actually saying, instead of what someone else thinks they might say.
I’m off to hide in my den, and repent!