Disclosure: Lawyer John Carpay is president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF.ca)
A recent stir on Twitter involved the “transdeaf,” who self-identify as deaf and seek to live as though they are deaf. Those who actually cannot hear are deeply offended, arguing that unless you experience real deafness and its particular hardships, no amount of “identification” will bridge the gap. Thus far, nobody is legally required to agree with the self-identification of the transdeaf.
For trans ideology to truly spread, it needs to become an inherent part of our core belief system. As natural as the sky being blue, and the earth being round, we must all have the truth of trans as a foundational element of our understanding about the world for it to thrive. Convincing adults is one thing, but to really make this wash, it’s children that need to taught the dogma of multiple gender identities and the ability of humans to swap their sex for its opposite. The purported goal behind teaching children that male and female are nothing more than feelings is compassion, empathy, and anti-bias.
The work to bring children into the trans fold is pervasive and growing, and we’ve seen it in the US and Canada. In Sweden, the government is pouring money into an educational program for drag queens to read to children with disabilities. Meanwhile, in the UK, where trans advocates have a major head start, the BBC is airing educational programming to teach children that there are as many genders as stars in the sky. Both of these programs bring new dictates on gender to young kids. And kids, malleable as they are, typically believe what adults tell them.
Presumably, both the Swedish government and the BBC believe they are doing the right thing, a good thing, taking a positive step in the education of their nations’ children. But why does the Swedish federal government and the BBC want children open to the idea that gender and biological sex are different entities, and that biological sex differences are not meaningful with regard to anything at all?
The Swedish program, implemented on a federal level, is funded by a cache of cash left behind by those Swedes who died without any heirs, and is administered by Kulturforenigen Mums, which has brought in drag storytelling outfit Among Dragons and Drag Queens to create the curriculum. Among Dragons and Drag Queens’ plans is to rewrite those staid, boring, cis heteronormative fairy tales and replace them with stories where perhaps damsels rescue themselves, and handsome princes realize they’d rather fight for their right to be princesses than aspire to true love and responsibility.
The idea behind drag story hour is that children’s concepts of gender are uprooted and questioned by having grown men dressed fantastically and comically as women. While they’re at it, Among Dragons and Drag Queens should bring in some women and men and who have truly bucked gender stereotypes, like dads who prioritize raising their kids over a full-time career, or women who build bridges. Wardrobe is fashion, but life choices are what actually matter.
In the BBC video, children read questions about gender, such as “What are the different gender identities?” The answer is that this is a “that’s a really, really, exciting question to ask.” And another specialist tells children, in a voice rich with wonder and discovery, “do you know there are so many gender identities. So we know we’ve got male and female, but there are over a hundred, if not more, gender identities now. So we know that some people might think they are two different genders, so people might think they are bigender, and then you’ve got some people who might call themselves genderqueer, who are just like I don’t really want to be anything, in particular, I’m just going to be me.”
If this is all so innate, as male and female were considered to be only a few short minutes ago, why do kids need specialized education to understand it? If the goal is compassion, empathy, and instilling an egalitarian mindset, drag story hour and blatant televised lies about there being over 100 genders are not the answer.
So why do the BBC and the Swedish federal government want to make sure children know that men who don’t feel like adhering to male stereotypes and women who don’t want to adhere to female stereotypes are necessarily something other than male and female?
Is this about making sure kids are not prejudiced against people who present and act differently from the expected stereotype? Is the goal to make sure that kids know that they personally do not have to adhere to these stereotypes? Maybe the goal is to break down sex-based stereotypes altogether so that kids know that their capabilities are not limited by their sex?
What these educational programs actually do is solidify and entrench different expectations other than the traditional ones. While these programs have the tinge of compassion, consideration, and inclusiveness, that is actually an illusion. Instead of breaking down the limiting factors of socially constructed sex-based stereotypes and leaving that space open, it fills it with new rules about how not adhering to stereotypes means you are the opposite gender from that which your sex determines you are.
The message behind telling children there are people who are bigender, or multi-gender, or people who “just want to be me,” is that children must choose their gender, not that some people do, but that everyone must. Affirming these delusions is confirming them. What child doesn’t want to “just be me?” And if the way to “just be me” is to say “I’m different from my body,” then that’s what kids will do. These are guidelines to rebellion against the body, they are not telling children “here are some paths,” they are saying “this is the path, walk down it.”
The reason for indoctrinating children early in the ways of society is to make sure they know exactly what concepts and constructs cannot be questioned and must be adhered to, both in thought and action. If trans ideology were about acceptance, something more along the lines of “people are different, don’t judge people for those things about themselves that they can’t control,” we would be in the realm of anti-bias initiatives. If the message were “you don’t have to be limited by traditional gender roles,” that would be about breaking down stereotypes.
In the current merry multi-gender climate, the way that gender stereotypes are bucked is by showing men in dresses, and women speaking up for themselves. This is a strange dichotomy where what male gender warriors are fighting against is wardrobe, and female gender fighters are railing against traditional gender roles. But the thing is, those roles have already been turned on their heads. Women and men have far more freedom than they used to and are free live as they choose. The fact that adults want to transition and live as the opposite sex, or perform drag shows for other adults, has been pretty well accepted. The problem here is that children are being told lies to uphold adult desires.
No matter how many times women are hounded out of work, social groups, or organizations for saying that women are adult human females, I end up surprised each and every time. This latest shocker comes from the UK, where so much of this madness has fully taken hold. British birth coach Lynsey McCarthy Calvert was pushed out of the charity Doula UK, of which she was spokesperson, because she dared to say that “women birth all the people.”
The issue for McCarthy was that Cancer Research UK changed its advertising encouraging women to get routine pap smears, a basic gynecological exam, to advocating for the test for “everyone aged 25-64 with a cervix.”
In reaction to this, McCarthy took to Facebook, stating “I am not a ‘cervix owner’ I am not a ‘menstruator’ I am not a ‘feeling.’ I am not defined by wearing a dress and lipstick. I am a woman: an adult human female… Women birth all the people, make up half the population, but less than a third of the seats in the House of Commons are occupied by us.”
As we’ve seen so many times before, a few people got onto her feed, and made a lot of noise. They complained to McCarthy “…not only women birth children,” and took their grievance offline and into the real world where they disrupted her professional life. The complaints were that McCarthy was trans exclusive in her statements, that she was offensive.
Activists who are somehow delusional enough to believe that a woman who says she is a man and then conceives a child is a man giving birth as opposed to a woman, who imagines she is a man, having a child, sent letters detailing their offendedness.
The Board of Doula UK determined that the activists were correct and that the woman who has facilitated the birth of children on numerous occasions was incorrect. Doula UK has gone on to say that,despite McCarthy’s contention to the contrary, they had not “acquiesced” to activists or forced McCarthy out. McCarthy resigned, but it was either that or accept lies and defamation.
The only problem with ousting a woman from a pregnancy help charity for saying that “women birth all the people” is that, in fact, women do birth all the people. All the people who have ever been born on this earth since the beginning of time were gestated inside a woman’s body, and birthed from that body. Apparently it’s offensive to say so. Even if it is, it’s still true.
We’ve been at the point where it’s considered offensive to trans activists and trans people to say that only women are capable of having children via their bodies, even though they are. It’s offensive to say that women are the only ones who menstruate, even though they are. And it’s offensive to say that men can’t magically, surgically, and chemically turn into women, that women can’t turn into men, even though they can’t.
The entire thing where a few people’s hurt feelings are more important than actual facts and the right of women to speak the truth about their own bodies and the nature of reproduction continues to be baffling. More baffling is that women who know the truth, that biological sex is immutable, that gender is a lie, are afraid to speak out, afraid to challenge those men who would have us deny our bodies in favour of their made-up truth.
Women who speak out on this are silenced, and like so many other circumstances in which women are forced to believe a man’s interpretation of reality over her own, talking back only gets her hit. Whether personal or professional defamation, there is a big risk for women who refuse to be cowed into proclaiming lies as truth. It seems absurd, and trans activists deny that, but still, it keeps happening. These stories keep popping up.
It should not be shocking to anyone anymore that women who believe that women and men are distinct entities defined by their biological realities are considered bigots, phobic, or prejudiced. The more we are pushed to believe lies, the easier they are to believe, but that doesn’t make them any truer. McCarthy took a vocal stand about the fact that women are the ones who have female reproductive systems, that men do not need cervical cancer screenings because they are not, in fact, people who have a cervix.
Furthering the disconnect women have with their bodies by referring to them only as the summation of their biological parts will not help them overcome the embarrassment of seeking medical care for female only conditions. Ignoring the reality that women’s bodies are the only bodies that are capable of birthing children is cruel because women alone will still be the ones to do it.
Trans activists say that their goal is not to erase women or to deny their existence, yet with their continuing to be offended by the reality of women and their bodies, that’s exactly what they’re doing. If women can’t even maintain a medical definition, how will they access care, have considerate providers who understand the differences between male and female anatomy, or keep their children safe if we are not even able to name their bodies as their own? It doesn’t matter if it’s a kindness to ignore the fact that women birth all the people, it’s still a lie, and a dangerous one.
I was involved in an accident the moment I arrived at the Meghan Murphy event. Less than 200 meters away from the Toronto Public Library that hosted the event, a skateboarder careened out of nowhere and hit the Uber car before skating off on his way. We pulled over immediately and I looked to find the injured person but he was long gone.
Thankfully there were three police officers immediately available to take witness statements and I was keen to give my information so I could get to the event. Unfortunately, a helpful bystander kept pointing at me and saying “She’s wrong! I saw everything!!”
This problem of people not wanting to let someone else speak first is precisely the reason Meghan Murphy, an outspoken feminist with hard views on whether or not people born male can actually be women, rallied hundreds of chanting protesters.
Outside the library, slam poetry artists spoke through a megaphone and when they “dropped the mic” to say a line the crowd was cued to repeat that line like a human amplifier. But nothing said actually related to what Meghan Murphy said, because she hadn’t spoken yet.
Just like the “victim” in the car accident that happened moments ago, the only evidence left was a bewildered group of spectators unsure of exactly what was happening. The one thing we were told to be sure of was that the police were “lazy pigs” for protecting Meghan Murphy from the mob outside.
The police in attendance now have my number so they can call me later if they need a witness that they, in fact, were not being lazy.
Inside the event, it was hard to understand what all the fuss was about. Members of the media lined the back wall having made it past security in a sold-out event. Regardless of the words that might come out of Murphy’s mouth in the immediate future we all sensed a major disparity. So much anger against a single, physically small woman.
One of the first things Meghan Murphy said was how strange it was that people responded to her as if the things she was saying didn’t represent what 99% of the population believe: men cannot be women.
“Bigotry” is defined as an intolerance and ignorance for opposing points of view and Murphy quickly made the point that the people calling her a bigot were the ones showing the most intolerance. And surely, insulting police simply for ensuring a person’s physical safety is morally questionable.
Outside the event the poets gave anecdotes of trans people who had suffered attacks and inside the library Meghan Murphy gave anecdotes of women who had been forced to share rooms with male-bodied people who identified as women. The people of whom both sides spoke aren’t just anecdotes, they have real experiences that should be heard. But how do we decide which person’s experiences are more important?
If we choose who we listen to by deciding who can’t speak then it doesn’t seem the problem is properly resolved.
Murphy said she doesn’t have a problem with people pursuing surgery to obtain their “perfect body” but that she worried about the stereotypes at play in pursuit of that perfection. And where the questioning of what makes a person “a woman” somehow became the equivalent of being “non-trans” instead of just human. Murphy criticized that the term “CIS” now substituted as “you identify as a woman at birth.” To Murphy that is insulting.
She described the trans advocacy groups as authoritarian and despaired that events like her speech were mostly only getting attention because of the protesters.
In part, Murphy blamed the media for misrepresenting her point of view and demonizing her. Comically, Murphy specifically mentioned columnist Tabatha Southey who “apparently has a Twitter account” and objected to Murphy being given a platform. Murphy, herself, has been permanently banned from Twitter for the crime of misgendering. Also mentioned was Toronto mayor John Tory who claimed he was disappointed in the public library for allowing Murphy to speak.
One comment that received applause was Murphy’s opinion that “women’s rights are being thrown under the bus so that people can virtue signal online.”
I thought back to my arrival when I tried to explain to the other helpful witness on the scene that I was perfectly happy to let him give a police statement of his own after I finished speaking and understood that he’d seen the car accident from the other side of the street. I’d just seen it as a passenger in the car. Of course both of us were neutral witnesses. It was just an Uber and I had no vested interest. For him, he didn’t know any of us either.
But the man wouldn’t let me speak and I don’t know why. The police actually had to intervene so that I could give my account as best as possible and be on my way. They literally had to move the man away so I could finish my statement and write my information down for later contact. And luckily I had a pen and paper because I was, in fact, on my way to cover the protest of Meghan Murphy just around the corner.
And just as the missing “victim” of the car accident quickly absconded from the scene of the “crime” the angry mob I encountered moments later seemed just as incredibly abstract.
In the end, whether you agree with Meghan Murphy or not, the biggest round of applause must go to Toronto Library’s Palmerston Branch for being brave enough to stand up for freedom of speech despite the intense backlash they faced. As a result, the library will likely be banned from the next Pride parade but it’s a small price to pay for honest conversation.
The drag queen readers from “Fay and Fluffy’s Storytime” have ended their relationship with the Toronto Library. This comes after the Toronto Library permitted feminist Megan Murphy to speak, despite accusations of transphobia.
Kaleb Robertson, who is the “Fluffy” of the duo, stated on Instagram that they could not “continue a relationship with a space that will host someone who is actively fighting to take away my legal rights as a human.”
Fay and Fluffy are apart of a drag queen act that reads books to children. Alongside their acts at the Toronto Public Library, they have also read at the AGO, ROM, and across classrooms in Ontario.
In a statement to the media, the duo stated that “Trans people existing and having rights to employment, housing, and safety is not a discussion.”
Megan Murphy is the founder of the Feminist Current website created controversy when she stated that “Feminists built and funded transition houses for women escaping male violence … and now we’re being told that having spaces for women to protect them from male violence is bigoted.”
Due to this, when Megan Murphy came to speak at the library, a small crowd came to protest her visit, attempting to break police barriers and shouting obscenities in the process. Despite the crowds relatively small numbers, politicians across the city came to denounce the library’s decision.
Fay and Fluffy are only the most recent public figures to cut ties with the Library. More are expected to follow.