Today, Reader, I bring you a tale of two young women—one Canadian, one American. Both are as smart as the proverbial whips and, more important, heroically resistant to extraordinary pressure by trans activists to disappear them from public life.
Their common “crime” is insisting on the right of women to be acknowledged as a unique phylum in the human biological kingdom, with lesbians as a unique class therein, i.e. female homosexuals, biological women who love biological women.
It amazes me as I write these words that this is a right that needs defending, but such is the pace of women-erasure in the trans activist movement, that what was a commonplace assumption even five years ago is now being treated as a form of hate speech amongst cultural and political elites (and those in media and institutional life who pander to them).
My Canadian subject is outspoken Vancouver feminist blogger Meghan Murphy. In October, to regain access to her Twitter account, Murphy was forced to delete tweets, such as “Women aren’t men,” and “What is the difference between a man and a transwoman?” (An estimated 80% of individuals identifying as transwomen retain male genitalia.)
Murphy is continually bullied by trans activists, who for example attempted to sabotage a talk she was slated to give at the Vancouver Public Library in January. They failed, and her presentation was enthusiastically received by a full house. Rational people respond favourably to her message. Small wonder her adversaries are so desperate to see her disappeared from social media.
Murphy has launched a lawsuit against Twitter, which permanently banned her because she “misgendered” a trans activist male-to-female provocateur, who has identified on social media as both male and female. The transwoman’s outlandish aggression against waxologists who refused to wax “her” genitals gained notoriety and intervention in a resulting Human Rights Tribunal case by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (on whose board I sit), which prompted the mischief-maker to withdraw his complaint.
The lawsuit is an important test of Twitter’s relationship with freedom of speech. As a writer, Murphy told an interviewer, she is dependent on Twitter as a “public square…where conversation happens. I can’t share my work now.” Many critics have pointed out that there is no consistency in Twitter’s standards for what is or is not offensive. The social-media giant’s extraordinary sensitivity to the demands of trans activists is at painful variance with, say, their indifference to, or dilatory response to actual hate speech. Twitter did not, for one instance of many, take any action against Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan for his use on Twitter of the word “termites” as applied to Jews.
Murphy’s lawsuit alleges that Twitter “covertly made sweeping changes to its Hateful Conduct Policy sometime in late October 2018, banning, for the first time ‘misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.’ This new policy banned expression of a political belief and perspective held by a majority (54 per cent, according to a 2017 Pew Research poll) of the American public: that whether someone is a man or a woman is determined by the sex they were assigned at birth … (Twitter) retroactively enforced its new policy against the plaintiff in this case, Meghan Murphy.”
Of the swift action taken against her, Murphy stated: “The whole situation destroys women’s rights. I don’t even see how we can uphold women’s rights if there is no cohesive definition for women.” Her concerns include the right of girls and women to their own safe spaces—multi-stall bathrooms, locker rooms, shelters and prisons—and the right to a level playing field in sports. Although I am sure there is much that Murphy and I, a frequent critic of feminism’s negative effects on our culture, would disagree on, we are as Thelma and Louise on the escalating public marginalization of women, especially lesbians, by the trans movement.
So far, here in North America, threats of being dragged before human rights tribunals have not morphed into actual arrest and imprisonment as we have seen happen in England, but close observers of what looks to me like a mass hysteria will not be surprised if that happens here one of these Kafkaesque days.
(Full disclosure: I was banned from Twitter for 24 hours for impulsively using the word “bodysnatched” in a tweet—a provocative and charged word, to be sure. The context was my perception of the trans movement’s active recruitment of gender non-conforming children, particularly effeminate boys, who are likely to evolve as gay, and who are instead gently herded toward a dysphoria-suggestive chute leading to Transland, courtesy of the Gender Unicorn and controversial education programs like SOGI123. I am also on record as deeply concerned about adolescent girls with suspiciously rapid onset gender dysphoria [ROGD], to which troubled lesbian girls are disproportionately susceptible.)
As a rather amusing aside, in its account of her suit, the National Post referred to Murphy as “associated with the right-wing intellectual Dark web movement through the publication Quillette.” Quillette does not consider itself to be right-wing, but rather a non-partisan proponent of freedom of speech, and a resource for readers seeking evidence-based rational discourse on charged issues, such as trans ideology and the hostility of its proponents to dissent, as well as the trans movement’s worrying relationship with homosexuality.
It is called right-wing only because so much of left-wing ideology is theory- rather than evidence-based, and because it is only the left that argues for speech suppression on the grounds of dissenting opinion. A recently posted Quillette piece—evidence-based, of course—demonstrates that Twitter does in fact exhibit a pronounced bias in favour of progressives and their views.
The case of Baltimore-based Julia Beck illuminates what can happen in civic life to a principled lesbian who refuses to be linguistically steamrollered by trans activists. Like Meghan Murphy, Julia holds to scientific truths being plowed under by the gender-fluidity juggernaut. Beck sees the “queering” of the LGBTQ movement as having produced a kind of lifestyle buffet mashup, in which everything—gay, bi-sexual, trans, drag—is on offer, and all of it completely untethered to DNA.
I had never heard of 26-year old Julia Beck until I caught her short interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News Feb 11. Impressed by her intelligence and dignity, I turned to the article she wrote referenced in the interview, “How I became the most hated lesbian in Baltimore.”
Beck’s troubles began after university, she writes, when she was “ostracized from more social circles than my rapist (in a telephone interview, Beck confirmed that she is a rape survivor).” She raised hackles when she asked, “Why is a man named ‘Woman of the Year’?” (referring to Glamour Magazine’s award to Caitlin Jenner).
She lost a good friend because she refused to call herself “cisgender” (as I do. I don’t announce myself as “hearing” or “average-heighted” either.) It was a great relief, she wrote, to meet other women asking the same questions at potluck dinners, including, “Why are all the lesbians transitioning?”
In early 2018, Baltimore’s mayor, Catherine Pugh, started an LGBTQ Commission, meant to be as “inclusive” as possible. At the launch reception, transwoman Ava Pipitone, president of Baltimore’s Transgender Alliance (BTA), echoed Pugh’s sentiment. Many subjects were discussed, but, according to Beck, the word “lesbian” was never uttered.
A month later, Baltimore celebrated Pride, which was lavishly funded by corporations keen to establish their progressive credentials. Trans flags dominated the event. There were workshops for “queer” fun, “like vogueing and anal sex.” There was nothing specific to lesbians. On the contrary, the vibe was, Beck noted, “lesbian-exclusionary.”
Beck marched in the parade with friends, holding signs protesting lesbian erasure: “Lesbian NOT Queer,” “Violence Against Lesbians is an epidemic,” “Dykes Don’t Like Dick” and so forth. Beck and her friends stuck close to the mayor’s entourage, so were not harmed. Some people cheered them.
Others shouted, “Go home TERFs! (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists, considered a slur).” Beck was doxed and some friends received threats on social media. Other protesting lesbians with similar signs at the San Francisco Dyke March were assaulted.
Beck stuck with the Commission, attending events and even getting elected as Co-Chair of the Law and Policy Committee. At one meeting Pipitone challenged her, demanding Beck name his sex. She said, “You’re male.” As they sparred, Beck mentioned Karen White, the notorious British transwoman who, though committed to life imprisonment as a “predatory and controlling” male rapist, upon announcing “her” new identity—yet still legally male—was assigned to a Women’s prison, where “she” sexually assaulted two more women.
Pipitone and some other gay men on the committee found Beck’s opinion that White and all biological males should be barred from women’s single-sex spaces meant to guarantee their privacy and security offensive, even “criminal.” Pipitone expressed concern with Beck’s committee leadership, claiming lesbianism and transgenderism were “incongruent political forces.”
He then accused Beck of crashing “our parades.” Having already admitted that lesbianism and transgenderism cannot co-exist in political harmony, he was affirming that Pride is now a vehicle for the Trans movement. It would seem that LGBT is the victim of a coup—and not a bloodless one either.
An emergency meeting was called. Beck was supported by a few feminists, but she knew the fix was in. One gay man said that “modern science debunked sex.” Another committee member, a transman, referring to her own vulva, said it was “masculine, and it’s a male and it’s a man.” Beck’s co-chair, Akil Patterson, a gay man, asked her, “[C]ould you in a responsible manner not publicly bring your internal language to a table of diversity?” He really meant, of course, could you not bring your diversity – your insistence on facts—to a table of a uniformly-approved internal language of fact-hostile feelings.
These stories of weaponized indignation have a surreal quality to them. How many medal-snatching male athletes on podiums will it take before female athletes reclaim their rightful competitive estate? (If transwomen claims that their male biology did not give them an advantage were valid, would we not also see transmen athletes in speed or strength-based sports on podiums?) How many rapists—evil but not necessarily stupid, and happy to take up their open invitation to penetrate Women’s prisons—will it take before the trans Furies come to their senses?
In our conversation, Beck told me that she sees the fussily feminine presentation of many transwomen as a gendered expression of “blackface,” which she explicitly calls “womanface.” Women do not—or should not—need elaborate makeup and high heels to prove they are women, says Beck. When men perpetuate a stereotype to demonstrate their womanhood that Beck associates with oppression, she feels existentially mocked and de-valued in the same way that black people do when white people appropriate their colour.
The word “womanface” shocked me at first, considering its provocative leverage of a word associated with racism and the horror of slavery. Is it a reasonable analogy? Upon consideration, I think the analogy is justifiable when one considers the stakes for all women inherent in the anti-scientific dogmas against which Beck and Murphy are dissenting. These dogmas are penetrating and transforming the institutions tasked with upholding justice, individual freedoms and public safety.
As the transformation progresses, it becomes clear that, apart from vulnerable children, women are the principal victims in a zero sum cultural game: the pace and reach of trans rights is directly proportionate to the pace and reach of the erasure of women as a distinct sex with immutable characteristics.
If a lesbian cannot say on Twitter that a transwoman is a male identifying as a woman, or find herself welcome at Pride or treated as an equal on an official civic committee, then no woman or her daughters will be safe from identity erasure of some kind in her lifetime—somehow, somewhere, some day—by the same tyrants who hate Murphy and Beck for the heterodoxy they represent.
Whether women are feminists or not, straight or lesbian, mono or bi, conservative or progressive, evangelical Christian or secular: If you do not want to see our sex culturally eradicated; or even if you disagree with Murphy and Beck, but believe in their right to speak their minds without fear of systemically-endorsed punishment, stand with these courageous women, and join your voice to theirs in solidarity.
Counselling your child against serious health risks of changing gender not 'family violence': BC court ruling
Lawyer John Carpay is President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF.ca), which intervened in the BC Court of Appeal in the case of AB v. CD.
In the case of AB v. CD, the BC Court of Appeal has allowed a 15-year-old female-born minor to continue receiving puberty blockers and testosterone, which will likely lead to the irreversible destruction of the minor’s sexual function and fertility.
The Court has deemed AB to be sufficiently mature to consent to the risks of taking testosterone, about which the BC Children’s Hospital has warned: heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, decreased good cholesterol (HDL), increased bad cholesterol (LDL), emotional change (anger and irritability), and vaginal abrasions and tears.
The Hospital warns that the body sometimes converts testosterone to estrogen, which may increase the risks of ovarian, breast, cervical and uterine cancer. The Hospital states that the long-term effects of testosterone and puberty blockers on younger adolescents are unknown, and that the safety of testosterone is not fully understood. Girls who take puberty blockers and testosterone will develop into adults who may look and sound like men, but lack male genitalia. Even after gender re-assignment surgery, as adults they will not be able to father children. Nor will they likely be able to get pregnant and bear children, with natural female sexual maturity having been prevented. CD, who is the father of AB, is devastated.
Neither the lower courts nor the Court of Appeal have grappled with the compelling evidence showing that gender identity confusion usually goes away by itself. The vast majority of boys and girls revert to identifying with their natal sex by the time they are 18, if they are allowed to go through puberty naturally and receive appropriate encouragement and support to embrace biological reality. With psychological counseling instead of hormones and drugs, the success rate ranges from 70 percent to 90 percent, depending on which of the many studies that one relies on. This has been demonstrated by Dr. Kenneth Zucker and Dr. Susan Bradley, who ran the Child Youth and Family Gender Identity Clinic (GIC) in Toronto from 1981 to 2015, successfully treating hundreds of children struggling with gender dysphoria.
The courts have also failed to take heed of a 2011 Swedish study of 324 sex-reassigned persons (191 male-to-females, 133 female-to-males), which shows that the long-term outcome of such treatments resulted in life-long psychological trauma and increased chance of suicide. Even in a progressive and socially liberal country, the suicide rate in these patients was 19 times higher than the general population, as these individuals passed through a post-treatment period of relative happiness but then began to experience significant morbidity and regret. Across the world, a growing number of transgender adults are warning that gender re-assignment surgery has brought them inexorable misery.
Without delving into these concerns, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that deference must be given to healthcare professionals, whose decisions made under the BC Infants Act about whether minors are able to consent to particular treatments, and whether those treatments are in their best interests, are only reviewable by the courts in very limited ways. Yet many of these health practitioners are on an affirmation-only bandwagon, or are afraid to speak out against it. This ensures that many young teens are moved along a path toward transition as soon as they step into a “gender identity clinic.” Parents with serious concerns about social contagion, or other mental health concerns prompting their child’s sudden desire to transition, will find little comfort in this ruling. Hopefully a future case will put evidence of these concerns before the courts.
The small silver lining on this very dark cloud has come by way of this Court now modifying the lower court rulings that drastically restricted CD’s parental rights and his freedom of expression.
Justice Gregory Bowden of the BC Supreme Court issued an Order that CD could not attempt to persuade his female-born child to pursue any treatment other than puberty blockers and testosterone. Justice Bowden further ordered CD not to address his child by the child’s birth name, or to refer to his female-born child as “she” or “her” in any conversation with anyone. Justice Bowden went on to declare that violating these draconian measures would constitute “family violence” under BC’s Family Law Act.
The BC Court of Appeal overturned this order in part, ruling that “there was insufficient evidence in the unique circumstances here to ground a finding of family violence—that is, emotional or psychological abuse—as defined in the Family Law Act.” The Appeal Court added that Justice Bowden “raising the issue of family violence in the context of this case caused the parties to become increasingly polarized in their positions, thus exacerbating the conflict and raising the stakes in the litigation. We see none of this to be in AB’s best interests.”
The father is now once again entitled to communicate his views about the risks and dangers of AB’s current treatment to AB. The Appeal Court noted that AB is a mature minor with capacity to make medical treatment decisions, and this capacity “includes the ability to listen to opposing views.” AB’s capacity to consent does not remove all parental involvement from medical decisions: “Parents can be involved in the process of explanation, instruction and advice leading to the obtaining of the informed consent of the child. They should be involved as part of that process wherever possible.”
Regarding CD’s freedom of expression, the Appeal Court noted that “the values underlying the right to freedom of expression include finding the truth through the open exchange of ideas, which extends to protecting minority beliefs that the majority regard as wrong or false.” However, the Court also ruled that the father’s right to express his opinion publicly and to share AB’s private information to third parties “may properly be subject to constraints aimed at preventing harm to AB. The Court will not restrict “CD’s right to express his opinion in his private communications with family, close friends and close advisors, provided none of these individuals is part of or connected with the media or any public forum, and provided CD obtain assurances from those with whom he shares information or views that they will not share that information with others.”
While AB continues to receive testosterone injections, this Appeal Court ruling at least shows greater respect for freedom of expression and for parental rights than did the lower courts. But it’s a small victory in the overall context of this sad case.
A convicted killer who is serving a life sentence in a penitentiary for men is demanding to be transferred to a women’s prison now that she’s self-identifying as a woman.
Jamie Boulachanis recently transitioned from a man to a woman under Canadian law and will have her case heard in which Correctional Service Canada is arguing Boulachanis shouldn’t be trasferred to a women’s facility–in spite of a Federal Court order–due to public safety concerns and her ability to escape prison.
In 2016 a Montreal jury found Boulachanis, born John Boulachanis, guilty of killing 32-year-old Robert Tanguay back in 1997. For years Tanguay’s body remained hidden, buried in sandpit.
According to the Montreal Gazette, Correctional Service Canada (CSC) is cited Boulachanis history of trying to escape detention, including one case where she escaped her restraints and ran from a prison bus before being tackled by a guard in less than a minute.
“(Her) risk of escaping is considered high, as is the risk to the public if (she) escapes. She requires a high degree of surveillance and control inside penitentiaries,” CSC wrote in its challenge against the court order to move Boulachanis to a women’s jail.
In the murder trial, the courtroom was told that Boulachanis was worried Tanguay was a police informant ratting on Boulachanis and his accomplices for car thefts and other crimes they were involved in. The jury was also told that Boulachanis was sleeping with Tanguay’s wife after his disappearance.
It’s still unclear if Boulachanis has yet undergone sexual reassignment surgery, although it was scheduled for January.
Last spring a judge ruled that refusing Boulachanis a transfer to a women’s prison is “discrimination based on gender identity or expression.”
The CSC’s arguments against allowing Boulachanis to be transferred will be heard in a Montreal courthouse on Monday.
A jury of eleven has ruled against a father who was attempting to prevent his seven-year-old son from being administered puberty blockers by the boy’s mother and doctor.
Jeffrey Younger will also potentially have to refer to his son James as “Luna” in order to affirm the boy’s gender identity. The father has referred to the treatment of his son as “sexual abuse” by the mother, Anne Georgulas. Court documents show that James prefers to wear boy’s clothes while with him and to be referred to as a boy.
”I want you to imagine having electronic communication with your son on FaceTime, and imagine that your ex-wife has dressed him as a drag queen to talk to you,” said Younger.
“Now imagine how you would feel seeing what I believe is actual sexual abuse—I believe this is not just emotional abuse but is the very, most fundamental form of sexual abuse, tampering with the sexual identity of a vulnerable boy.”
James’ mother is seeking to have Jeffrey’s parental rights removed “for not affirming James as transgender” according to The Federalist and she is also seeking to have him pay the bills for therapy and hormone treatment.
While James is not currently being administered the drugs, he could face the potential of chemical castration if undergoing hormone treatment after the age of eleven.
“Every. Single. Day. You have to see your son sexually abused, and you have to maintain your calm. because the courts are not going to be fair to you. And the only way you can survive this and get your son through this alive is to calmly allow your son to be tortured right before your eyes and outlast the opposition. That’s what it’s like,” said Younger.
I was outraged yesterday to discover that Vancouver City Councilors Sarah Kirby-Yung, Pete Fry, and Christine Boyle, at the drone-like beckoning of trans-ideologue and BC NDP Vice President Morgane Oger, presented a resolution to deprive the Vancouver Rape Relief (VRR) women’s shelter of funding unless it began allowing male-bodied individuals access to its intimate services.
As a result of Kirby-Yung, Fry, and Boyle’s resolution, along with Oger’s campaigning, 2019 will be the final year VRR qualifies for its city funding until it agrees to change its female-only policy. The VRR is Canada’s oldest rape crisis shelter and had been providing 24-hour services for women who were the victims of male violence. They also provided specialized education on violence against Indigenous women and women of colour, which is something I can specifically appreciate.
The assault on VRR is a but a single, extreme example of a women’s only space being eliminated to satisfy angry, radicalized biological males who demand female acquiescence for identity validation.
And female acquiescence seems to be the only thing that trans-ideologues require to “be” or “feel” female. Vaginas do not make a woman, nor do having uteruses, the ability to bare children, give birth, or experience the systemic, life-long discrimination and oppression that has historically only come with having those things. No, those don’t “make” a woman at all. The only things that “make” a woman, and are fundamental to the mental wellbeing of radical trans-activists, is access to bathrooms, gynecologists, and—now—rape shelters.
Prisons are another place where women have disturbingly been deprived of their ability to be free of the male body. It is no surprise or myth that many women in the correctional system are survivors of domestic abuse and/or sexual violence. In other words, the victims of men. But trans-women have demanded access to these spaces—penises, sex assault convictions and all – in some odd form of “woe is me” that much resembles the narcissistic self-victimization that one could expect from abusers. Oh, and lest we forget patting men on the back on, what else, but International Women’s Day.
The misogyny of these trans-activists should be inherent in their delusion that they can become women, totally. Totally, as such, to the point of there being a movement of trans-women with male bodies demanding recognition as lesbians. In fact, 60% of trans-women identify as “lesbians,” and actual lesbians who, understandably, are not attracted to their male bodies have been decried as the “penis police” and as “transphobes.” In any other circumstance, a male body demanding a female body provide it with sexual recognition would be rightfully considered abuse.
If it is not clear now, then it should be apparent be in their manipulation of language. Othering females so as to differentiate and separate them from their own sex—cis women, how I hate that term – as though we were anything but authentically, simply, women. The lovely Barbara Kay precisely defined this as the “dilution of women.”
If, still, an argument is needed to convince you of the incredible hatred of women these radical trans activists harbor, then you only need to look to their invention of a slur to define and defile women who advocate for women—TERF (Trans-exclusionary radical feminist). As though feminism had some sort of obligation to include men, and do anything more than advocate for women as women, trans activists have taken a page straight from the ghosts of misogyny’s past in creating a bite-sized version of “feminazi.”
Women who seek the uncompromising liberation and safety of women from the influence and ire of men are trash who deserve to be doxed, de-platformed, and put in their place. Where is that ‘place’? That which the penis has decided, of course! The non-penis. The external vagina. The front hole—That disgusting, dehumanizing term that could have only been thought up in a distinctly male brain. Apologize, acquiesce, and give access to those services which were created to help women escape those very female penises in the first place.
I’ll never forget my first reading of that Germaine Greer classic, the Female Eunuch, and how one sentence penetrated me so deeply; “Women have very little idea of how much men hate them.” Greer, a women’s rights icon, was one of the many casualties of trans activism, and was thoroughly de-platformed in 2017-18 after 47 fucking years of feminist activism for her comments on trans women. Those comments? That trans women were not women. They could never be or understand what it was like to be.
Understanding femaleness is important. The impact of “trans women are women” is far reaching and isn’t limited to giving male bodies access to women’s spaces. ‘Trans women are women’ inherently denotes that the idea that women suffer a distinct, unique form of oppression at the hands of men – an oppression which shaped and defined them, is gone. How can women experience a distinct, targeted form of sexual, gender-based violence if women, effectively, do not exist? If they are social constructs, transient thoughts in the mind of whoever decides they’d like to be one?
Acknowledging this type of incomparable oppression would mean acknowledging a distinct experience, which would mean acknowledging the need for distinct spaces and distinct rights—which is what women have had up until now. It would mean an inimitable identity, one that could not be appropriated through hormones, wigs, and lacy underthings.
Trans activists would literally rather deny the concept of a unique female oppression than admit the existence of un-appropriable femaleness.
And if that doesn’t convince you of how much these people hate women, I don’t know what will.