Althouse: Meghan Murphy explains — to Joe Rogan — how she got censored for saying the wrong thing about transgender women.

August 24, 2021

Meghan Murphy explains — to Joe Rogan — how she got censored for saying the wrong thing about transgender women.

28 comments:

Achilles said...: Everyone has a paradigm. Everyone has a filter for incoming information that disrupts their world view.

It is the people that impose their filter on others that are the problem.; 8/24/21, 10:17 AM
rehajm said...: She of course raises some the compelling questions and for that she was banned- one more data point that reinforces the belief to Just. Get. Off. Twitter...

I find it interesting there's tags for 'Canada' and 'transgender' but not for 'feminism', as the normally omnipresent feminists do seem to be absent from the room when gender is discussed these days...; 8/24/21, 10:22 AM
mezzrow said...: I love Meghan Murphy. If she didn't exist in real life, she's have to be a character (probably the hero/protagonist) in a Lionel Shriver novel. hashtag #womenilove

shilling her podcast here:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/feminist-current/id603245791; 8/24/21, 10:23 AM
Joe Smith said...: It's ironic that (years ago) I would point out to people that places that seem 'just like us' don't have a first amendment right to free speech.

What? You mean you can't say whatever you want in England or Canada or Australia? Weird.

But I'm afraid our first amendment rights have been so eroded that they're not worth the parchment they're written on...; 8/24/21, 10:34 AM
holdfast said...: Maybe this is just her speaking extemporaneously, but I find the somewhat ditzy, valley girl thing to be offputting.

Still, if you are trying to pitch radical feminist lesbians to regular straight dudes, she is a pretty appealing spokesperson compared to many of the other options.; 8/24/21, 11:14 AM
Wa St Blogger said...: I have a last name that is now a common first name (due to a celebrity some years back naming her child this). As a result, I am often called by my last name as if it were my first name. You know what I don't do? I don't yell at them. I don't insist that they lose their job. I don't try to get them banned from social media. I don't try to create laws to get them thrown in jail. Do you know WHY I don't do these things? Because I an not an asshole. It's really quite simple.

But the issue is not hurt feelings or being respectful or anything like that. It is entirely about the the destruction of the norms, to unbuild society so a new and better society can be built from the ashes. Usually, though, you just get ashes, and they are not good building material, or so I'm told.; 8/24/21, 11:18 AM
Freder Frederson said...: It's ironic that (years ago) I would point out to people that places that seem 'just like us' don't have a first amendment right to free speech.

How many times do we have to go over this? The First Amendment prevents the government from limiting speech, it does not apply to the private sector. Remember 40 years ago, you were all excited when Reagan got rid of the fairness doctrine (which again was limited to broadcast media). Private companies have no obligation to publish what they don't want to. In fact, it would be a violation of the First Amendment if the government compelled Twitter not to ban people.; 8/24/21, 11:22 AM
Lloyd W. Robertson said...: No such thing as a trans woman?I guess for one of the several or many medical conditions in which gender is obscure, coming out and getting hormone surgery is not doing a transition from A to B, it is from "not clear by biology/nature" to "made clear by human intervention." I think I agree with Meghan that many cases we hear of today are pure assertion: I feel I am this or that gender, therefore I have the right to surgery, and the following list of rights. Pure assertion without any regard to a medical condition or biology.

The boring Canadian, like when Americans say all they know for sure about Canada is that Toronto is the national capital. That's not true. I think the little clip on Expo '67 said Montreal was the capital of the province of Quebec. Not true. In this case: Canada doesn't have a First Amendment? Thanks to Trudeau Senior, father of the present PM, we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms (here's one for cocktail party chatter: for politicians, Canadians like astronauts, and the children of politicians; wait, the U.S. is getting like that).

Fundamental freedoms – section 2
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

freedom of conscience and religion;
freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
freedom of peaceful assembly; and
freedom of association.

Of course, rather than let judicial review intervene somewhat arbitrarily, the Charter says all rights and freedoms are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."; 8/24/21, 11:23 AM
Freder Frederson said...: I wish I could go on Joe Rogan's show and complain about how I am being censored.; 8/24/21, 11:23 AM
holdfast said...: Someone should explain to Freder that the reference to the 1A wasn’t regarding Twitter, but rather Canadian hate speech law and human rights tribunals. Which are very obviously government. But sure, address the argument that wasn’t made, that is a great way to win. It’s certainly all that Joe Biden and his spokesmoppet Jen Psaki can do.

Lloyd, I loved you when you were the CTV news anchor. Yes, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does include free-speech protection, but as you note it also includes an exception that essentially swallows the rule.; 8/24/21, 11:43 AM
Ann Althouse said...: @Freder

Some of the discussion is about what the Canadian government does.; 8/24/21, 11:44 AM
rcocean said...: I must have missed the Canadian Govt part. I heard talk of the "Human Rights Commission". All I can say is that if you accept the idea of a "Human Rights Commission" punishing you and putting you in jail for "Badthink" then you get what you deserve.

This is just the left taking the concept of "Hate Speech" and "Protected classes" and using it to gain more power. And if you're already accepted that true free speech is bad, and that people need to be punished for saying "the wrong thing". You can't really object. The Left is just using that principle to expand what can be punished.

BTW, this is the sort of conversation that was much better at 1.5 speed. thanks Youtube for that feature!; 8/24/21, 11:57 AM
Joe Smith said...: 'The First Amendment prevents the government from limiting speech, it does not apply to the private sector.'

I fully understand this. What I was referencing is private citizens being fired (many times by public (government) institutions) for having the 'wrong' opinion.

Try being the principal of a public school speaking about trans issues and saying 'only women can be women.'

You'd likely either be fired or be pressured to resign.

And people know it, so the result is stifled speech. Just as bad.; 8/24/21, 11:59 AM
Yancey Ward said...: Freder has turned full fascist.; 8/24/21, 12:21 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Freder would be quite ok with banks closing the accounts of conservatives, wouldn't you, Freder?; 8/24/21, 12:23 PM
Achilles said...: Freder Frederson said...

How many times do we have to go over this? The First Amendment prevents the government from limiting speech, it does not apply to the private sector. Remember 40 years ago, you were all excited when Reagan got rid of the fairness doctrine (which again was limited to broadcast media). Private companies have no obligation to publish what they don't want to. In fact, it would be a violation of the First Amendment if the government compelled Twitter not to ban people.

The problem is section 230.

Twitter cannot be allowed to simultaneously censor content and be protected from libel laws for what they allow. They also cannot be allowed to form non-competitive cartels.

I know this is tough for fascists like Freder to understand.

If you continue to make rules that allow you to oppress, the people you are oppressing will stop playing by the rules.

The discussion is about Canadian Law. Twitter is doing work for the fascist Canadian Government. The Corporate/Government alliance against the individual is the core component of modern fascism.

We are not going to tolerate this garbage forever.; 8/24/21, 12:34 PM
Drago said...: Field Marshall and pro-Daisy Cutter bomb use in urban areas Freder: "and How many times do we have to go over this? The First Amendment prevents the government from limiting speech, it does not apply to the private sector."

It has already been established that Facebook had a democratical hotline established whereby democratical complaints about non-pro-democratical speech were immediately acted upon by Facebook censors and led to banning of anti-democratical speech.

We are well beyond pure "private companies"/speech scenarios.; 8/24/21, 1:03 PM
Quaestor said...: The only non-wrong thing that can be said about transgender women is they do not exist.; 8/24/21, 1:17 PM
Joe Smith said...: 'Twitter cannot be allowed to simultaneously censor content and be protected from libel laws for what they allow. They also cannot be allowed to form non-competitive cartels.'

A bigger problem is when they collude with government to censor speech that government doesn't like...; 8/24/21, 1:30 PM
gilbar said...: "How many times do we have to go over this? The First Amendment prevents the government from limiting speech, it does not apply to the private sector. "

SO! If a person in the Private Sector, wants to be able to decide What they want to write on a cake; they're okay, because the first Amendment does apply to the private sector?

Seriously, if (in a hypothetical universe,) a company like Twitter wanted to Permanantly BAN people that refused to use a person's Actual Sex to refer to himself... That would be, OKAY?
Seriously?; 8/24/21, 1:59 PM
Skippy Tisdale said...: I am non-binary and my sister is gay. Decades ago we discussed how sad it is that there are transgendered folks who feel they need to be surgically altered when from a functioning standpoint, there is not a thing wrong with their bodies.

My sister didn't have to have sex-reassignment surgery in order to fuck woman and I don't need it to host really well-received tea parties. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.; 8/24/21, 2:25 PM
Will Cate said...: So the straw that broke Twitter's back was that she screen-shotted, and later the screen shot, of the post TW wanted her to delete. Well Duh... Twitter's rules.; 8/24/21, 3:34 PM
gilbar said...: Skippy Tisdale said...
" how sad it is that there are transgendered folks who feel they need to be surgically altered when from a functioning standpoint, there is not a thing wrong with their bodies."

But WAIT! it gets better!
If a 10 year old girl doesn't want to be a girly girl; we put her on puberty blockers...
Then, when he/she is 14 or 15; we ask if it wants Testosterone ...
(and the MAJORITY of girls on puberty blockers say YES to the hormones)
AND! you know what they call a girl that took puberty blockers, and then Testosterone hormones?
STERILE

The OVERWHELMING Majority of those girls, can NEVER have kids; Not as men, Not as women, Not as zhes

Am i a conspiracy theorist, that thinks that This is ALL intentional? YES; yes i am.
Do i REALLY think, that it's genocide? YES; yes i do.; 8/24/21, 3:34 PM
rcocean said...: The solution (in the USA) is to prohibit discrimination based on politics. we already have it for Religion.; 8/24/21, 3:51 PM
Daniel12 said...: My favorite is when she's talking about the creepy guy and says, "We can't take this as representative..." and then two sentences later says "This is exactly, exactly the problem." Very characteristic of anti-trans arguments, which pick out isolated or usually hypothetical incidents (creepers in bathrooms being the classic example), ignoring the fact that it sucks to be trans (imagine being born in the wrong sex body) and that it is very rare.

I don't see our entire society falling apart now that trans people have some legal protection. I see lots of people talking about how THEIR FREE SPEECH IS LIMITED because they should refer to a person as that person wants to be referred to, but no one talking about how many trans people's right to life has been limited -- aka they've been murdered, simply for being trans. Rogan's argument is that being anti-trans is mean, but people are mean all this time. It's true, though it doesn't always lead to extremely high suicide and murder rates -- and when it does, we should probably do something about it.

Also, Achilles said:
"Twitter cannot be allowed to simultaneously censor content and be protected from libel laws for what they allow."

Oh? Why not? This is completely standard all across American society. One super tiny example, which I've observed since comments have come back: Ann gets to publish whatever comments she wants and is fully protected from libel, despite controlling the entire conversation. The actual problem is that all the conversation flows through twitter, which allows twitter to control it. Once you're trying to define how they should control the conversation, the game's already lost.; 8/24/21, 5:27 PM
effinayright said...: Freder Frederson said...
It's ironic that (years ago) I would point out to people that places that seem 'just like us' don't have a first amendment right to free speech.

How many times do we have to go over this? The First Amendment prevents the government from limiting speech, it does not apply to the private sector. Remember 40 years ago, you were all excited when Reagan got rid of the fairness doctrine (which again was limited to broadcast media). Private companies have no obligation to publish what they don't want to. In fact, it would be a violation of the First Amendment if the government compelled Twitter not to ban people.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

How many times do you need
a rolled-up newspaper applied to your snout to be reminded that the First amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

See that "the" in there? That presupposes there was "a freedom of speech" out in civil society that the Government can not abridge.

Yes, as an employee you are not free to say "anything you want" to on the premises. But no, your employer can't fire you for making statements reflecting your political opinions when you're exercising your civil rights.

Disagree? Explain to us the consequences of an employer firing a black employee for arguing that his own company engages in racial discrimination.

Others have rightly pointed out that Twitter and Facebook have a legislative "get out of jail free" card in Section 230. Yet we KNOW that Facebook gets its marching orders from the WH regarding people it wants to censor. That, my friend, is "state action", and it will not stand.; 8/24/21, 7:28 PM
effinayright said...: Daniel12 said w/o evidence:

...no one talking about how many trans people's right to life has been limited -- aka they've been murdered, simply for being trans.
**********

Give us a list, will you?; 8/24/21, 7:29 PM
Daniel12 said...: "Give us a list, will you?"

I feel like if you really wanted a list, you'd have googled it.

But this helps clarify the problem with Murphy here -- this idea that trans people are just abusing gender fluidity to get privileges. Just hanging out all day deciding from minute to minute which bathroom they want to use. Nothing better in American than being trans in America, amiright?; 8/25/21, 7:27 AM