The Intolerant Radicals and their Meghan Murphy Circus

Crimson Mire

Active member
May 22, 2018
168
40
28
wow, you're extremely normal. i'm not surprised you were in that dumb protest lol.
It was a nice protest, made some good friends, talked to some wonderful trans folks, even had dinner with some beautiful and intelligent trans people. The cis-woman that I hanged out with during the protest was one of the sweetest human beings you could ever meet, and she cared a lot about trans issues.

Oh you don't have to worry a thing about how "dumb" the protest is because you'll never be marching in any LGBTQIA+ run protests.
 

Crimson Mire

Active member
May 22, 2018
168
40
28
Yeah, see this is the problem. The unfortunate fact is that life is often messy and there’s simply no way to make everyone happy. In this case, there are many women who say they are not comfortable with allowing trans women to enter traditionally female only spaces. Trans people are upset because they want to have the same rights and privileges as the gender they identify with, and I understand that too. That puts these two groups at odds with no real solution. It’s a shitty situation, and someone is going to wind up feeling like they got fucked one way or another. I understand that trans people feel discriminated against, but I also understand that many women feel unsafe and that there are very legitimate safety concerns. As was stated above, not everyone will act in good faith, and allowing trans people to use female-only facilities does potentially put women at risk. This is not me being transphobic, I’m simply repeating what women are saying.

The reason that I, personally, tend to take women’s side in these matters is simple logistics: women make up a little over half of the population of the planet, trans people are less than one tenth of a percentage. If you have to make laws that will hurt one group, logically it’s better to hurt one tenth of a percent of people, than half of everyone. It sucks, I know it makes trans people feel even more marginalized, but that’s how it is. That’s reality. Ideology is all well and good, but we don’t live in an ideal world. Sometimes there just isn’t any way to be fair to everyone.

This rhetoric of accusing everyone who disagrees with you of transphpbia is unproductive and ignorant. People get so blinded by their own biases and ideology that they don’t look at the other side of the issue. It is not the big, mean, cis white hetero males oppressing you, it’s women raising legitimate concerns about THEIR rights and safety. It is not ok to empower your own group at the cost of another, that’s not progress, that’s simply transference of privilege. That doesn’t move society forward, it just shifts the meta, so to speak.
What are you talking about? There are no clashes or problems. There's nothing wrong with trans women using women's bathrooms or spaces, unless you are trying to say trans women are not women, in which case you are part of the problem.

Don't feel comfortable being with trans women? Are you okay with people not being comfortable around gay people? Around people of colour? Around disabled people? Around other marginalized people? You're justifying bigotry and discrimination here.
 

Crimson Mire

Active member
May 22, 2018
168
40
28
it's already happened a few times, it's only going to happen more once these prisoners catch on how easy it is because of the politically correct environment in government.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ho-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life

https://vancouversun.com/news/local...nder/wcm/8c8d1798-e1f4-4fd3-ad94-54db962e1727

you seem rather ignorant about the reality of these issues, which i guess is why you choose to spend your time pointlessly protesting things that don't need to be protested with other screechy whiners, and then getting into long, drawn out fights on TERB about it with people while threatening to rape them for disagreeing with you. how on-brand for an sjw.
Oh lovely, so the politically correct environment is now a threat. LOL. You go along and think in your little bubble that life for trans women are all sunshine and rainbows and how you'll devote your entire life fighting against the systemic problem of *ahem* perverted men pretending to be women while I continue to attend 519 events and talk to my trans buddies, help out trans people in need, and join advocacy groups and protests to fight transphobia (and racism, sexism, ablism as well). Because those issues are very much alive and real.

There's no way in hell I could convince you otherwise so you go your way and I go mine kay?

I will continue to believe that trans women are women as well as replying to 27489058759028 threads on Terb on how "evil" trans women are that they dare to be sex workers, use female bathrooms, and join Olympics. Because frankly, I don't like them, and being trans, they piss me the fuck off. Funny how you seem more concerned than I am that you had to write big paragraphs showing how offended you are that I'm picking on poor little Meghan Murphy and her wretched beliefs because she's so oppressed by the big bad PC culture.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,958
2,891
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Male-Bodied Rapists Are Being Imprisoned With Women. Why Do so Few People Care?

In 2015, the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists (BAGIS) submitted a written brief to the Transgender Equality Inquiry, which had been undertaken by the UK Parliament’s Women and Equalities Committee, explaining why it was “naïve to suggest that “nobody would seek to pretend transsexual status in prison if this were not actually the case.”

“There are, to those of us who actually interview the prisoners, in fact very many reasons why people might pretend this,” wrote Dr. James Barrett, the President of BAGIS. “These vary from the opportunity to have trips out of prison through to a desire for a transfer to the female estate (to the same prison as a co-defendant) through to the idea that a parole board will perceive somebody who is female as being less dangerous through to a [false] belief that hormone treatment will actually render one less dangerous through to wanting a special or protected status within the prison system and even (in one very well evidenced case that a highly concerned Prison Governor brought particularly to my attention) a plethora of prison intelligence information suggesting that the driving force was a desire to make subsequent sexual offending very much easier, females being generally perceived as low risk in this regard.”

The idea that many male offenders would opt to serve their sentences in women’s correctional facilities is not something that should shock a thinking person. But it appears that common sense is forgotten once the words “gender identity” are invoked. Male offenders, including violent offenders and sex offenders, currently are incarcerated in women’s prisons in various western jurisdictions. This policy has been adopted in numerous countries under the guise of tolerance. Recently, Ireland had its first transfer, when a fully intact male sex offender was placed in a women’s prison in Limerick. The California Senate also recently voted in favour of such accommodations. This policy often is referred to as “self ID.” It means that your status as a male or female is determined by your belief (or claim) about your sex and not by your actual biology.

This is happening in Canada, where I live, even if most Canadians have no idea about it. The people who live in prison, including female prisoners, have very little constituency among politicians or journalists. The media reports on this issue rarely. And when they do, there is miniscule, if any, acknowledgement that self-ID poses a serious danger to incarcerated women. Just the opposite: Self-ID is portrayed as a step toward progressive enlightenment, full stop.

When these men do abuse female inmates, it is referred to, for official purposes, as “female” perpetrated violence, since that is how the perpetrator is classified. I learned about this policy, and the lobby effort behind it, from British radical feminists on Twitter, because, as noted above, the Canadian media either isn’t interested in reporting on it, or is fearful that candid reporting in this area will lead to accusations of transphobia.

The activism of these British women brought the case of Karen White to my attention. White is a male rapist who was admitted into a women’s prison in Wakefield, England in 2017. White has been convicted of sexually assaulting two female inmates during his three months of incarceration in Wakefield. He was subsequently sent to a male prison.

Hearing about the UK’s policy of self-ID for prisons prompted me to check if there was a similar policy in Canada. I assumed that this was not the case, as I had not heard anything of it. And the very thought of it ran counter to my conception of Canadian values, which tend to be highly protective of women’s rights and safety. It turned out I could not have been more wrong: On both the provincial and federal levels, male-bodied offenders have been housed in women’s prisons on the basis of self-ID for quite some time.

On the federal level, this began in 2017, after the passage of Bill C-16, which added gender identity and expression to the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Act. Prior to this, only men who’d had sexual reassignment surgery (SRS) could be considered for accommodation in a women’s federal prison. Now, the policy was basically anything-goes.

Sex offenders such as Patrick Pearsall and Matthew Harks have been housed in Canadian women’s prisons. As has contract killer Fallon Aubee, the first male offender (to my knowledge) transferred federally as a result of self-ID. Dangerous offender Adam Laboucan is currently housed in the Fraser Valley Institution for Women in British Columbia. To receive the designation of “dangerous offender” under Canadian law, there must be evidence that the offender has a pattern of brutally violent behavior that is overwhelmingly likely to persist. Laboucan was convicted of sexually assaulting a 3-month old baby, yet he is now living in a women’s prison that participates in the Institutional Mother-Child Program, which is run by the federal government “to foster positive relationships between federally incarcerated women and their children by providing a supportive environment that promotes stability and continuity for the mother-child relationship.” One feature of the program is that it allows young children to live with their incarcerated mothers in detached buildings referred to as “cottages.”

A CBC report on a 2010 decision to deny parole to Laboucan relays that he had threatened to kill a female guard, and that he had confessed to murdering a 3-year old child at the age of 11. (The Province reported that Laboucan also was denied parole in 2018. He had appealed this decision citing bias on behalf of the Parole Board but this was unsuccessful.)

Laboucan is not in a women’s prison as a result of Bill C-16 (which was cited to justify a policy of self-ID). He has been accommodated because, while incarcerated, he has undergone SRS. The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) has allowed men who have had this procedure to apply for transfers to women’s prisons since 2001. This policy stemmed from a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling (Kavanagh v. Canada), which declared that not allowing castrated male offenders accommodation in women’s prisons was discriminatory on the basis of sex and disability.

This policy accounts for CSC’s odd classification system. A male offender who has had SRS is recorded in the Offender Management System as a female, while an intact male is recorded as a male (even if it was merely his claim to be a woman that led to his incarceration in a women’s facility).

Matthew Harks recently was released from the Grand Valley Institution for Women in Ontario. He is a serial pedophile who has been convicted of three sexual assaults against girls under the age of 8. He has claimed to have abused 60 girls and to have committed 200 offenses. A 2006 psychiatric assessment of Harks maintained that he has an “all-encompassing preoccupation with sexually abusing underage girls.” Like Laboucan, Harks has undergone SRS, but this has not stopped him from facing multiple accusations of harassment and assault while incarcerated in a women’s prison. In 2016, the Calgary Herald reported that Harks was potentially facing charges for “three alleged offences that took place recently while [Harks] was in custody: assault, unlawful confinement and sexual assault.” The Vancouver Sun has reported that Harks has assaulted two female inmates who were “childlike in appearance.”

The commonly held belief that a castrated male offender poses minimal threat to females is a myth. There is certainly no rational reason why a male serial predator should be housed with women, many of whom have a history of being abused by men. Offenders are sent to prison as punishment. They are not sent to prison to be punished; and locking these women in with violent men is cruel and unusual punishment. It is well established that men and women have vastly different patterns of criminality. It is a basic fact that men are physically stronger than women, and that they regularly take advantage of this fact in every imaginable context to dominate and abuse women.


more at

https://quillette.com/2019/10/12/ma...risoned-with-women-why-do-so-few-people-care/
 

Jasmine Raine

Well-known member
Jul 28, 2014
4,046
49
48
Can't really says she is can't speak in libraries. She has done it twice now. Once in BC and once here in TO.

They are publicly funded and as such have some rules and guidelines of their own to follow. She spoke, they protested. That is western world life. Welcome to it everyone.
 

Jicama

Active member
Nov 19, 2014
238
177
43
It's not fucking hard. Trans women are women and are allowed to use women's bathrooms. It's not rocket science. Do you need that communicated to you in grade school language just so you could understand?
Define "woman".

You CAN'T, and therefore the term is utterly meaningless. You demand individual selection for a GROUP IDENTITY, which is complete nonsense. I don't have an issue with transpeople using whatever bathrooms, but people have the right to hold and publicly voice opposing views.


Crimson Mire said:
Why should there be a "gay gene" or "transgender gene" to validate ourselves as human beings? Do you realize how gatekeeping as fuck you sound?
Invalidating you as a woman is not the same as invalidating you as a human. You can express your personality however you wish, but individual rights, freedoms and protections are not based on personality. You deserve the same basic rights afforded to humans in general, but rights specific to women (such as abortion) do not apply to you. Society as a whole is the gatekeeper, you cannot simultaneously advocate for the rights and protections afforded by the gate and demand there is no gatekeeper.
You're demanding that we "gatekeep" Murphy's ability to speak freely in public in much the same manner. That's called hypocrisy.

Crimson Mire said:
Meghan Murphy is not allowed to speak in a public library BECAUSE she invalidates us as human beings, by denying the fact that trans women are women. That's not "forcing to agree with our self-identification" that's "not being a hateful transphobic bigot". Being trans will not affect MM's life in any way, but her hateful and bigoted speech WILL affect our lives.
Free speech is not, and CANNOT be, limited to private speech. That is the whole point. Free speech ends where it causes direct harm (i.e. yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre) or incites hatred. That is the standard, and a very high bar for good reason. The library, being an extension of the government, needs to protect free speech. That's the same reason they allowed a Neo-Nazi event to be held. Espousing bigoted or racist views is NOT the same as inciting hatred.


Crimson Mire said:
You are not a trans woman so transphobia and anti-LGBTQ hate speech will not affect you, so obviously it makes sense that you wouldn't give a shit if MM's speech is hateful or not. And yet you seem to have no problem speaking on behalf of us as if you assume we are not going to be affected by the same hate speech. That's privilege in a nutshell, so thank you kind sir for demonstrating it for me :) .
That's idiotic. 90% of laws won't ever apply to me and therefore I don't get a say in what our laws are or how they should apply? Thankfully for EVERYONE, that's not how laws work. The law for you is the same as the law for Meghan Murphy.
 

Jicama

Active member
Nov 19, 2014
238
177
43
Jicama said:
I guess that means the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is made up of all privileged white males too, because they support Murphy's right to speak.

Teeheehee surprise surprise ;) Oh you're finally opening your eyes to the real world?
CCLA said:
CCLA welcomes Bill C-16, which expands Canada’s equality law to explicitly protect individuals from discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression. It also ensures that offences against trans people on this basis are treated as hate crimes.
But but, I thought the laws only protected the rich & privileged? You mean to tell me that the same organization that is supporting Murphy's right to publicly speak also supported trans rights?
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,697
21
38
If degeneracy prevails in our society (and it's anyone's guess whether it will), Crimson's emotion-packed ideology will too even though it's bereft of common sense, basic scientific backing, and undermines women's equality.

I empathize with people born into a body that doesn't match their brain. That's the stuff of real nightmares. But that doesn't legitimize anything that Crimson is arguing for.

There are choices to be made. I go to church each Sunday, bear my cross, pray to God, and hold my head high. See you at the altar my friends.
 

Grimnul

Well-known member
May 15, 2018
1,480
28
48
If degeneracy prevails in our society (and it's anyone's guess whether it will), Crimson's emotion-packed ideology will too even though it's bereft of common sense, basic scientific backing, and sets back women's equality.

I empathize with people born into a body that doesn't match their brain. That's the stuff of real nightmares. But that doesn't legitimize anything that Crimson is arguing for.
I have to agree with Mr. Cock here (aside from the degeneracy stuff). The thing CM doesn’t seem to understand is that we don’t hate trans people. I’ve never used any slurs, never made fun of CM for being trans. I can’t recall anyone here doing so. Hell, I go out of my way to use gender-neutral pronouns. I very much empathize. Being trans must be very difficult.

The reason I attack CM is because they’re an idiot and an asshole. They come to a place they have no reason to be and throw tantrums and spout irrational drivel, then accuse anyone who disagrees of bigotry. We don’t hate you because you’re trans, CM. We hate you because you’re an obnoxious lunatic. Also, speaking as a liberal, you make us all look crazy and give the conservatives ammunition. If you want a social conservative like Scheer to win next time, this is a pretty good way to help it happen.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,307
6,665
113
just because meghan murphy is against sex work doesn't mean she should not be allowed to speak her mind on whatever issues she cares about, as long as she isn't actively promoting or advocating violence against a protected group.

simply stating the REALITY that trans women are TRANS and different from biological women is not hateful, ....
It all depends on levels and intent. If the statements was 'blacks are different from whites' it would be a clear case. Yes, a geneticist could discuss that there is a genetic difference that makes skin have different tones without a problem. However if someone was arguing that giving black people rights harms the rights of white people then we would have a clear problem.

And no, Murphy's point is not that there is differences but that trans women are harming "real" women.

trans rights is coming up against a lot of other rights people have taken for granted for a long time, and it's absurd if you think their rights can just come along and trounce every other person's rights.
What rights are those? Sorry but that is as stupid as 100 years ago men complaining that giving women equal rights was in reality harming men.


p.s. The issue for most people was not simply what Murphy was saying. Most of us are adult enough to understand people will disagree with us and say things meant to upset others. Rather, the issue was the Public Library giving her the platform.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,307
6,665
113
Yeah, see this is the problem. The unfortunate fact is that life is often messy and there’s simply no way to make everyone happy. In this case, there are many women who say they are not comfortable with allowing trans women to enter traditionally female only spaces. ....
The question is whether human rights trump comfort. Reality is washrooms should be a non-issue just like allowing women into 'gentlemen's clubs' (in the old sense where guys would sit around, read their papers and drink). I remember the discomfort of having coed washrooms in the university dorm but we all got over it. I do get the discomfort of a public locker room but we all have managed to cope with having gay guys in the same showers and elderly guys insisting on walking around nude, they can get over it (especially since many gyms have individual shower stalls in the locker room already).
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,697
21
38
Basketcase, conflating race with gender is lazy, inappropriate, and disgraceful. You don't understand the topic.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,307
6,665
113
it's already happened a few times,....
As opposed to how often men have snuck into womens washrooms or committed sex assaults?

Sorry but quoting the extreme minority to attack a whole group is no different from posting a couple articles about women causing car crashes and saying therefore women shouldn't drive.

In both cases you posted there is already a legal remedy for the criminals.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,307
6,665
113
Basketcase, conflating race with gender is lazy, inappropriate, and disgraceful. You don't understand the topic.
When discussing legal rights they sure are valid.

If you would rather discuss a gender specific example, did allowing women to vote take away human rights from men?
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,697
21
38
When discussing legal rights they sure are valid.

If you would rather discuss a gender specific example, did allowing women to vote take away human rights from men?
Who has argued that allowing women the vote would take away human rights from men?

This isn't a voting rights issue either.

Aside: why do you ignore Crimson Mire's derangement on full display here?
 

explorerzip

Well-known member
Jul 27, 2006
8,127
1,295
113
I think we have to remember that protest is a form of free speech too. Someone's freedom of speech does not trump someone else's freedom to protest no matter how hard they make it.
 

Crimson Mire

Active member
May 22, 2018
168
40
28
I have to agree with Mr. Cock here (aside from the degeneracy stuff). The thing CM doesn’t seem to understand is that we don’t hate trans people. I’ve never used any slurs, never made fun of CM for being trans. I can’t recall anyone here doing so. Hell, I go out of my way to use gender-neutral pronouns. I very much empathize. Being trans must be very difficult.

The reason I attack CM is because they’re an idiot and an asshole. They come to a place they have no reason to be and throw tantrums and spout irrational drivel, then accuse anyone who disagrees of bigotry. We don’t hate you because you’re trans, CM. We hate you because you’re an obnoxious lunatic. Also, speaking as a liberal, you make us all look crazy and give the conservatives ammunition. If you want a social conservative like Scheer to win next time, this is a pretty good way to help it happen.
Look Grimnul your whole argument here is you want to sacrifice the basic human rights of trans women just so chauvinistic, misogynistic cis-women can have their field day, and you back it up with your halfassed shitty statistics explanation. First, trans women and other queer people are far more common than you might imagine and second, even if trans women make up a speck of the population so what? People with peanut allergies make up a speck of the population, and you're just going to let them die and deny them of epinephrine and make the excuse that "most people love peanuts"?

Oh and what about non-binary people? What about genderqueer people? What about demigirls, demiboys, two-spirited people, etc. Yeah let's deny them the right to express themselves too just so you can keep your harem of sexist, chauvinistic women to sleep around. You're a sick disgusting human being. You act like you know shit about queer people and that you support us but you don't and I know your gaslighting tactic very well. Admit it you don't know jackshit about the queer community, you don't know jackshit about gender identity, and all you're doing here is playing the "nice guy" game hoping you get brownie points all because you know gender neutral pronouns and that some SP's like you.

Obviously you're going to say that you're "not a transphobe" because all transphobes I meet will NEVER admit to being a transphobe, like what do you think I'm stupid or something? Do you expect me to hear you say "yes yes I'm a dirty transphobe"? Unlike you I live in the real world.

And you had to say you go "out of your way" just to use gender-neutral pronouns how fucking pathetic you are you man-baby. You're not special for boasting yourself for being only slightly better than Smallcock so fuck off.

Oh gosh did I swear? My my. You called me an asshole and idiot didn't you? Assbag.

Oh how cute I'm a Scheer supporter AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA let me tell you boy if ignoramuses like you didn't exist the LGBTQIA+ people would not be spending their times fighting for these causes and petitions. Your posts are no different from any transphobic rhetoric that we're used to, yet you still admit you're not a transphobe. Ha! I know your views on trans women; they are CRYSTAL CLEAR to me, and you have the audacity to say you're not a transphobe. Pathetic.
 

Crimson Mire

Active member
May 22, 2018
168
40
28
If degeneracy prevails in our society (and it's anyone's guess whether it will), Crimson's emotion-packed ideology will too even though it's bereft of common sense, basic scientific backing, and undermines women's equality.

I empathize with people born into a body that doesn't match their brain. That's the stuff of real nightmares. But that doesn't legitimize anything that Crimson is arguing for.

There are choices to be made. I go to church each Sunday, bear my cross, pray to God, and hold my head high. See you at the altar my friends.
Ta-ta Micropenis Boy. Hope you wake up one day, open your eyes, and smell the fresh air of 2019.

Trust me the only true nightmare that me and other LGBTQIA+ people have to deal with is YOU and your queerphobic rhetoric. Most of us are happy with our queer bodies.
 

Jicama

Active member
Nov 19, 2014
238
177
43
What rights are those? Sorry but that is as stupid as 100 years ago men complaining that giving women equal rights was in reality harming men.


p.s. The issue for most people was not simply what Murphy was saying. Most of us are adult enough to understand people will disagree with us and say things meant to upset others. Rather, the issue was the Public Library giving her the platform.
You're missing some of the cogent points here.

1. CM argues that not only should Murphy not be allowed to speak at the library, but that public speech of that nature is a hate crime. This is an exceptionally dangerous line of thought and absolutely threatens the fundamental right to freedom of expression given in the Charter.

To be fair, this is not the argument of the trans community at large.

2. To say that one is free to privately hold ideas but not free to express them publicly (or using public forums) also diminishes our freedom of expression, ESPECIALLY as it pertains to libraries. Think of the society we would be living in if we started deciding that certain books were too offensive and should be burned. It is backwards to think that Murphy's speech is only OK at private spaces but not public ones - public institutions have the greatest responsibility to uphold our rights and freedoms.

This is why the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is antithetically opposed to Murphy's views but simultaneously supports her right to speak publicly at the library.

They state their view better than I can, so I will simply quote from their letter to the library.

We do not share the views of Ms. Murphy, but we defend her right to express them. In particular, although Ms. Murphy opposed Bill C-16 (which added gender identity and expression to the prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act), CCLA was a strong supporter of that Bill. We have fought fiercely for the rights of trans and non-binary people and will continue to do so. But our views about the wisdom of Ms. Murphy’s position cannot dictate whether she is allowed to speak in a public venue. Nor can the views of the library’s staff, Board, or members of the community.

The suggestion by some that what Ms. Murphy says amounts to hate speech is a misinterpretation of the law, which defines hate speech in strict terms in light of Canada’s constitutional protection of free expression.

In its most recent articulation on the subject, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that hate speech laws do not “prohibit expression which debates the merits of reducing the rights of vulnerable groups in society.” (Whatcott v. Saskatchewan, 2013 SCC 11, para. 51) In our view, the position that Ms. Murphy is engaged in illegal hate speech simply has no merit.
 
Toronto Escorts