Spotlight, Top Stories

Why I’m Suing Twitter

This is a response to “Who Controls the Platform?“—a multi-part Quillette series authored by social-media insiders. Submissions related to this series may be directed to

Progressives who claim that “reality has a liberal bias” may be correct on certain issues. But problems emerge when the facts don’t co-operate with the liberal narrative. We saw an example recently, when it emerged that actor Jussie Smollett had been formally charged with making up a hoax hate-crime involving MAGA-hat-wearing men assaulting him with bleach, a noose and racist, homophobic epithets. As Quillette’s Andy Ngo noted, Smollett’s original claim attracted an outpouring of performative sympathy from an all-star cast of liberal grandees. But when it turned out the attack never happened, most of those same commentators kept mum. A similar pattern played out with the boys from Covington Catholic High School caught on video at the Lincoln Memorial: Too often, observers seize on a fashionable narrative and either reject or ignore evidence that falsifies it—because what counts for them is less about the actual truth of a claim, and more about how much on-brand social-media value is associated with boosting it. Call it doublethink or virtue-signaling. But whatever label you choose, the phenomenon has real effects on public policy—as my own experience shows.

Earlier this year, lawyers acting on my behalf filed a legal complaint against Twitter in California. The social media behemoth has been suspending accounts, not because users break Twitter rules, but because they break rank. Despite repeated claims that the platform exists as a space for free speech, and the company’s professed public commitment to refrain from banning users for ideological reasons, Twitter is now doing just that. Those who fail to adhere to the company’s preferred politics are picked off, with no accountability to speak of.

During an interview on a recent podcast, Sam Harris pressed Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on the recent ideological crackdown. Dorsey responded that the platform did not generally ban people for “one tweet,” but that it looked at “behaviours in the background” to determine which users should be suspended. Dorsey referenced behaviours like “doxing,” “threats of violence,” operating multiple accounts in order to harass particular people, and inducing “troll armies intending to silence someone.” I have done none of these things, yet was banned from the platform anyway, supposedly for breaking Twitter rules. Which rules? I can’t tell you—because Twitter hasn’t told me.

At the time I was suspended, in November, 2018, Twitter did identify the Tweet I was banned for, but offered no specific explanation as to why it was problematic. My Tweet was posted on November 8, and read, “Yeeeah it’s him.” I was referencing a Vancouver-area tech worker, serial litigant, and body-waxing enthusiast named Jonathan/Jessica Yaniv, and had included a screen shot of a review Yaniv had left online (for an esthetician named “Ally” at “Foxy Box,” who had apparently done a “great” job on his Brazilian bikini wax). Twitter claimed this constituted “hateful conduct.”

Twenty minutes after I received notice of my permanent suspension, for tweeting information that already was public (which is to say, Yaniv had posted this review online, publicly, for all to see, under the name “Jonathan Yaniv”), Pink News published an article announcing that the platform suddenly had changed its rules so as to ban “misgendering” and “deadnaming.” The timing was astonishing.

“Misgendering” refers to the practice of identifying a biologically male individual as “him” or “he” if the individual in question identifies as a transwoman (or vice versa in the case of self-identified transmen). “Deadnaming” refers to the practice of using the real name that a (now) trans-identified person used prior to deciding that they wanted a new gender identity and the associated pronouns. But even if one accepts the premise that these are objectionable acts, they don’t apply to what I did. That’s because Yaniv, a biological male, continues to use a male name on social media, does not seem to specify female pronouns (as of this writing), and is, by all outward appearances, male, notwithstanding a variety of irregularly exhibited “feminine” affectations, such as wearing makeup and posing for selfies in a woman’s bathroom.

Even if I had been guilty of “misgendering,” the suspension still wouldn’t make sense according to Twitter’s own Terms of Service, which state that users will be given 30 days notice of any planned changes to Twitter rules. (In this case, the company didn’t notify anyone until after the fact). The Terms of Service also specify that changes to the rules will not be applied retroactively. Yet I was banned on November 23 for a tweet posted on November 8. Why? I am yet to receive an explanation.

So Twitter is violating its own stated rules, and it is doing so as a means to target specific individuals for ideological reasons. The victims include people like me, who relied in good faith on Twitter’s written assurances, as we used that platform to develop our professional operations and networks, to communicate with other users and the general public, to share information and opinions, and (in my case) to defend womens’ rights—until Twitter arbitrarily reneged. That’s why I’m suing.

I am not the only user who has been banned of late for either challenging gender-identity ideology more generally, or challenging the specific claims or behaviour of trans activists (particularly in their targeting of women). The trend should concern everyone—even those who don’t use Twitter, or who have no exposure to gender-identity controversies. The discussion that I have engaged in on Twitter constitutes political speech, as well as the simple reporting of facts, and relates to the emergence of new legislation in various jurisdictions that will have a profound effect on our society for decades to come. Even if you feel this doesn’t affect you and your family members now, it will in the future.

For instance, various governments in North America and Europe have passed laws that allow people to determine their own sex in a way that grants them unfettered access to women’s facilities, such as change rooms, transition houses, shelters, bathrooms and even jails. Sports federations and bodies, including the International Olympic Committee, have created policies allowing trans-identified males to compete against women, in the process ignoring widespread criticism from the public and from female athletes. And while much of the media has lined up behind this trend, in large part out of fear of being called transphobic, there are millions of ordinary, perfectly tolerant people who are deeply troubled by the way these sweeping new measures are being implemented.

In the UK, meetings and discussions have been held regularly to address concerns about proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act. As the nature of these events serves to illustrate, the opposition to the new legislation doesn’t originate primarily with the sort of regressive bigots who exist in liberal caricature, but instead with committed feminists who are appalled by the lack of concern expressed for female spaces and safety, and who are seeing generations of hard work and activism rolled back. In British Columbia, where I live, violent threats and melodramatic appeals were aimed at shutting down an event organized by myself and other women to discuss gender identity and women’s rights at the Vancouver Public Library. Despite the presence of dozens of protesters outside the venue, the event sold out, and 300 people came to peacefully and respectfully discuss the issues at hand. These attendees—most of them ordinary men and women (many of them feminists and leftists)—are the furthest thing from bigots.

All I have ever done on Twitter is tell the truth about the science of sex and gender, and the way these new gender identity policies and legislation hurt girls and women. But, today, the truth is unpopular. It contradicts all those hashtags we’re supposed to use, the mantras we’re supposed to unquestioningly bleat, and the ever-more colourful shirts and buttons we’re supposed to wear to school and work. In this way, a small minority of the population has been able to seize veto power over much of the media.

Actually, it would be more accurate to describe this constituency as a minority within a minority—since most trans people presumably don’t endorse the often vicious de-platforming methods and violent threats used by the most militant activists.

I am just one person, Twitter is just one platform, and gender identity is just one issue. But my silencing is part of a larger problem by which small but dedicated activist cadres are defining the boundaries of discourse in a manner that effectively bans legitimate opposition to their own policy preferences. We are presented with a binary version of politics — left vs right/good vs bad — despite the fact that reality is much more complex than this. This sort of discourse alienates the broad majority. In the United States, a major 2018 survey project called Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape found that a vast majority of Americans don’t fit the categories of “left” or “right.” As Meghan Daum summarized, “researchers concluded that two-thirds make up what they call ‘the exhausted majority,’ a cohort containing ‘distinct groups of people with varying degrees of political understanding and activism’ that share ‘a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation.’”

In other words, the world doesn’t look the way Twitter and the liberal media say it does. The fact someone wears a MAGA hat doesn’t necessarily make them a fascist, and the fact someone identifies as part of the LGBT community doesn’t necessarily make them progressive. The views now being enforced as gospel by Twitter—insofar as we can even infer what they are—seem to reflect a dogma that very few actual humans believe (even if we all often feel pressured to signal adherence to these dogmas). For example, most people in the world believe that biological sex is real, and that it is not possible to become the opposite sex via declaration. By purging non-compliant ideological views, Twitter is essentially curating a false reality on its social network.

All of this is justified on the basis that trans-identified people are extremely vulnerable. But this claim is exaggerated. Trans-identified people may suffer discrimination and violence, just as do women, Jews, Muslims and people of colour. But the popularized notion that people afflicted with gender dysphoria face a sort of daily holocaust of street violence is a lurid fiction. In my own country, Canada, there were seven reported instances of “homicides of trans and/or gender-diverse people” between January, 2008 and September, 2018. This data, collected by the Trans Murder Monitoring Project (TMMP), suggests a trans-victim homicide rate of 0.65 deaths/year within a Canadian trans population that is estimated to be about 200,000—or a murder rate of about 0.33 per 100,000 trans population. That figure is actually much lower than the overall Canadian homicide rate, which is typically about 1.6, or about five times the rate for trans victims.

While bias and media manipulation obviously are not confined to progressives—as anyone who follows Donald Trump on Twitter can attest—it is the ideologically fashionable left that now acts as gatekeeper on some of our most important communication media. I believe many liberals think they are doing good by mainstreaming certain ideologies and trying to silence opinions they believe are “harmful.” But it’s counterproductive.

In his interview with Harris, Dorsey said, “I don’t believe that we can afford to take a neutral stance anymore. I don’t believe that we should optimize for neutrality.” That’s a great social-justice slogan. But this principle apparently relates only to the most fashionable causes, as Twitter has taken a neutral stance on plenty of dishonest, nauseating, and harmful content posted on its platform. For instance, the company continues to allow pornography and prostitution accounts (search #GFE and you’ll find plenty) to operate with relative impunity (“adult” accounts are supposed to mark their content as “sensitive“ and may not post ads selling sex). The platform also allows users to post libel, or to post bizarre statements declaring penises to be “female”—and accusing those who disagree of being bigots and pedlers of hate speech.

Recently, actress Indya Moore tweeted that “if a woman has a penis, her penis is a biologically female penis.” Moore, a biologically male transwoman, also declared that “Cis people characterising gender variant traits as abnormal is synonymous to white people saying melanin is abnormal or melanated people saying that the absence of melanin is abnormal”—essentially smearing anyone who disagrees with the existence of a “female penis” as akin to a racist. I support Moore’s right to peddle such nonsense—even as we call it out for what it is. But I also hope readers will acknowledge how ludicrous it is for Twitter to permit—and even encourage—such delusions while banning users who channel what most reasonable people actually think.

For anyone who believes Twitter is on the leading edge of the fight against the patriarchy, consider that the company fought against anti-trafficking legislation in the United States, including changes to the Communications Decency Act, which would hold online platforms to greater account for ads and content that facilitate sex trafficking. Twitter fought against the Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act, on the basis that such laws would harm “free speech.” Yet they are all too happy to suppress the free speech of users, like me, who aren’t interested in porn or escort services—but who just have a fetish for, you know, important political ideas and telling the truth.

My own case will be decided in court. And those interested can read about it here. (And yes, I am raising money, as the entire suit will be funded through donations.) This isn’t just about my Twitter account. It’s about a larger question: Do we want the truth? Or do we want a bubble full of comforting lies? I know what I prefer. And I hope the Jack Dorseys of the world will come to realize just how much is at stake.

Meghan Murphy is a writer based in Vancouver BC. Her website is Feminist Current.


  1. Matt K says

    “Despite the presence of dozens of protesters outside the venue, the event sold out, and 300 people came to peacefully and respectfully discuss the issues at hand. These attendees—most of them ordinary men and women (many of them feminists and leftists)—are the furthest thing from bigots.”

    No, those are the very definition of bigots.

    • Andy C says

      They are bigots for daring to discuss an issue instead of bowing to PC orthodoxy? That’s what you’re going with?

      • Stephen J. says

        I suspect what Mr. K. meant was that if one is a feminist and/or leftist, as those terms are currently defined through effective practice and advocated policy, one is effectively a bigot — since the policies of both ideologies have become, effectively, identity politics, in which one’s demographic group is far more relevant to one’s political status than any individual rights or accomplishments.

    • david of Kirkland says

      The definition of bigot is “a person who comes peacefully and respectfully to discuss the issues at hand” or “ordinary men and women”?

      • Adrian Mayuzumi says

        Yes, this is where we’re at in 2019. I’m happy to see people stating this on the record, for what it’s worth.

        If recognizing that women are female is all it takes to be a “bigot” now, there’s no reason to fear the term anymore. Let the public laugh.

      • Tersitus says

        Is that from the same dictionary that defined “victim” as any person who’d never gotten over being othered by their own mother?

    • Bonnie says

      Yeah, that was a confusing comment, Matt K. Is that really what you think is the definition of bigot, because that’s not at all in line with reality. Get woker dude!

    • JimBob5 says

      Labeling 300 people as bigots without having any idea as to their reason(s) for attending that meeting is an act of prejudgment and…bigotry.

  2. D.B. Cooper says

    “For anyone who believes Twitter is on the leading edge of the fight against the patriarchy, consider that…it isn’t real” is what you should’ve said.

    Meghan, as a rule, it’s difficult to balance I just believe in the science with the phrase the leading edge of the fight against the patriarchy.

    Don’t you think these people would ALSO be better off with the TRUTH: the patriarchy isn’t real. They might as well be on the vanguard of the fight against Lord Sauron. They would get just as much accomplished, while being – or feeling rather – a lot less oppressed.

    Honestly, the patriarchy is to feminists, what female penises are to the trans community, or unicorns are to 5-year olds. They all exist in the same universe… the one that doesn’t exist.

    • Rendall says

      While leftists like Ms. Murphy were fighting the patriarchy, an actual threat emerged from a corner they did not expect.

      • D.B. Cooper says

        The problem is, Ms. Murphy seemingly fails to appreciate the parallels at play here. The lack of self-reflection is staggering, to be sure. I would have liked to see a little more contrition during her moment of catharsis.

        • Miss Yellowbird says

          Forgive the length of this comment – but Meghan Murphy is an insufferable brat. She censors anyone who dares upset her little cadre of internet feminists, but thinks she’s a huge victim for being banned from Twitter?! Give me a break.

          This is a lawsuit designed as a publicity stunt because Meghan wants to garner attention in the US, and anyone with two brain cells to rub together and knowledge of who the players are in this case won’t be duped into caping for her.

          What’s really absurd is how hypocritical Megan and her friends are – I’ve spent almost three years following their antics and Gender Critical feminists act like literal children – screeching that any adult that doesn’t suck up to their childish nonsense has “ideological cooties” and must immediately mocked and banned from their blogs and sub-reddits.

          I mean she even banned a bunch of fitness pole dancers from Feminist Current a few years ago because they dared try to defend a fitness hobby that she doesn’t like! So, yeah, I have a REAL hard time buying this – I’m so hurt by being banned by Twitter and banning people for their beliefs is is so unfair and wrong! – from Meghan Murphy when she has gleefully mocked, harassed and banned women from her own website (many of whom said they did pole fitness to overcome trauma from sexual assault) who did nothing but try to defend a fitness hobby Meghan disapproves of because it “panders to the male gaze”.

          This is interesting since MM is now claiming to be a victim of Twitter when she does exact same thing to people on her platforms all day and gleefully mocks people while banning them for minor “wrongthink”. So it’s quite hypocritical for her to play the victim when her and her very bitchy crew of snots on Reddit reveling in laughing at, mocking and banning centrist and conservative people on r/GenderCritical.

          If you spend even a small amount of time on their sub-Reddit you will see them mock and harass and ban anyone who is a man or who admits to (gasp!) being a centrist or non-screechy far leftist who doesn’t kiss their ass enough. MM does the exact same thing Twitter does EVERY DAY to other people – gleefully and with malace – so why should MM get ass pats for being a “victim” of Twitter when she does the same thing to other people?

          If I were a Twitter lawyer I would simply point out how often MM and crew hatefully mock and ban people from their sub-Reddit and FC while whining that when MM is banned from Twitter it’s a human rights violation and everyone should have sympathy for her.

          GC feminists whatever their actual age are simply stuck in middle school “cooties” politics – they hate trans but also hate middle-of-the-road centrists and people who don’t want to murder right-wingers for simply existing. Sometimes they even screech “we hate you and your dirty political cooties – get out!” if someone dares post even a centrist source on their little hate sub-reddit.

          They only have so many followers because most news outlets won’t allow discussion of trans issues. I firmly believe that if even a few outlets like this one would allow normal people to debate about trans issues, GC Reddit and MM would lose most of their followers overnight because most people just want sensible debate – not the type of crybully victimhood MM is pedaling where she’s a a victim when she is banned but everyone she and her obnoxious little friends ban totes deserves it!

          Give me a break! MM is a massive hypocrite and I would possibly have a smidge of sympathy for her if she treated commenters on GC Reddit or FC with the same respect she expects from Twitter. Instead anyone who spends any time on Feminist Current or Gender Critical subreddit that MM and crew treat anyone that doesn’t parrot their worldview terribly and ban them over the most minor things.

          I mean, they have a regular coddled poster called Yish on GC that literally screeches at all men, “We hate men – get out of here you worthless pieces of shit!” before the mods mock and ban them – usually after looking through post history and noting that the person has dared to post in a subreddit they don’t like. I’m a woman who believes in fighting for women’s rights, but treating random men and other posters like that for no reason is extreme and sexist and unnecessarily rude and yes, hateful.

          So that’s how MM and her crew treat random people on Reddit who stumble upon GC, but we are supposed to believe that she’s a poor little victim of Twitter banning and she needs the big male court system and RW lawyers to protect her and fight for her right to free speech?! She only cares about her own speech and how much publicity it garners for her “brand”.

          Like I said, if I were Twitter lawyers I’d easily point out that she’s a hypocrite who bans people on the daily and mocks them when they ask to be unbanned or allowed to post. It’s only her that is super specially injured when banned from websites apparently, all those people she bans on FC and GC are just misogynist whiners and awful racist right-wingers who deserve it of course.

          In Murphy vs. Dorsey it’s definately a case of pot meet kettle and she’s suing for attention in the US because she doesn’t have a case.

          • Saw file says

            @Miss Yellowbird

            TY for your accurate comment.
            She certainly is a misandrist and bigot.

            I too posted a comment explaining the true nature of MM and her cabal of man haters.
            I included a couple of links to articles she wrote in her blog (radical feminist multimedia corporation) that clearly shows her true nature.
            For some reason my comment is on hold pending moderation. I have never heard of that happening here and I am curious as to the reasoning. Possibly it’s because I also included a link from a MRA group about her and this situation.

            She doesn’t give a crap about freedom of expression or true equal rights. It’s quite the opposite. She is a oligarch of hyper-radical feminism in Canada and she desires to expand her sphere of influence and control.
            She is a professional societal manipulator, and I think that you are correct that this is all a stunt to advance her career. She has jumped on the start of the wave that is the upwell to the coming blowback against the deplatforming and censorship that she actively helped to initiate. Win or lose, it is a smart move if she can get away with it.
            Hopefully no one blindly buys into the slick BS in this pandering article, and instead does a bit of independent research into the nature of the beast.

          • Lucky for Twitter you are NOT their lawyer because if Twitter’s case depended on pointing out alleged hypocrisy on Ms. Murphy’s part in enforcing rules on her own feminist website, they’d be toast. Twitter is not a private political or ideological website. Twitter become a global platform for all sorts of public discussion from millions of people around the world-including the official platform for the President of the United States to communicate with the American people-eventually achieving a monopoly on such public discussion, by serving as a neutral free speech platform, “the free speech wing of the free speech party” as CEO Jack Dorsey said back then.

            Twitter did not become the behemoth that it is by enticing people to join with a Terms of Service that included enforcement of any one political or ideological view. Twitter is used an official communications outlet for everyone from Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, every 2020 Democratic POTUS candidate, every member of US Congress D or R, to Nicolás Maduro, Bashar al-Assad, Vladimir Putin, & Ayatollah Khamanei. What Meghan Murphy or anyone else does in other parts of their life, including enforcing feminist ideology on her own feminist website, is irrelevant to the baits-and-switches Twitter pulled, transforming virtually overnight from a public free speech forum for everyone into an increasingly ban-happy political/ideological enforcer.

            Prior to post-2016 election Russiagate hysteria, there were zero people ever banned from Twitter for political views. By November 2018 Twitter was retroactively purging people en masse for new rules that now included a ban on using male pronouns for a male person at odds with a radical minority Transgender SJW activist ideological point of view. This case has nothing to do with anything Meghan Murphy has ever said or done except for when it involved interaction with the Twitter platform-which is increasingly de-platforming POVs it dislikes with no accountability whatsoever. Nameless faceless corporate executives controlling what is allowed to be said, permanently banning people without even needing to provide explanation, on a platform that has a monopoly on public speech, would mark the death of free speech as know it; the First Amendment is rendered impotent when a private corporation has more power than the State to silence free speech it doesn’t like with impunity, and isn’t shy about abusing that power.

          • Saw file says


            ” a platform that has a monopoly on public speech”

            You need to look up the meaning of the word ”monopoly”, because you obviously don’t know what it means. There are scores of online public speech platforms.

            “would mark the death of free speech as know it; the First Amendment is rendered impotent when a private corporation has more power than the State”

            That statement is so hyperbolic that it is nonsensical.
            “A private corporation has more power than the State.” Seriously?
            The State can regulate Twitter. Can Twitter regulate the State?
            The First Amendment doesn’t apply to private corporations (other than a few exceptions).

          • Censorious Radical Feminist says

            Hi Miss Yellowbird,

            I’m a moderator of r/GenderCritical. You seem to think Meghan Murphy is associated with us or other Gender Critical subreddits, but you are mistaken, and you are blaming her for the actions of others. Meghan Murphy is not associated with our subreddit, or any subreddits that I know of. We are a moderated community, we have rules and standards for the content that we allow in our little corner of Reddit, while Meghan Murphy is a free speech advocate.

            Meghan doesn’t moderate comments on Feminist Current very much as far as I can tell, which is also why I don’t tend to read them. Her comments section is largely full of anti-feminists who don’t say anything interesting or relevant, but simply repeat their beliefs over and over again despite the evidence presented to the contrary. They are frequently abusive, and don’t actually tend to engage with the arguments or evidence, which makes it a waste of my time to read it. I do wish they were more interesting detractors.

            Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is obligated to want to see it – no one is entitled to an audience. You have to earn one. When content is repetitive and not interesting for an audience, the audience will stop paying attention.

            On our subreddit, our users have made it clear that they don’t want to see certain kinds of content, and we enforce that. Because we enforce that, they keep coming back. Other related subreddits remove less content. Our community is a niche community – it is for a specific subset of possible content, and some kinds of content are disallowed. The beauty of Reddit is that, so far, it mostly allows for such varied niche communities – some are more permissive, and some are not. Audiences get to assemble around the communities with the standards they like, which allows people access to an audience they didn’t themselves earn as long as they follow the rules that make having that audience possible. To the extent that various communities are allowed to talk about what they want, that is an expression of free speech, even though every community doesn’t permit all speech. Free speech doesn’t mean you get an unearned audience.

            Twitter, however, is not moderated in any way, or intended for any particular audience – or at least, it didn’t used to be. People subscribe directly to the posters they want to read, and are not necessarily exposed to content they don’t want to see, except through direct messages and mentions. Every poster earns their own audience. Twitter doesn’t need moderators or editors because they have this model.

            The way people abuse mentions and direct messages is a problem on Twitter and also on other platforms with a totally different author-to-audience model, and the ethical issues of allowing your platform to be used for doxing and organized harassment also aren’t unique to Twitter. Those are issues that all websites that allow comments have to deal with, and they’re complicated issues.

            But the fact that Twitter is reigning in what kind of political views and opinions can be stated anywhere by anyone on their platform means they’re making all of Twitter itself into a niche community. This is alarming, and is a huge change. Twitter has a reputation for being open and allowing basically all kinds of speech. It used to be an unbound collection of niche communities, but they’ve decided, late into the game, that they are going to be a niche community of niche communities. And the opinions that they’re exiling people and groups of people for aren’t even extreme or uncommon. They will retain their reputation for being an open communication platform, but certain viewpoints will be absent, which misrepresents reality, but will also affect reality as people start to believe what they see as being representative of reality, and as they believe the opinions they’ve been exposed to while being denied the opportunity of being exposed to counter argument.

            This is alarming and beyond the pale. A lot has been said about how websites like Twitter and Reddit are the new “public sphere” where speech takes place, where people learn from others and communicate ideas, where perhaps “free speech” is now most relevant, so I won’t repeat that. But this is a serious issue.

            I’m sorry being banned from our subreddit was unpleasant. I’ve been banned from many communities and censored on other platforms, mostly left-wing ones even though I’m left-wing, but also right-wing ones. Sometimes it really sucks. Sometimes it’s really unfair, sometimes it’s just a mistake. It’s part of using the internet now.

            But being banned from a subreddit does not compare from being banned from Twitter, and a niche community in a corner of Reddit does not compare to the entire platform of Twitter or Reddit. I hope I’ve explained what I think the difference is clearly but not too verbosely, and if anyone disagrees I’m interested to hear it.

          • Saw file says

            @C.R. Feminist

            I had just gotten through how you strive to maintain the purity of your feminist subredit echo chamber, and then…

            “Meghan Murphy is a free speech advocate”

            This untruth at the end of the first paragraph caused me to not bother reading the rest of your comment.

          • You sound like someone who just has an unnatural hatred for this writer. To an obsessively unhealthy degree.
            I am not a radical feminist by any stretch, but sometimes read Feminist Current. I just happen to witness the article about Pole Dancing, where you state commenters were being silenced.

            That is a ridiculous fabrication, seeing as there 2,101 comments on that single article. Murphy allowed just about every comment through unless it was abusive. After awhile, the outraged masses kept repeating the same points over and over and over, never reading any previous comments to see if those same sentiments were posted and thoroughly explored. Which they had been multiple times.

            Sorry if it vexes you, but occasionally comment sections have to be cleaned up if there is abuse or spam. That’s the very reason why she may allow crazier comments. because she does NOT censor.
            Murphy allows more comments and opposing views in her comment sections than I have ever seen in most mainstream media. You can disagree with her, hate her, hate feminism etc etc. But at the very least be fair about it.

            And lol @ Mods. there are no mods. Murphy moderates her own site, and I can’t count how many times immature whiners complain that their comments are being “deleted” or “censored” when they just fail to realize that it’s 2am in Vancouver and Meghan wasn’t able to go through them all and approve them.

          • TarsTarkas says

            She may be everything that you have stated so vehemently, but yet reluctantly she is an ally in the battle for free speech. The difference between her banning people from her site and Twitter is that Twitter so pompously states that they are an open platform and thus should be exempt from FCC & utility rules yet at the same time selectively censors. She is a loud-mouthed bitch but you have to support her lawsuit, otherwise, you may be next.

          • Tersitus says

            Yeah— I’m trying to figure out why I should care if Meghan does Twitter, or Twitter does Meghan. In the narcissist world that is Twitter, the two-faced man is queen.

          • Miss Yellowbird says


            Thanks for the condescending explaination, I’m flattered that you posted it both here and on Reddit so I wouldn’t miss it.

            You are mistaken that I was banned from GC. I’m not banned from your sub-reddit because I do not comment on Reddit, however I have been popcorn reading your sub for a long time since it isn’t private. I also read the trans perspective on Reddit because it’s good to see different viewpoints.

            I’m glad this website is gracious enough to host MM writing and allow people to discuss her work. Contrary to many people’s assertions I don’t hate MM or have beef with her beyond thinking she’s being a bit hypocritical and narcissistic. She did ban me on FC over the pole dancing thing because I responded that she was being shitty to women who disagree with her, so yeah, I’m not super sympathetic to her Twitter ban.

            She courts controversy with her blog posts – like insulting an online fitness community – then treats the people she provoked poorly when they complain in that typical smug internet feminist style. That was my experience with Feminist Current as a passing reader and it’s what informed my comment.

            I wrote the post in the am and wasn’t very awake so may have come across as ranty, but mostly commented because I was just puzzled because she is pretty smug and rude with people who criticize her and often saw her make snide comments on FC when banning commenters.

            MM is obviously welcome to reinvent herself as a “free speech advocate” however as many other commenters here have pointed out, it’s a bit of a quick transformation from someone who built a feminist career complaining about other people transitioning (har har). To use GC terms (no offense to trans) but when she looks in the mirror she may see a stunning and brave free speech warrior, but people who know her feminist work from the internet she seems like a typical rigid censorious feminist. In other words, she doesn’t pass.

            But l honestly wish her the best, just like I wish transgender people the best. You all have more in common than you realize. We are all human. MM could just use some humility and maybe take some time before declaring herself a free speech advocate when she has banned a lot of people rudely herself with that thick internet feminist smarm just from what I saw when reading FC.

            Also, as to your comments about GC and MM not being connected – that is not the impression on Reddit. Although the “anonymity” on Reddit is to your advantage, it’s a double-edged sword in that you will be judged by the content you post and you promote her content a lot. So my judgement was informed by the large number of posts you make promoting MM’s website and content.

            Also you showed up here pretty quickly to deny any affiliation and for someone who has no ties to her you sure seem to somehow know exactly how she moderates her blog. Hmmm…I’ll remain skeptical, thanks.

            I do appreciate some of the things you and your posters have to say, even if I dislike your brand of feminism and find the condescending smarm and purity policing realllly off-putting. Reading the terff / trans debates has been very eye-opening and you both have good points at times.

            GC feminists could stand to have more empathy with trans people and trans could stand to try understand where radfems are coming from too. If you are going to call yourselves proponents of free speech, you gotta give people room to move and radfem worldview is very restrictive and rigid, so you should expect people to be skeptical.

            Anyhow, nice to see you out of the Reddit sandbox, internet stranger! You should come out of the echo chamber more often and engage with people who disagree with you rather than insulting, scolding and banning people who don’t parrot the radfem worldview.

          • That you don’t understand the difference between a major media platform whose scope is such that it could be a public utility, and a private website, demonstrates that you are terribly confused.

            Also, Kathleen Stock, who is a leading gender critical activist is hardly engaged in “middle school politics.” You, however, with your “literally” and ALL CAPS most certainly are.

          • Miss Yellowbird says

            @daniel and erro – you are both wrong but I’ll let the courts do their job. Cute how both of you run around defending her. I’m an adult so it doesn’t matter that you don’t like my use of caps or “literally”. Having watched these particular feminists for years they actually do act like literal children, so I stand by what I said.

            She’s a bratty feminist blogger who is going to lose her frivolous lawsuit. Quit sniffing her butt and expecting others too enjoy the smell just because you do…

          • Andrew Mcguiness says

            Miss Yellowbird +1 for “ideological cooties”

          • “She censors anyone who dares upset her little cadre of internet feminists”

            While I won’t disagree if you say that she is often insufferable, somewhat hostile in her words, and extremely ideological, I do disagree that she censors anyone. She most certainly does NOT insist those who oppose her be silent. She most certainly does NOT oppose the principles of free speech.

            She actually PREFERS to interact with those she most opposes. Which is a refreshing difference from the most prominent “progressives” sucking up all the oxygen these days.

          • Miss Yellowbird says


            I saw your whiny post about my comment on Reddit. It makes me so happy to know that it bothered you. I wrote it knowing you guys would show up here and there and everywhere else online to whine about it lol.

            Like I said, I do not post in your sub-Reddit and only hate read your sub, so you are lying about me having been banned. Still, I knew you GCers would show up and have a hissy fit and run to try to “correct” or intimidate me if I wrote my honest opinion of your group outside your ridgidly controlled echo chamber on Reddit.

            Meghan Murphy is running around publishing stories like this trying to get attention for herself, her lawsuit, and her brand name, but she really doesn’t want to hear people’s honest opinions of her. For a “free speech advocate” she certainly has a little group of lapdogs who are rude to people who don’t worship her. No surprise she was banned from Twitter for coordinating harassment.

            Like I said, I’ve been reading your sub for a few years so I’m very familiar with the posters and the content. Funnily enough, I came to reading GC sub from being upset about the bathroom issue. But after gaining insight from reading trans people’s personal stories on other subs, now I no longer care about the bathroom issue, and I understand why people say TERFs are awful people – because you are.

            Again, for people who claim not to know MM you promote her content often, have regular posters named things like “itsmemeghan” and you get feathers ruffled so much when someone suggests GC is just MM astroturf that you had to make a condescending butthurt post about it.

            Do go f—- yourselves GC Feminists, and I hope Reddit permanently bans your screechy anti-trans cesspool of a sub-Reddit, just as Twitter was right to ban Meghan Murphy for her doxing and coordinated harassment of people she disagrees with.

        • Cosmo says

          Ms. Murphy doesn’t seem to be advocating that those who don’t believe in the patriarchy be silenced.

        • Tersitus says

          Yeah, DB— but let’s not make her into too much of a tragic heroine in “her moment of catharsis.” She’s mostly venting.

      • Dazza says


        Yeah, men!

        Transwomen seem to be masters at mansplaining, and at exhibiting typically aggressive male traits.

        The irony!

    • Irrational Actor says

      Well said D.B.!

      As I read the article, I was momentarily worried that perhaps I would find the comments full of support for a radical feminist due to her activism on this single issue. How pleasant it was to (re)discover that I needn’t have worried at all, as the discerning minds of most Quillette commenters are of course able to see this for what it really is: A misandry-fuelled patriarchy fighter complaining about being on the receiving end of her own dubious tactical style.

      Oh the irony….

      • D.B. Cooper says

        The irony is thick on the ground, no doubt. I’m having a hard time believing that someone of Ms. Murphy’s caliber could fail to appreciate that what the trans community is doing to her, she has done – and would likely continue to do – to men.

        It’s a bit of a faustian bargain, isn’t it?

      • Meghan Murphy has never engaged in such tactics to suppress anyone’s speech. Before making such lurid claims, perhaps it would be wise to search for evidence first. That’s something ‘discerning minds’ usually do.

        The fact that you would be displeased at the fact that you and this person may agree on only one thing, and be against people supporting her for this reason, also paints a rather bleak, black-and-white view of your politics/ideas. People fighting for stuff will disagree on other stuff. What, do you need authors to share your every view before you can agree on one subject? Meghan Murphy has raised an enormous problem that deserves recognition and debate, perhaps it would be a better idea to focus on that rather than criticize her because you don’t like the rest of what she says. Sounds frankly myopic.

        • Nicholas says


          If you think the only two options available are full-throated support of an idea, or ban anyone who agrees with that idea, you’re the problem

        • Miss Yellowbird says

          No, MM is a twenty-something Canadian with a blog.

          She’s also a millennial brat with a huge ego. She’s not American, but obviously desperate for our attention because her blog isn’t that popular. She will lose the case because you aren’t supposed to file frivolous lawsuits to gain attention for your brand in another country.

          We already have “free speech advocates” in the US (actual adult lawyers, not foreign feminist clickbait writers with blogs they are desperate to promote). So IMO we don’t need to import any bratty Canadian feminists to do the job. Meghan isn’t wanted or needed here in the US, but she is a appearently a legend in her own mind.

          Shes no “free speech advocate” and if she’s not a US Citizen she should be careful if she’s going around harassing Americans about her frivolous lawsuit – maybe talk to your lawyers about how not to be so obnoxious to people who owe you nothing? Shes not entitled to harass or bother other people on the internet or anywhere else over her Twitter upset. She’s is just another brat with a blog and this lawsuit really isn’t that interesting to me, except that her arguement is that she’s the exception to
          the rule. She’s exceptional all right….

          I know corporate attys and they don’t play games of the sort Meghan wants to play. I hope the courts call her out for filing this lawsuit frivolously for attention for her little blog. Meghan may not understand this since she is filing in a country that she doesn’t belong in or understand, but American courts aren’t there to give you PR.

          It’s frowned upon to file frivolous stunt lawsuits like this because it wastes courts time, money and resources. Meghan isn’t special and she should take her Twitter ban and STFU instead of wasting American courts time. She’s wrong about Twitter being a special platform (they can ban Meghan Murphy, no different than Meghan Murphy bans other people from her tiny little Canadian feminist blog).

          I’m not sure why this young, white female Canadian clickbait blogger is so sure that we need her down here in the US as our “free speech advocate”? How arrogant. We have plenty of actual free-speech advocates who are attorneys and not whiny feminist bloggers from other countries who want to waste our court systems time for attention.

          In my opinion, her childish stunt lawsuit is a waste of the American courts time, and I bet Twitter will argue the same. Their platform, their rules. Too bad. An if you are going to file little stunt lawsuits to get attention and waste taxpayers time and money, Meghan, next time file suit in your own country, please.

    • You saved me the trouble and in a way that was much funnier than my own approach would have been. Well done.

    • Ray Andrews says

      @D.B. Cooper

      Good Morning D.B. Bravo. If Mx. Murphy wants to come over to science, and if xe rejects absurd narratives, then I think xe should come all the way over rather than trying to retain those absurd narratives that work for xe and demanding the squashing of those that don’t.

    • Dave M says

      Murphy believes the Radfem 101 stuff that gender was constructed so men could control women, in order to be sure of the paternity of children they supported. And that we call the resulting systems of oppression “the Patriarchy”.

      I’ve always wanted to ask a radfem why they don’t support mandatory paternity testing then. It would dismantle patriarchy at the root! All gender would disappear, once gender was no longer needed to determine paternity! (I don’t believe this, but they should.) But of course they don’t really mean what they say. They believe “These are my doctrines, and they let me dismiss critics,” but the doctrines themselves are viewed as a license, not as fact.

    • There are people that act as if we lived in a Patriarchy. There are a few that act as if we are in a matriarchy. If they had known my grandmother they would have fallen in the latter.

  3. PaulNu says

    What social media companies sell, is content we produce free of charge. When they say they support free speech and we respond by producing content for them to sell only to have them renege on their promise, they are committing fraud. We would not write for them if they were honest about how they would treat us and our stories. They should be held accountable for their fraud.

    • david of Kirkland says

      That’s a stretch of the concept of fraud, being denied access to a free service. What next, sue when they cancel your favorite show?

      • Miss Yellowbird says

        This is a very good point. It’s a frivolous lawsuit.

  4. Simon H says

    On the one hand, I feel for Meghan. It sucks to be on the receiving end of a new set of bizarre, nonsensical, and constantly mutating rules that somehow always end up rendering your opinions worthless.

    On the other hand, I can’t help but love how her brand of feminism created all this. Radical feminists set all these magical rules in place, elevating subjective interpretations of reality, often bypassing it all together. They established built-in defenses to neutralize any objection or concern. Ideas like tone-policing, punching up, “the stack,” “staying in your lane,” ad nauseam are all used constantly to dismantle any and all attempts at self-correction.

    And now here comes Meghan, complaining that the rules she worked so hard to establish are being used against her.

    Basically, Dr. Frankenstein doesn’t like her monster.

    She and other radical feminists were very happy to reap the benefits as they used these techniques against men (white men, their favorite target). Even now, when trans folks (who get nuttier every day) are using her tools against her, she’d rather keep the intersectional, postmodern nonsense in place. She just wants exclusive rights to wield it in her favor.

    You won’t get any sympathy or support from me, Meghan. You earned every bit of this. Have fun fighting the patriarchy!

    • Deebz says

      Rather than engaging in schadenfraude, wouldn’t it be a better use of energy to use this opportunity in building consensus for the anti-authoritarian movement? There’s far more at stake here than a few cheap political points!

      • Jay Salhi says


        If we limit the ranks of the people who have the right to complain about this sort of collective insanity to those who foresaw it ahead of time, we limit our ability to do anything to stop it.

      • Shatterface says

        Exactly. So tired of the ‘but feminists started it! Feminists started it!’ argument. There are people so desperate to see feminism take a kicking that they’ll support censorship just so they can say ‘we told you so’.

        • Simon H says


          They didn’t just “start” it. Modern feminists developed the rules that are being used against them. They still enthusiastically embrace them. They haven’t abandoned any of their techniques, they just want help dealing with the monster they’ve created.

          I’ll make a deal with you. When Meghan publicly explains how wrong she was to use the exact same arguments and logic against men that trans people are now using against her, I’ll chip in to her fund.

          I’ll wait here while you work things out with Meghan. Let me know how to turns out!

        • Quillett commenters get off on beating women up. I’m waiting for these intelligent discussions Jon keeps promising us here. So far, nothing but incels and losers. Shudder to think what they get up to in their private lives. Classic abusers.

          • I am an older woman who gives feminists a very hard time. I did it the hard throughout college and my career: competed in a man’s profession. It was glorious. I never joined women’s groups although begged to or compromised my integrity or morality to get anywhere. Most men were fair but in the end, they wanted to win so I made sure my services were geared toward that. Were their cars and jerks along the way? Of course but I had a wise mom who was also a professional from her era. We both viewed Hillary as a fraud using her husband because she just wasn’t that good.

            I think you all are an embarrassment. I guess that’s a abusive to the female snowflakes who wanted to be handed success and power?

            Oh, and I love men. especially the ones who paid my invoices in a timely manner. (Wink)

          • cora, isn’t this the same kind of argument Twitter is using to silence Meghan? From Twitter’s perspective Meghan is a “classic abuser” and shouldn’t be allowed on their platform. Heck, Twitter might even consider Meghan an “incel and loser” because of her “regressive” ideas. I haven’t read anything else by Meghan, but if she would consider the comments I’ve read so far “beating women up” then I’d disagree with her, just as I disagree with you… then again, I also think Twitter is ridiculous and fully agree with Meghan’s writing here. If your comment is representative of a position that Meghan’s tribe would generally agree with, I think the commenters here are right to point out the double standard. I also happen to disagree that means we shouldn’t support her fight against Twitter. And I’m hopeful that you, and others who believe as you do, think about how the language you’re demonstrating here likely led directly to the outcome Meghan is seeing with Twitter. It really appears obvious to me. Do you disagree?

          • Simon H says


            “Quillett commenters get off on beating women up.”

            Look at that—it’s the glorious radical feminist strategy in action! Apparently those in the Quillette comments are “beating women up” simply by refusal to agree.

            Disagreement = violence, the very same maneuver that trans activists now use against feminists like Meghan and Cora.

            When you can’t even stop this kind of absurd doublespeak long enough to protest those who point out your addiction to absurd doublespeak, you’re doomed.

            To those who think it’s petty to deny Meghan Murphy the support she feels entitled to—notice how readily radical feminists resort to these tactics. Even at this point, in the midst of complaining about being on the receiving end of this nonsense— they can’t stop using it.

            Give my regards to your new trans mistresses, Cora. They learned the doublespeak game by watching you, and now they play it just a tiny bit better.

          • Miss Yellowbird says


            Did they promise you an echo chamber? This type of comment is why people give internet feminists the side-eye.

            “Classic abusers” is such silly hyperbole about a comment section. Oh no you “shudder” thinking about what horrible people we must be? That is some grade-A pearl clutching. And radfems have the gall to make fun of trans saying they are “literally shaking”. Better go back to your GC safe space.

            We aren’t losers and abusers for not acting like the cheerleaders you think you deserve. Maybe you shouldn’t go looking for attention by filing frivolous lawsuits and writing about them publically if you think everyone in the comment section is committing DV against you for not agreeing lol.

      • bumble bee says


        The so called anti-authoritarian movement is an oxymoron. It is really about who wants to be the authoritarian and who is not.

        Feminism has mutated into a flesh eating bacteria bent on total destruction. It has nothing to do with equality, has nothing to do with free speech, choice, of self determination, or as the lowest denominator, sisterhood. But since most feminists continue to have their blinders on and listen to the latest fruitcake you’ll just end up doing zero to better society for anyone.
        And, no I am not male.

        • Puddin' pop says

          >>”It has nothing to do with equality, has nothing to do with free speech, choice, of self determination, or as the lowest denominator, sisterhood.”

          Lol, okay…

          How about this: Women want men to stop beating, raping and murdering them and their sisters. How about that? Can they pretty-please have that?!?

          BTW, congratulations on being an anti-feminist woman. Do all the men pat you on the head and tell you how much of a COOL lady you are?

          • Miss Yellowbird says


            Your kind of “snark” is why people don’t want to listen to you or any other internet feminist.

            You aren’t ever going to stop men from beating and raping women, but you can make men hate us more and not take women’s issues seriously by acting like an ass on the internet like this under the guise of “feminist activism”.

            Rape and battery are serious crimes that effect men AND women from all walks of life. Thankfully, inroads in these areas are made by real people everyday who are men and women who actually work in real life courts and justice centers and are advocates of victims of crime – not just snarky feminists like you, mad on the internet yelling at people.

            You aren’t helping anyone and have no business insulting other women when your contribution is nothing but a flippant throwaway reference to rape and murder mixed with an insult to fellow woman. You are part of the problem.

      • Simon H says


        You ask me to take the high road rather than indulge in schadenfreude, but my criticisms of Meghan’s politics aren’t inspired by events in her distant past. You can visit her website right now and watch her endorse and use the same techniques she’s outraged to be subjected to now. Read the gleeful man-hating and eagerness to edit voices who dare object.

        I’m not making cheap political points for short-term laughter when I point out how awful and hypocritical her politics and recent claims of victimhood are. I’m taking this stance because of how she IS, currently, this moment.

        As @Nicolas Conrad put it below:

        “MM’s attitude seems to not be that she was *wrong*, but that she was *wronged*.”

        Come back and explain more about taking the high road after you’ve visited her site and read what she still endorses.

      • david of Kirkland says

        Building a consensus for anti-authoritarianism? You’ll need a revolution, not tweets. The world has moved decidedly towards ever more authority in all aspects and nearly all countries.

        • Andrew Mcguiness says

          So true – and the people around me seem blithely unconcerned. People I know, parents especially, will raise the topic of transgenderism with concern (none of them hate transgender people, they just don’t want their child to be peer-pressured into taking hormone blockers before they’re an adult); but if you raise the problem of censorship on Facebook, Twitter, or Youtube, they mumble agreement and quickly talk about something else. I’m scared.

      • Stephanie says

        Is MM anti-authoritarian? Is her only fault that she didn’t see this coming ahead of time?

        Or was she an active participant in the authoritarian, fact-free culture of radical leftism (feminism, transactivism, whatever, it’s all the same)? Has she been transformed into a genuine free speech advocate, or is she still intent on using leftists tools to limit the bounds of what is acceptable discourse, to the exclusion of anything conservative?

        I didn’t see MM take any responsibility in this article for her part in creating the culture that eventually turned on her. I saw no self-awareness, no evidence she’s learnt some kind of lesson. She still assumes that being a feminist and a leftist disqualifies you from being a bigot, when those groups are in fact much more intolerant of other viewpoints than the average person.

        I hope she succeeds in her battle against Twitter, because they were wrong to censor her, but I can feel no sympathy for her until she realises she was cut from the same cloth as the Twitter management who banned her, and attempts to fix that about herself.

      • Miss Yellowbird says

        I’m not interested in an “anti-authoritarian movement” led by millennial feminist clickbait bloggers. As Simon said above – they created this monster and now want attention and ass pats for trying to dismantle it? Psssh.

      • Sander Malschaert says

        Hear hear! Also it isn’t leterally MM that worked so hard to get all these ideas and taboo’s in place that resulted in her current situation. Those efforts started in the sixties decennia before she was born. I liked the article and hope she continues on her path. Also I hope she wins a possible lawsuit against twitter because the sooner that virtual monopoly is broken up the better. We are playing with very serious societal forces here dividing our societies deeply and I dread to think what might happen if this process is not revered the coming decennium. I will cheer on any bridge builder taking effort to listen to ideological adversaries and coming out for free speech.

    • Alice Williams says

      Couldn’t agree with you more Simon, Ms Murphy has been vilifying men for a long time now and is part of the problem not the solution. Anyone who uses the word patriarchy in an article about the unfairness, real or otherwise, being meted out to them on Twitter, deserves no sympathy whatsoever.

    • For the love of God, use your brain and do some research. Radical feminists have been fighting against the nonsense of gender identity for DECADES, that’s why they’re currently being vilified and called ‘TERFS’ by the progressive left. They have always EXPLICITLY analyzed and criticized the nonsensical, post-modernist slogans of the trans movement!

      These “magical realities” were entirely created by a brand of ‘feminism’ called liberal/third wave that’s always very clearly sought to distance itself from radical feminism. Just go ask the liberal, pro-gender identity crowd what they think of radical feminists. You may be in for a surprise.

      Jesus Christ, the ignorance of some people. If you have no idea who this woman is and what she’s done, just don’t say anything – don’t distort reality and claim she’s done/said behaviours against which she’s always explicitly fought. It just makes you look clueless and ridiculous.

      • Simon H says

        I’ve done my research. I’m very familiar with the positions and assertions of Meghan Murphy’s brand of feminist rhetoric. Once upon a time I mindlessly supported a great deal of it.

        The fact you want to dismiss criticism with a wave of your hand, when (as others in this comment point out) Meghan Murphy currently posts and continues to support very clear discriminatory and bigoted anti-male views on her site seems to indicate you’re not too keen on research yourself.

        I encourage you to keep playing the “No True Scotsman” game. Pretend everyone who notices Meghan’s “Do as I say, not as I do” policy must somehow be ignorant and lazy.

        When you’re ready, go take a thorough look at the depth of anti-male rhetoric on her site. Then tell me again how clueless everyone is for declining to support Meghan’s battle against her own fighting techniques.

    • Pigeonhole says

      I don’t think you know what radical feminism is. You’re describing liberal feminism/queer theory. You say, “Radical feminists set all these magical rules in place, elevating subjective interpretations of reality, often bypassing it all together,” but radical feminist ideology fights against this way of thinking.

      • Simon H says


        The rhetorical techniques radical feminists have used for decades were adopted and adapted by other factions. The current “crisis” radfems are experiencing is nothing more than the chickens coming home to roost. It turns out there are solid reasons to not endlessly declare your feelings trump reality, that existence is a nonstop us vs them battle, etc., that unseen patriarchal forces lurk behind every choice we make, etc. That strategy works great right up to the point others realize they can employ it, too.

        I watched this stuff happen in real time over the past decades. Rad fems were quite happy to embrace whatever spin-off factions (liberal feminsits, queer theorists, etc.) were useful in the short term, and only started complaining when their signature fighting moves began to backfire.

        Radical feminist ideology doesn’t fight against that way of thinking. It simply objects against anyone else being allowed to use it.

      • Stephanie says

        Pigeonhole, the radfems fight it when people’s magical rules contradict theirs, but radical feminism’s concept of patriarchy, oppression, gender pay gap, ect are just a different flavour of magic.

    • Martin Niemöller’s quote “First they came for the ______, and I did not speak out…” is overused to the point of the cliché but is most certainly applicable here; you are kidding yourself if you think Twitter’s descent into tyrannical totalitarian censorship is only going to be used against so-called “radical feminists” you happen to dislike, oh they got what’s coming to them. In fact Twitter already bans people for expressing right-wing or conservative viewpoints more often than it bans people for left-wing heresies. The only question here why is it only radical feminist Meghan Murphy who is actually bringing suit against Twitter? Why didn’t Milo or Alex Jones or any other of the high-profile right-wingers banned from Twitter take any legal action? As the complaint states, Plaintiff Meghan Murphy is suing “on behalf of herself, others similarly situated, and the general public.” Where is the general public for a class-action suit for being defrauded by Twitter’s bait-and-switch contract terms?

  5. Philip Davies says

    Here we go again. One side of the bogoted left turns on another side of the bigoted left and is seeking to destroy and humiliate them in the same way that they have destroyed many others who have disagreed with them. And then those who until recently been on the side of the vilifiers now find themselves vilified in their turn and they come to quillette in shock and looking for support. Some only learn the hard way. As Jacques Barzun said, “Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred.”

    • Thus it has always been with the Left since they got that name from the seating arrangement in the French National Assembly. Fortunately now (in the countries of the Anglosphere and in Western Europe at least) they just have social media mobs armed with opprobrium and abuse of internet platform terms of service, rather than guillotines.

  6. AlexR says

    In addition to a lawsuit, consider filing a consumer complaint with British Columbia Consumer Protection. It seems Twitter has engaged in deceptive practices by violating its stated terms of service. You reached a contract with them when you signed up, in which they made fraudulent representations to you. You can start a complaint at the link below:

  7. Deebz says

    Best of luck, hopefully you can get a result in court.

    As hinted at by some of the other comments, I truly hope this provokes a few moments of introspection about the tactics used by (inter alia) third/forth wave feminist groups up to now.

  8. Meghan Murphy i right to be concerned about the censorship of opposing views by a progressive minority. She shoudl be able to say what she likes short of advocating violence or causing harm to others.

    The problem is that she is a deeply unsympathetic victim. On her own website she has an article by Julie Bondel full of the most extreme sexist bigotry for example:

    “What I love about this book is how it promotes straightforward man-hating. Blaming men for the ills of the world is underrated. Women have been under siege for centuries, and resistance feels exhilarating, whether in the form of waving placards, or reading radical statements about feminist fight-back. ”

    Feminists have silenced anyone who had advocated equal treatment of men as misogynists using no platforming as a routine tool. Did she protest any of this? It is far more widespead and affects far more people than the war between trans activists and some feminists. It is only when their own tactics are turned against them that feminists have protested about this and then only in the cases which affect them.

    I support but I am wary of anything led by feminists as they will ensure that it only benefits women and no one else.

    • Irrational Actor says

      Spot on AJ. No only that, they will make sure it only benefits women like them, that agree with them. If there is one thing a radical feminist hates more than men, it’s women that openly disagree with their sexism.

  9. Citizen XY says

    This line from the article rather stuck out at me as well:

    “300 people … These attendees — most of them ordinary men and women (many of them feminists and leftists) — are the furthest thing from bigots.”

    Actually, at a gathering of such description you can safely bet there were a very high number of bigots in attendance.

    As much as I’m critical of Twitter in Murphy’s case, and all the trans silliness, she nonetheless has a ways to go to acknowledge the truth about feminism: misandry and sexist bigotry against men are rampant within feminism, they pretty much define it.

    A little anecdotal story: Years ago I was in the habit of going to public lectures at the local university (UBC, in Murphy’s home city of Vancouver).
    One of these was a presentation from a visiting feminist ‘scholar’ from Australia.
    I don’t recall exactly who hosted it but as I recall she was introduced by a prof/academic, it would have been in association with some on-campus feminist group or the women’s studies department or such.
    Near the end of her lecture she presented this advice to the audience:

    Be rude to men.

    I’m not exaggerating or being hyperbolic. She made the exception if it was someone like the busboy clearing your table at a restaurant or a male in some such subservient position, you didn’t have to be rude to him, but otherwise.. be rude to men. If a guy asks you for directions or what bus to take, don’t help him, be rude to him.

    She then opened the floor for questions, but not before ‘requesting’ that no men ask questions.
    The audience was some dozens to a hundred-or-so primarily young women.
    I recall looking around and spotting one other man.
    Requesting that no men ask questions was just the cheapest exercise of power, and ploy to avoid criticism.

    This was 1989.

    As censorship is the topic at hand, I’m also reminded of how a few years ago at the other large university in Vancouver (SFU), the long-existent student women’s club denounced and rallied (successfully, IIRC) against a request to instantiate a student men’s club. Because, you know, the only possible purpose of a men’s club would be to figure out more ways to oppress women. (Seriously, that was the gist of their argument).

  10. Constantine says

    Over the past several years, Twitter has done everything in the power to silence any voices remotely on the right wing. Leftists such as Murphy either cheered or stayed silent during this. It was only when her ideology was taken to it’s logical conclusion and she became the target of it that she complained. Any conservative that views Murphy and her ilk as allies against censorship need to think again.

    • ga gamba says

      Leftists such as Murphy either cheered or stayed silent during this

      She did more than that. She runs her own TERF forum that routinely censors commentators.

    • Deebz says

      I’d call myself a centrist, but ultimately without some kind of consensus involving “converts” to anti-authoritarianism, the movement is doomed to fail IMO. Maybe a dose of “friendly fire” can be helpful in achieving that, but it definitely shouldn’t be an end in and of itself.

      But there does seem to be a bit of gloating that lays people open to charges of “no bad tactics, only bad targets” on here.

      • C Young says

        As a fellow centrist, I’d like to agree.

        Unfortunately radfems are never going to be converts to the anti-authoritarian cause. The poison runs through their veins.

        This piece is an entirely disingenuous attempt at the conversion of centrists to the radfem cause in their obsessional battle with the trans lobby. Your enemy’s enemy is not always your friend.

  11. C Young says

    Two snarling feral dogs are fighting in your garden. One breaks off to tell you that it is in fact a kitten that has been cruelly abused. It then demands, as a right, your help in killing the other dog.

    This piece is risible.

    Negative masculinity is expressed through violent aggression. Negative femininity is expressed through manipulation.

    Twitter is a petri dish for toxic femininity – the perfect tool for the obsessive manipulatrix. No wonder Murphy wants back in.

    • Miss Yellowbird says

      “Two snarling feral dogs are fighting in your garden. One breaks off to tell you that it is in fact a kitten that has been cruelly abused. It then demands, as a right, your help in killing the other dog.“

      @CYoung – you really nailed it with this comment. What’s really telling is that she claims that’s she’s now a free-speech advocate, but she still can’t take even the most minor criticism of her tactics without playing the victim or having her internet friends running around “correcting” people going on attack.

      She needs to grow up and realize respect is earned and she certainly hasn’t done anything to earn respect. Being banned from Twitter really isn’t a human rights violation. Like typical feminist she wants the “free-speech hero” label bestowed on her even if it doesn’t fit because it’s all about her ego.

  12. Giovanni says

    I don’t particularly like the way radical feminists turn the issue of trans identification into a man-hating exercise. However I do support free speech and I believe that the litmus test of this is supporting the right to exercise speech that I disagree with. This is why I support this lawsuit and I have made a small contribution to the fund.

  13. Lydia says

    Are her lawyers male? Just kidding.

    After watching these women rip men to shreds for decades, my ability to foster compassion is weak. They put all men into one big category, blamed societies ills on them and profited from it.

    These weak entitled women didn’t want any competition that would sharpen their skills.

    This old feminist spends a lot of time encouraging boys. and young men.

    • Nate D. says

      Worse. She’s using Dhillon Law. They’re namesake is be: “Harmeet Kaur Dhillon, an American lawyer and Republican party official. She is the former vice chairwoman of the California Republican Party, and the National Committeewoman of the Republican National Committee for California. She owns a law practice called Dhillon Law Group Inc.” (from Wikipedia).

      The suit was filed by Harmeet, Michael Fleming, Adam Candeub, and Noah Peters.

      MM is thoroughly in bed with her enemies.

  14. Pingback: Jonathan Yaniv – Transgender Archives

  15. Pingback: Why I’m Suing Twitter – Quillette | Shawn Eng's Stream of Wonk

  16. Power Girl says

    Quillette Commenters: I’m *really* not liking the face-rubbing coming from many of you right now. The attitude is common in a number of liberal-written articles: I used to believe X, then I was impacted by X; now I realize the problem with this. Quillette commenters–not all of them, but the ones here are obvious–enjoy giving a hearty **** you to these authors.

    Please: stop thinking with your baser emotions. One, this is going to cost you converts in the long term. I don’t know anything about Ms. Murphy, but let’s say she was a progressive speech-suppressor in the past. OK, well: that’s done. Absent a time machine, you can’t fix past errors. Your options are now to 1) help her realize her error and welcome her to the concepts of liberty and free speech, or 2) exclude her on the basis of past error–which is *kind of the thing that you’ve been complaining liberals do to you.*

    That’s point #2: progressives are *very much* into purity tests and shaming right now, even for stuff that no longer matters. Consider Liam Neeson’s recent confession that he was bigoted once and then got over it. He’s been shamed for…doing the right thing after struggling with some demons. That should be applauded, but he’s instead being shunned. For doing the right thing and coming around.

    So, maybe Ms. Murphy’s slow to coming around on free speech or in not deplatforming people. (Note: I have no idea if she is or isn’t; I’m just responding to these comments.) But she seems to be coming around. You can either be a progressive a–hole on this, or you can welcome her to the side of liberty. The choice is yours, but you’re not giving conservatism or libertarianism a lot of appeal when you’re thinking with your temper.

    • Saw file says

      @Power Girl
      Check out her blog.
      She is not “coming around”.
      She is smart and she is just gaming audiences outside of the shere that she has no intention of even marginally moving away from. Just look at her career and her track record.

    • Lydia says

      “Please: stop thinking with your baser emotions”

      That is silly. Maybe because you approach everything emotionally? Recognizing Patterns of behavior over time, is not thinking with baser emotions. Expecting people to automatically jump on a bandwagon without analysis, is.

      “One, this is going to cost you converts in the long term”

      Sounds fundamentalist to me. I am not looking for converts. I am looking to be left alone so I can pursue my ambitions without attending your all’s latest re-education camps over and over.

      • AesopFan says

        “I am not looking for converts. I am looking to be left alone so I can pursue my ambitions without attending your all’s latest re-education camps over and over.”
        PS There isn’t really a simple way to say what you wanted, but the most common formulation of “your all’s” is the idiom “all y’alls” — it makes no actual grammatical sense, which is why it is an idiom.

    • C Young says

      Murphy has not seen the light. She’s not a convert to anything. She doesn’t believe in free speech. How can she ? She doesn’t even believe in freedom itself.

      The second most shared post on her website is a direct attack on the concept of freedom.

      You think you are co-opting her to defending individual rights. In fact, she is seeking to co-opt you into supporting the radfem cause. Wise up.

    • Nicholas Conrad says

      @power girl

      I appreciate your call for civility. I certainly agree some of the comments were over-the-top.

      Many in the idw came from the left after being shunned by their former in-group, and I believe Quillette readers have been overwhelming positive towards them. But they all had an ‘ah-ha’ moment and realized their past beliefs and behavior were in error. MM’s attitude seems to not be that she was *wrong*, but that she was *wronged*. Her fight is to resume her past behavior.

      Even so, no one in the comments (that I read) is asking Quillette to retract the article, or calling for the hosting provider of MM’s website to deplatform her, or trying to get her fired or doxee. So when you talk about exclusion and shaming, or the hypocrisy of doing to MM what we complain about liberals doing, I think there is a clear category difference.

    • ga gamba says

      I don’t know anything about Ms. Murphy,

      Correct. You could have read what she’s written here before as well as on her own website. But, nope.

      but let’s say she was a progressive speech-suppressor in the past. OK, well: that’s done.

      What evidence do you have of “that’s done”? As you concede, you don’t know anything about her.

      Absent a time machine, you can’t fix past errors. Your options are now to 1) help her realize her error and welcome her to the concepts of liberty and free speech, or 2) exclude her on the basis of past error–which is *kind of the thing that you’ve been complaining liberals do to you.*

      In every one of her previous essays the majority of the comments you see here today were also written. Have we seen Ms Murphy write, “You know, I screwed up in the past by censoring comments and banning commentators on my website”?

      Anyone see such an admission? I haven’t. And I check.

      I’m very willing to tolerate, and perhaps even support, a person who reforms herself and demonstrates it in words and, more importantly, in actions. Until then…

      Ms Murphy is a big girl who is well accustomed in the ins-and-outs of online commentary as well as the various arguments re free speech. She doesn’t need anyone here to drag her to water and force her to drink. She’s perfectly capable to do so herself if that’s her choice. Let’s realise she has agency and is solely responsible for what she does and does not do.

      • Farris says

        @Ga Gamba

        Do you ever feel as though you’re being tested?
        For instance Ms. Claire Lehmann posts an article entitled “We Must Defend Free Speech”, an ideal with which most commenters agree. Then one of the very next articles is by a hard core leftist complaining about being deplatformed. Couldn’t such dual postings be construed as a test of one’s commitment to Freedom of Expression?

        These are not rhetorical questions. I posted these questions in reply because you along with several others on this site put forth opinions with which I often not only agree but admire.

        • ga gamba says

          Thank you for the nice comment, Farris.

          Ms Lehmann adheres to her principles, and that I respect.

          Someone such as Ms Murphy is a different character, about as unprincipled as one could find. I’m not calling for her censor because I wouldn’t do so for anyone, but I find her to be self-serving. Murphy is looking to groom allies, so she spins a yarn crafted to appeal to people like us whilst concealing her own transgressions. She and I may share a similar view on a particular topic, but this does not make her an ally of mine. I don’t automatically enact the my-enemy’s-enemy gambit because often it’s advisable to let the two bash each other to their mutual destruction. Murphy is a hypocrite, but this doesn’t make her wrong with her beef with Twitter. I ask that as she asks for Twitter to improve, she ought to do so too.

          Several months ago a transactivist by the name of Ester Betts posted an essay on Medium, “I was one of the transactivists on the channel 4 documentary, I regret what I did — this is why”, and it was also picked up by the Guardian.

          I no longer think that gender-critical voices should be simply censored. They have the right to “speak their truth”, even if I think it is much less than the truth. It’s immoral for me and immoral for the transgender community to act as if we have the right to control speech. Not only is it ultimately impossible in free societies, it sends the wrong message: we want to control you. In shutting down these events, we are denying people the opportunity to learn a different truth: what we really want is to be free and to be understood.

          It’s self-reflection like this I admire. This took guts by Betts. It represents growth, self-improvement, and a promise to improve things for all, even her opponents. I may not support Ms Betts’s ends, but I’m content to support her as she exercises her right to appeal for it because she know understands the wrong message she had been sending and has decided to reform herself.

          My ask is not a big one.

    • Ray Andrews says

      @Power Girl

      ” OK, well: that’s done. Absent a time machine, you can’t fix past errors.”

      I believe the difficulty some of us have with that is that Murphy has not learned anything. Xe will continue to behave as xe always has, thus few of us feel any sympathy for hx. I myself would be the first to welcome hx back to the sane world if xe wanted to rejoin it, but xe does not.

  17. Although I have much sympathy for the author and none for Twitter, I don’t believe American law as currently interpreted bodes well for her lawsuit. As a private company, Twitter is free to act arbitrarily and unfairly, including the suppression of speech it does not like. The Constitution generally applies only to speech by the government and not private individuals or companies, and protects citizens against government imposed limits to speech. If were are to expand the First Amendment to apply to private speech, we should tread slowly, cognizant that such an expansion could result in unintended consequences that may not be not as palatable. Line drawing is particularly difficult when it comes to free speech.

    • Twitter being allowed to run wild as a private company with a total monopoly on speech rather than be regulated as a public utility is a problem…but this lawsuit isn’t based on the First Amendment, it’s based on contract law, i.e. Twitter’s breach of contract, and promissory estoppel.

      Millions of people entered in contract with Twitter-and made Twitter what it is-with Terms of Service promising a fair free speech platform, not a biased political/ideological forum. People worldwide came to rely on Twitter as a primary platform for sharing of speech, establishing reliance. Then Twitter pulled the rug out from under everyone not only creating but retroactively enforcing rules against expressing views dissenting from a radical minority ideological viewpoint on gender, banning members of the public who had only entered into contract with Twitter on the understanding it was a free speech platform, not a Transgender activist forum, constituting breach of contract.

    • Andrew Mcguiness says

      JP, from the article, it looks as though the lawsuit will be on the basis of MM having built up a following on Twitter as part of her business or brand, and on the basis of Twitter’s published Terms of Service – it’s not a straight ‘free speech’ argument.

  18. Paulo says

    I have to confess I embarked on a little experiment in order to see if the rule that banned Megan is being enforced. I went on a Dave Rubin thread about trans athletes winning women’s competitions. I reported a dozen commenters who called the athletes “men”. A week later, no response or action by Twitter. You were singled out.

    • Stephen J. says

      That was a very good idea and remarkably telling. Well done.

    • It’s not that Meghan Murphy was necessarily singled out, rather the particular Transgender individual involved in Murphy’s case Jonathan “Jessica” Yaniv wielded a lot of power & influence in getting tech giants to strictly enforce rules against “misgendering” him in any way. WordPress also completely took down a blog (GenderTrender) for “deadnaming” J. Yaniv, although there are many WordPress blogs who use the “deadname” Bruce Jenner without any such problem.

      For Christmas 2018, I also got permanently suspended from Twitter for “hateful conduct” of “misgendering” Jonathan “Jessica” Yaniv, although I had been critical of transgender ideology & other trans activist individuals for a long time. Many who dared to cross YANIV were purged.

      • TarsTarkas says

        As I understand Asshole Yaniv has a friend in Twitter censorship.

    • Interesting.

      I’ve been banned by Twitter for opposing gender ideology. I did not violate any of their rules. Thing is, Trans activists target mostly Trans critical accounts en masse. They organize targeted reporting campaigns to get those who oppose their ideology removed. So you will see a Trans activist publicly tweet and instruct hundreds of people to report an account for ‘hate speech”, regardless of it’s it’s true. And usually, Twitter responds and bans the target.
      There is a thread on Twitter somewhere that is recording how many people have been banned unfairly over gender ideology, and screenshots of the so-called offenses. None of them from what I’ve seen violate Twitter’s ToS.

      These perma-bans even include Trans people who have misgendered or deadnamed *themselves*. Meaning, the sane Trans people who were treated for a psychological-medical issue , who are fully aware of the reality of their situation, are heretics. You can even google it- activists call them “truscum”. If they recognize and state on Twitter that they are Transwomen, but *biologically male*, or vice versa, they are permanently banned.
      I was temp-banned for tweeting that this stuff seemed “cultish” and “misgendering” an obvious male ( he had photos of himself posted), because he had his passport switched to show “X” Gender and his pronouns were “Ze/Zehr” or something I could never have anticipated.

  19. Morgan Foster says


    “I was part of a left-wing mob until the mob turned on me. Please help me get back in.”

    • C Young says

      It’s more like “I run an identitarian mob. We are losing a fight with another identitarian mob. Can you guys (who, by the way, I despise) help me beat my rivals because … freedom (which btw I despise)”

      • TarsTarkas says

        . . . so that I can return my complete attention to beating you guys up.

  20. A fascinating, although terrifying read. I feel like the whole gender identity issue, while still relatively unknown to most people, will grow to become one of the major and most devastating issues of our time, one historians will look back on with disbelief and confusion. This is depressing.

  21. peanut gallery says

    I started reading the article then stopped, because a question burned into my mind.

    On one hand, fuck Twitter. On the other hand, who the hell follows a person that likes to inform people of their asshole hair removal? I had a great shit earlier, let me tell you about it…. Don’t sue Twitter, get off of Twitter. Make America Sane Again. (for once?) YMMV.

  22. Nate D. says


    It would be easier for the average Quillette reader to throw their support behind you if you:
    1) Admitted that many of the social-warrior tactics 3rd wave feminists such as yourself have introduced into the culture war were ill-advised.
    2) Purged the misandry-fueled articles off of your website. For example, one article on your website starts with “Hello and welcome to this week’s edition of What the Everloving Fuck is Wrong With Men?” Or a book review that starts “Bone up on your righteous man-hating this Summer.” I’ll let you in on a secret: Most level-headed people think this language makes you a hypocrite, unfit to extoll on the virtue of anything. We all know you wouldn’t support a man who wrote a similar sentence about women… which leads to point 3
    3) Stopped shitting on the people you’re asking to help you. This issue is bigger than your fever-dream about “the patriarchy.” There are a lot of good humans out there that would love to back you up on this. But, asking for support on this website is like saying: I know I use generalized, sexist, language when speaking about men. I know I constantly perpetuate unhelpful misandrist tropes that encourages young women to distrust and despise men. I know I blame men and “toxic masculinity” for almost all female shortcomings…. But, can you please overlook my history of shitting on half the population of the earth and help me?

    • Nate D. says

      You’re like a KKK member asking a black church to help him put out his house fire. They might help you, but only because their good people – not because you deserve it.

      • TarsTarkas says

        And if they successfully help put out the fire you might promise to wait a day before burning a cross on their lawn. Again.

    • Kaira says

      1. Meghan is a radical feminist, not a 3rd wave liberal feminist.
      2. Misandry is not a real issue.
      3. You’re a misogynist. She sure as hell doesn’t need help from the likes of you. “Female shortcomings”? No, only male shortcomings projected onto women.

      • Nate D. says

        @ Kaira

        1) You’re right. My bad.
        2) Thank you for clearing this up for me.
        3) No I’m not. Good. And thank you for proving my point.

        • Kaira says

          2) Sarcasm detected. My point still stands.
          3) Well, you are. You proved that when you mentioned female shortcomings, I just mirrored it to you. Funny how that works the other way around.

          • 2) No, Kaira. Your point doesn’t stand because you haven’t made a point. You’ve made an unsubstantiated assertion. One which millions of divorced men would disagree with. Misandry is the veritable bedrock of child custody law in the US. And that’s just one example…I’m short on time.
            3) So, the very mention of female shortcomings makes one a misogynist? Females don’t have shortcomings? Ok, I get it. Since you’re not here to have a discussion in good faith anyway, “I’m rubber and you’re glue….blah blah blah.” People like you have denuded the word ‘misogynist’ of all relevant meaning anyhow so nobody cares about being labelled as such. Same goes for ‘racist’ and ‘___phobe’.

  23. Stephen J. says

    Good luck with your lawsuit, Miss Murphy — I disagree with you on a lot of points, but the importance of free speech is not one of them.

  24. Marina says

    So men support other men—even those in wigs and heels—instead of supporting a woman?

    • Saw file says

      Hmmmm…playing the “woman card”, eh?
      So I can either support a woman with a penis, or I can support a woman who is a raving misandrist, when both women engage in and encourage deplatforming and censorship?
      Tough choice.
      Seeing that we have been told for decades now by feminists that modern liberated women don’t need men for support, I think I’ll heed the diktat and stay neutral on this one.
      Instead I’ll just kickback with a cold drink and some popcorn and enjoy watching the battle of the intersectional stars.

      • Simon H says

        @Saw file

        Perfectly put. It’s going to be a great show. I’m sure letting Meghan and her buddies duke it out won’t be the fastest route back to sanity, but it’ll probably teach the longest-lasting lessons for participants and onlookers alike.

      • Nate D. says

        @ Saw file

        “Seeing that we have been told for decades now by feminists that modern liberated women don’t need men for support, I think I’ll heed the diktat and stay neutral on this one.”

        Okay, that made me laugh out loud. Good one.

        While I do value free speech, this isn’t really about free speech. It’s about a private company straying from their own terms to target a person whose financial livelihood depends on using Twitter as a platform to shill for a sexist sect. Making this a free speech issue that we should all unite on is a stretch.

        Leftists are currently using Twitter to cannibalize each other. Hackers are exploiting the “moral outrage” and “believe all ______, even without due process” environment that the left has created to meme the hell out of Democratic Presidential Nominees on Twitter. I’d hate to see it go under before the left effectively uses it to destroy themselves. I’m popping popcorn too.

        • Saw file says

          @Nate D.

          I too value free speech and agree that Twitter is the bad acters here, but these leftists have been either cheering or mute the last couple years as centrists and moderate conservatives were deplatformed.
          Now that they are deplatforming each other it has all of a sudden become a free speach crisis, and we must all band together. The hypocrisy is rank.
          This is simply a power play and there’s no way I’m going to back either side, because neither side gives a crap about true free speech

          This definitely goes deeper for the left than just some intersectional infighting on Twitter. This is their first battle were sides must be chosen. Their all going to, on some level, get dragged into it. Then there will be the next one and the next one etc. If this one was a beginning of a fire, I’d be hurling cans of gasoline on it

  25. Morgan Foster says

    @Meghan Murphy

    “(And yes, I am raising money, as the entire suit will be funded through donations.)”

    Will you be refusing donations from the patriarchy? Supporters of Israel? Members of the Knights of Columbus?

    • TarsTarkas says

      Absolutely she will. If Zionists or catholics or Men are stupid enough to contribute to a batshit crazy radfem, who is she to stop them?

  26. Steve says

    “appalled by the lack of concern expressed for female spaces and safety, and who are seeing generations of hard work and activism rolled back”

    Generations, huh? Welcome to the club. Except Christians have seen rolled back in a few decades 2,000 years of tradition — including the moral framework that nurtured and supported Western Civilization for well over a millennium. Up until yesterday you feminists were shoulders to the plow, uprooting our traditional morality. Now the juggernaut you birthed has taken on a life of its own, uprooting your own short-lived post-modern moral laws. You seek sympathy?

  27. Stephenitisok says

    I know absolutely nothing about Megan Murphy and before reading her article I had never even heard of her. Judging by the opinions expressed within the comments section she is not a person with whom I would have much in common.

    That said, I feel her article laying down the reasons as to why she is about to sue Twitter need to be treated with respect. I take at face value the arguments she expressed and to my non-legal eye there seems to be good grounds for pursuing a case.

    If Twitter can ban her from their platform for no particular reason they can ban any or all of us without reason. Therefore I think it is important that these frivolous Twitter bans be tested in the court’s. It really should not matter which side of the divide Megan Murphy stands on, what is important is that she is willing to sue for the freedom to express her views. If she were to win I feel she would be doing all of us a service.

    • Morgan Foster says


      She says she will accept a donation from you to defray the cost of her legal fees.

      That won’t stop her from kicking you in the teeth, though. Because … integrity.

      • Stephenitisok says

        “She says she will accept a donation from you to defray the cost of her legal fees”.

        In the immortal words of the Eurythmics: Everybody’s looking for something.

        “That won’t stop her from kicking you in the teeth, though. Because … integrity”.

        In the immortal words of Papa Roach (I know, who? you ask): Feels like a kick in the teeth, I can take it.

  28. “As Quillette’s Andy Ngo noted, Smollett’s original claim attracted an outpouring of performative sympathy from an all-star cast of liberal grandees.”

    And a much larger outpouring of genuine sympathy from lots of other people, quite understandably, many of whom were upset when the truth was revealed, also quite understandably.

  29. Thank You Meghan says

    Thank you Meghan for this piece. And good luck w/ your legal case (I will be donating to your cause).

    “All of this is justified on the basis that trans-identified people are extremely vulnerable.”

    When your views are protected in academic safe spaces, are funded by big business and the state, are protected from criticism and scrutiny by ‘harassment’ or ‘hate speech’ laws, and enjoy unchallenged favorable bias in mainstream media outlets, the group that you belong to can no longer call itself or the people it claims to represent “vulnerable.” The status enjoyed by trans/gender ideology are the very textbook definitions of privilege.

    • When govts that plead a crashing economy but pour money into building clinics attached to medical schools that will “affirm”, castrate and mutilate children and youth…when they force schools to teach there is no biology … when they tell parents they do not have a right to know their children are having mastectomies and taking beta blockers and carcinogenic drugs…when one of those children is yours or a child of someone near and dear to you…then maybe you’ll see this is not about one woman. It’s about you.

      The really sad thing here on Quillette is the knuckle dragging commenters and the editors who claim (less bombastically now, they’re starting to get it) that this is some higher space.

      The only difference between Quillette commenters and the horde is the horde has balls.

    • ga gamba says

      … enjoy unchallenged favorable bias…

      The neck of the revealed demands still astonish.

  30. Mazzakim says

    I have no stake in this particular situation, but I’ve seen a lot of claims that Twitter has banned people for single tweets. Invariably, however, there is *always* more to the story, and patterns of behavior emerge. I could be wrong in this case. Discovery in lawsuits goes both ways, so we’ll see.

  31. Lightning Rose says

    The bottom line is that absolutely no one “NEEDS” to be on Twitter. The platform intentionally exists to normalize, weaponize and monetize your narcissism. The potential for it to shitcan your life in 140 characters is overwhelming. Like verbal cholera, it’s a virus that exists to spread verbal diarrhea. It is the most toxic platform on the Internet. It devolved into radioactive anarchy a long time ago, and if Pres. Trump did not insist on using it, it would probably be long gone already.

    Any time you feel driven to use it, put down the device and go holler down the nearest well instead.

    The larger question remains: What’s up with the sudden intense need of micro-minorities to change the way everyone ELSE thinks? Just go live your life under whatever’s your freak flag, and leave us normies alone!!

  32. Marie says

    Most of these comments are conflating radical feminism with third wave lib feminism, which are diametrically opposed in most respects. Radical feminists practically occupy the same tier as the alt right in liberal feminist ideology.

    I consider myself a feminist, as one subset of a broader overall commitment to humanism.
    The Webster’s Dictionary definition of feminism
    1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
    2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests

    So according to the literal definition of feminism, anyone professing misandry would not be adhering to the principle of social equality between the sexes. I think feminism would be wildly successful, if we collectively refrained from misandry and exclusively practiced common humanity activism akin to that epitomized by Martin Luther King Jr. Most of the remaining goals of feminism cannot and should not be attained by more legislation. I personally have experienced and witnessed a great deal of sex-based violence and harassment, so I know there is a need for reform. The need for more reform is also empirically documented by research. But that reform can only be attained through cooperation. We can’t hate men and uplift humanity at the same time.

    • Tersitus says

      Thanks, Marie, for stating what’s so obvious it shouldn’t need saying, but in these days of the idiot wind gets drowned in the shouting.

    • TarsTarkas says

      Second wave feminists were interested in achieving political, economic, and social equality of the sexes, which has been mostly achieved. That isn’t what third wave feminism is all about. Third wavers seek to acquire preferential rights and opportunities for women. Radfems, i.e. fourthwavers, are simply a logical next step in feminism. Their goal is to eliminate the rights of men. They will be followed by fifth wavers, who will seek to eliminate men.

      • Marie says

        Radical feminism is actually an older form of feminism, between the 2nd and the 3rd wave. It does have a small contingent within it that want to create a female world separate from men, not unlike mgtow ideology.

        But the main ways it differentiates itself from third wave feminism is that it sees female oppression as being rooted in physiology. Women are smaller and physically weaker and can get pregnant and are therefore inherently more vulnerable in certain ways that have been used against women as a class historically. Biological sex is a reality, and gender is a construct. So people of any sex should be able to express their gender however they want. Men can be stereotypically feminine, and women can be stereotypically masculine, but it doesn’t change biological reality. Radical feminists also believe that choices don’t happen in a cultural vacuum, that female socialization and male socialization contribute, so that not everything a woman does is feminist just because a woman is doing it. For this reason, radical feminists are anti-sex work and anti-pornography. Most radical feminists are older liberals who are against censorship and are themselves targeted for censorship by the third wave feminists for not endorsing trans ideology. The third wave is where censorship abounds. A lot of younger women are switching to radical feminism because of censorship, as well. My personal views do not neatly fit into any feminist group, but I am much more sympathetic to radical feminism than liberal third wave feminism, as ! am adamantly anti-authoritarian and pro free speech, even offensive free speech.

        There is misandry in feminist communities, just like there is misogyny among males. A lot of women gravitate to feminism because of an experience of personal sexual assault or sexism, so that is understandable. In the same way people reacting against feminism because of misandry is understandable. No one wants to be stigmatized or attacked because of being born into a category they have no control over. It’s just unfortunate, and it is creating a self-fulfilling backlash that all women will be swept up in.

        • Kaira says

          “There is misandry in feminist communities.” Where? How?

          • beyondyesandno says

            @Kaira, if your incredulity of the claim of misandry in feminist communities stems from some concept that misandry either doesn’t exist or has no power to harm, spare us your kooky ideology.

        • Saw file says

          Interesting and well said.
          Claiming to be anti-cencorship while at the same time being anti-pornography does strike me as an odd claim through.

        • Andrew Mcguiness says

          @Marie: “There is misandry in feminist communities, just like there is misogyny among males” – Sure, there is misogyny ‘among’ men, in the sense that some men have a poor opinion of women in general, or want to take advantage of gender roles; but even if you take the term ‘misogyny’ in its currently-used meaning (which can’t be actual ‘hatred of women’, since it’s applied to such a wide range of behaviours, including some pretty banal ones), the misogyny amongst men doesn’t compare to the misandry amongst feminists. Feminism, as feminists practise it, is activism to advantage women over men, and nothing like the dictionary definition of it. There is a whole academic industry dedicated to finding ways in which men can be held to be guilty or inferior, by virtue of being male. Apart from a few prominent female feminists such as Christina Hoff Summers (who tend to get labelled ‘anti-feminist’ anyway) there is no concern among feminists for the disadvantages to men which are built into our societies.

          I can see that you’re acknowledging misandry amongst feminists, but I don’t have the impression from your post that you recognize how fundamental to feminist concepts the notion of the badness of men is.

      • Kaira says

        How has it mostly been achieved when men still dominate politically, economically, and socially? You’re delusional.

  33. Tersitus says

    Leave it to the Rose to speak truth to powards. Twitter is a weed— quit fertilizing it with your drivel and snits.

  34. Transgenderism is one of the biggest problems of our modern age. It seeks to allow a fairly tiny group of people to force there delusions on the masses. I’m fine with a man living his life as a woman just don’t try to force me to acknowledge them as one. There is almost no science behind this whole thing. The majority of children with gender dysmorphia when left to there own devices begin to identify with there birth sex again by early adult hood. That is a fact. In a lot of ways we have no clue what any of this stuff is but there is almost zero evidence your born like that and that it has to be a permanent state of mind.

  35. Ray Andrews says

    Sad days when people think it is a human right to be on Twitter.

  36. Tersitus says

    Someone let me know when I’ve said this too often. We think with language. To control language is to control thought. Let Free Thought Live. Speak your mind. Don’t let anyone put words in your mouth. Bite the hand that muzzles you.

  37. Rudi Van Desarzio says

    I don’t trust Meghan Murphy. I do not believe that she speaks or acts in good faith. Like all leftists, she lies.

    As for whether “transwomen” are real women or not, I don’t care. This is a backdoor to destroying feminism, of feminisms own making. If I as a man can get all of the legal privileges of womanhood simply by proclaiming myself as a “woman” on my driver license, then I fully support the transgenders here.

  38. Rudi Van Desarzio says

    “It’s time to consider a curfew on men. You’ve had your chance, bepenised ones. And you’ve blown it. What you’ve proven, time and time again, is that you cannot be trusted to behave yourselves after dark.” – Meghan Murphy 1/7/16

  39. Farris says

    Ms. Murphy you have convinced me. Initially my reaction to people being banned from Twitter was “so what”. I don’t use Twitter and when I see it most of what is written barely rises to the intellectual gravitas of graffiti. So which graffiti gets removed and which remains is of little interest to me. But I detest bullies, even when the people who are being bullied are those with whom I may disagree. I would much prefer to stand with a radical feminist (if in fact that moniker is accurate) than with a bully.

    What swayed me was your points about women’s safety. I have a mother, a wife, a daughter, a sister, a niece and countless female cousins. I find the idea that they can not enjoy protected privacy or must compete athletically against advantage persons abhorrent. This is a woman’s safety issue, not a civil rights issue. In high school sports there is an age limit so that 20 year olds are not competing against 14 & 15 year olds. In youth football there are weight classes to protect the participants. Allowing unfettered access to women’s changing areas advances no cause, it only comprises safety.

    I would also note it is within the possibility this lawsuit could become a class action admitting plaintiffs from the conservative side of the spectrum. One does always get to chose his foxhole mates.
    Good luck in court.

  40. Rudi Van Desarzio says

    Nice white knighting buddy.

    Why should women be afforded “protected privacy” in the way men aren’t? Female reporters forced their way into men’s locker rooms in the 70s. If we’re really going to do this forced “equality” thing, som people may have to give up some of their “privileges”. Some of those people may be women. Boo hoo.

    • Farris says

      If caring about the safety of my wife and female relatives, makes me a white knighter so be it.

      If you think it was wrong for females to enter male locker rooms but are now pleased to have the revenge of two wrongs making a right, I pity you. Are you really that angry that you would rather smite your enemies, than fight for what is right?

      • Rudi Van Desarzio says

        There are 2 problems with white knighting, as I see it.

        First is that if you really cared about the “equality” and “safety” of your wife and female relatives, you’d let women experience the adverse and unintended consequences of their own stupid endeavors. This is how people learn. In “protecting” them, you’re actually crippling them.

        The second problem is that in protecting your women you push the consequences for their mistakes onto others. Usually other men. Usually other younger, less powerful men. There’s no justice in that, but you don’t care because you get to be the big savior.

        This synergy between whyney womyn and “patriarchs” like yourself is the dirty little secret of feminism. The engine that keeps the feminist hate machine running.

        As for two wrongs making a right. The proper analogy is more like preserving a balance of power through mutually assured destruction, a principal that has been demonstrated effective in preserving peace and harmony over and over again.

        • Farris says

          “you’d let women experience the adverse and unintended consequences of their own stupid endeavors.”
          The women in my life did not make these decisions. The decision to remove their privacy was made for them. I am not posing as a savior of women, I wish to stand shoulder to shoulder with them in their fight to retain their privacy. Your us v. them mentality is warping your thinking.

          • Rudi Van Desarzio says

            It is you who has the “us vs them” mentality. Like Megan Murphy, you want two sets of books- one for women, and one for us lowly not-women.

            I’m perfectly willing to allow for female only spaces. It seems imminently sensible to me. But not if male only spaces are not also allowed. I guarantee Megan Murphy supports the former but not the latter.

            If you don’t like eating your own dog food ladies, then maybe stop trying to shove it down everybody else’s throat.

  41. Constantin says

    There is such a thing as “fundamental justice” and we all feel it even if unable to express it perfectly. Assisting a hypocrite virulent third way feminist zealot expressing hate at half of humanity and eager to silence dissent to fight back when caught in the whirlwind of the insanity she continues to support would be a grave mistake! In the first place, she needs to learn from this experience, and nothing in this article suggests any modicum of introspection and lucidity. If you help her in this battle you validate her incongruent, selfish and overly entitled mentality. Secondly, it is infinitely more satisfying letting these scorpions battle each other at their own expense. I, for example, could not think of a more satisfying scene than having the brainwashed supporters of her toxic brand of post-feminist zealotry found a court proceeding that may in fact serve the common good. She has plenty of committed fans to help her fight for domination in predator land. The only scene that would please me even more, is to have a court order her to epilate the nether parts of that grotesque pervert. She may need that kind of shock to begin appreciating the damage she continuously dishes our with relish. We do not mind hearing “the truth” – but certainly not from Meghan Murphy.

    • Farris says

      @Rudi V.
      “I’m perfectly willing to allow for female only spaces. “

      That’s so generous of you.

      Quit fighting against people who anger you and try fighting for ideals, like Freedom of Expression. Take the high road, so what if you’re adversaries do not. Otherwise you are no different than the SWJs of which you complain. You are merely on the other side.

      • Rudi Van Desarzio says

        Nice cherry pick @Farris. You’re quoting to deliberately mis-state my point. Must be a leftist.

        How’s this for an ideal- tit for tat.

        It is perhaps not as high minded as pontificating on the internet about abstract ideals like “freedom of expression”, but it’s a hell of a lot more effective at achieving it. If you want to bring someone to the table, it helps to have both a carrot and a stick. People who want to take away your freedom of expression suddenly value it a lot more when theirs is threatened in kind.

        • Farris says

          @Rudi V.

          “Must be a leftist.”

          Hope I’m not misquoting you. Leftist, yeah you got me. I guess in addition to living for tit for tat we can add name calling to your rhetorical skills. If Freedom of Expression is too high an ideal for you to fight for I guess we can just scratch the Bill of Rights and replace it with Freedom of Tit for Tat. We can have you address the troops and explain they are fighting and dying for Tit for Tat.

          • Rudi Van Desarzio says

            Realpolitik @Farris. It’s nice having a set of principals but they do nothing for you when faced with someone who has none, like Ms Murphy. These people only understand power, thus its the only tool that’s effective in dealing with them.

    • Farris says


      Let’s says this woman is everything you say. I have no reason to doubt your assessment.

      Wouldn’t it be better to allow her to take to Twitter and make an ass of herself?
      If her ideas, posts and tweets are that inane wouldn’t you want to take her apart with evidence and logic?
      How can you respond to her if she is banned?
      Wouldn’t you prefer she suffer the humiliation of having to have been assisted by right wing men or allow her to be a martyr?

      • Saw file says

        Constantin’s comment about Meghan Murphy is accurate and was kinder than it could have been.
        She is the prototypical highly educated professional feminist. Misandry actually can be a career.
        As a Canadian male who knows exactly who she is, my sympathy for her and her self inflicted current situation lie somewhere in the deepest part of the Marianas Trench.

        I wholeheartedly agree with you. She (and her ilk) should be allowed on Twitter, but not so I can respond to her. Interacting online with fanatical ideological zealots about their batshit crazy ideologies is a complete waste of time.
        Rather the playing field for these intersectional and ideological turf wars should be level and fair.
        Along with all that, these scorpion battles should be in view of the public so that we can enjoy the show and take souvenir screen shots.

      • Constantin says

        @Farris – I know where you are aiming and I wholeheartedly agree that free speech should include even the most toxic ideologues. This is why I said a “good cause”. My point, however, was that far from learning from her own experience, this woman is likely to exploit her newfound Twitter access to attack the very freedom we are both concerned with. The irony if this story is that she is at the receiving end of her own medicine and is externalizing the threat and seeking the support of her own victims. There is no way I would ever support this character!

  42. Mark Beal says

    So a proponent of a bunch of fantastical radfem conspiracy theories about the patriarchy and such wants support in her fight against the fantastical notion that people with penises can be women and such. Apparently, in 2013 Meghan Murphy said of Twitter that it was “a horrible place for feminism” (, which begs the question: So what were you doing still on it five years later? Why didn’t you just remove yourself from it and recommend that your feminist friends did the same? My guess would be publicity.

    Furthermore, you get no sympathy from me if you complain that being called a TERF is “hate speech” (, since hate speech laws have been designed purposely to stifle free speech at the behest of, amongst others, radical feminists.

    At any rate, methinks Molotov is calling Ribbentrop black.

  43. Morgan Foster says

    It would be a pleasing addition to Quillette’s archives if we could have a few articles written by radical feminists and gay activists who set out something like this:

    1. For years, I tormented conservatives and men of all sorts, and treated them with cruelty and a contemptuous disregard for their humanity.

    2. Let me give you a few examples of the awful and malicious things I said about – and did – to some of them, both in public and in private.

    3. Here are the names of some of the people I did harm to.

    4. I hereby apologize to them unreservedly, and I have no excuse for my behavior.

    5. I also promise that I will immediately alter my behavior, and become a better, more tolerant person.


    Now, let me tell you what happened to ME!

  44. I doubt a lawsuit by a user has any hope of succeeding. The proper course, in my opinion, against the behemoth internet censors hiding behind “platform, not content” protection is actually from shareholders. I’m waiting for the class action suit against one of these big public censors on behalf of shareholders. Take, for example, PayPal’s siding with the SPLC and revoking payment acceptance on behalf of a group. As a PayPal shareholder, I want PayPal to make money which it does so via fees. PayPal leadership dropping customers for political views is a failure if fiduciary responsibility to me, the shareholder. Their job is to maximize shareholder value and refusing the service a customer for politics (or political incorrectness) runs counter. That is why companies like Visa, MasterCard, and FirstData don’t … care. As long as your money is green, that drives their decision plus they realize the hold a monopoly-like position in that area. Anything they do that might stir the ire of a regulator is also failing in their fiduciary responsibility. I mean, in their 10-K filing, did they list as a risk “regulators might impose penalties upon us for censoring which shifts us from platform to content provider?” If so, that’d be an intentional masking of S-Ox related information on an SEC filing.

    The above is just my theory of how something might work and not an actual claim of a viable cause of action…i’m not an attorney. I only follow threads of logic based upon how courts/legislators have woven arguments. I mean, if the Government can sue/win against a baker making a custom cake they disagree with (but still servicing the customer) then why not this? Plus, some states have laws on the books saying you cannot refuse service to someone…period. With the extension of laws/regulations ala the CLOUD act and internet commerce with sales tax, who knows? If the Internet sales tax thing goes through, then any user accessing Twitter from within a state places Twitter under the rules of that state (including censorship/no censorship for politically incorrect statements).

  45. It’s been truly amusing to watch women such as Murphy finally receive the equality she was after. The feminist movement — or the female supremacy movement, as I jokingly call it — has lied to us about so mythical “patriarchy”, the gender pay gap, rape culture… all whilst making it impossible to talk about men’s issues.

    Now she’s being treated as us men are being treated — told our views are not acceptable — and Murphy fails to see the irony.

    The very movement for which she fought has eaten her. Welcome to the club, Meghan.

  46. I have always heard from Leftists, even those Left of Center, that “Quillette is alt right media”. I never believed them, because I found the quality, fairness and intelligence of the articles here contradicted any such accusations.
    Also, Leftist extremist accuse everything they don’t like as “Alt-Right”.

    However, I am a little taken aback by the comment section. As it seems filled with vindictive people, pointing at this author and smugly proclaiming she, and all females “deserve” this.
    It’s very unsettling.

    I have never seen myself as a radical feminist, though I read their take on issues. In my country, I personally vote conservative, because everything to the left of it is absolutely crazy. I’m an immigrant from a country that is not so great when it comes to freedom of speech and thought. And I have been finding it increasingly shocking that western based media/social media is creeping ever more near to what I left. It is as if they are sleepwalking into it, and it’s especially daunting that so many are cheering this dogma on.
    I started following Ms Murphy on Twitter because she was one of the loudest voices against Trans dogma. I also follow Conservative accounts, Liberal accounts, and even Trans accounts so I’m never in an ideological bubble.
    But if you like Meghan, or dislike her, the cold truth is that people are getting banned from Twitter in droves for merely stating biological facts and acknowledging reality.
    I too have been banned recently for 7 days. I did not violate any rules. My offending tweet that was flagged for “Hateful conduct” was literally one line, that said;
    “This is sounding cultish”.

    That is seriously it. I have appealed, but there is never any answer. However, every tweet I have reported by a Trans activist telling women to “Eat shit and hang yourself” (this is a quote), or publicly organizing campaigns of harassment, where they call to arms the masses to target an account they want gone- are all allowed. No violations at all!
    Maybe in this way, I have a personal interest. However, we must look at what’s happening. If all the people who are screaming in the void- that “Women do not have penises” are snuffed out, all that is left is a huge platform of pure *indoctrination*. And we all know teens and youth spend most of their lives on social media. And I see them there, no ability for critical thought, loudly parroting mantras; “Transwomen are women! Biology is a social construct! If you say otherwise you are a bigot and I’m calling your employer!”.
    This week alone saw 2 biological males winning State running championships in female division. Leftist media was so busy gushing over this amazingly progressive victory that they didn’t even bother to mention a single name of one FEMALE runner. The ones cheated.
    And you can hate Meghan Murphy all you like. You can hate feminists. But there are plenty of women and girls who don’t subscribe to much of that who just love to run. Or cycle. Or dream to get to the top of their elite sport. Maybe even the Olympics. But suddenly, their hope is irrelevant.
    And to point fingers and laugh because you think “feminists are getting what they deserve!” is to tell every girl out there- your mothers, daughters, sisters, nieces, friends- all of them do not deserve a voice, or fairness in sports. They do not deserve a safe place to shower. They do not deserve a safe shelter for themselves and their young children. They do not deserve to choose female rape counselors, or female medical professionals to perform intimate exams.
    It’s a bit unnerving to see the glee in some men that we will all suffer because they have a problem with a handful of feminists. As if the rest of us are not experiencing the consequences of insane ideologues.

    I am telling you, Trans activists are going after women. ALL women. Whether they are feminist, conservative, or just undecided/apolitical and believe in biological reality. And social media like Twitter is paving the way. It’s an assault on freedom of speech, on our minds, and if anything, it is forcing the masses into compelled speech.

    So I wish Meghan Murphy luck in her lawsuit. I think the end game for outlets like Twitter is again; an indoctrination machine. They want to control thought. And if you get users young enough- and dumb enough, they will repeat and believe the lies, the fake science, the vilification of dissenters without ever learning to think critically about it. It is crucial that something is done before it’s too far gone.

    • Morgan Foster says

      @Mu Guiying

      If you are not familiar with this poem, I can recommend it as being very apt regarding your concerns.

      Many like to write their own variations based on it. One could write such a variation in honor of Meghan Murphy’s struggle.

      First Twitter came for the men, and I did not speak out –
      Because I was not a man.

      Then Twitter came for the women, and there was no one left to speak for me.

      • There are plenty of men on Twitter still. In fact, I’m pretty sure men are making the Twitter rules atm.
        Jack is a man.

        And I have often defended men them their right to their thoughts just as I would anyone else. Sorry if that doesn’t line up with your fears.

        • Marie says

          I sorry you were kicked off of twitter. I read this website periodically, but I found out about this particular article from the gender critical reddit which attracts a great deal of hate readers. I’m guessing that is why the comment section is so hyperbolic, as I don’t remember that being the case generally. The normal tenor here is more intellectual/skeptical. Wishing an entire group of people to be stripped of their rights to privacy and free speech, because of anyone simply saying anything no matter how personally offensive seems unhinged to me. Words aren’t violence, and they should not be used to justify violence. But such is the fallacy of hasty generalizations.

    • Saw file says

      @Mu Guiying

      II agree with almost everything that you have expressed.
      The current trans dogma is ludicrous and I push back against it’s insane ideology wherever I come across it. I doubt that you would find many regular Quillette readers who also wouldn’t. It is an extremely important current societal issue. I also doubt that you would find many regular readers who wouldn’t agree that Murphy deserves freedom to express her opinions and fair and equal treatment on any platform.
      That being said, I feel that you are missing an important underlying point of many of the comments that you find “vindictive”. It’s not the zero sum game. Pointing out the Murphy’s (and her ilks) blatant hypocrisy in regards to this issue and her current situation with Twitter is not a show of support for the nonsense of trans dogma. It is rightly pointing out that the methods being used against her now are the methods that her umbrella ideology created.
      Leftists and feminists perfected the methods as they currently exist. That includes the methods to enact company policy change. Then they used these methods to silence and deplatform conservatives, men’s rights spokespeople, ideological heretics and anyone else they didn’t like or disagreed with. While this was going on, there was either cheering or utter silence.
      Trans women in women’s sports, well let’s look at the precident s for this. Feminists forced policy and legislation that forced strictly boys and mens organizations to accept females. From boy scouts to MALE sports to mens clubs to mens support groups. At the same time legally baring males from girls and womens organizations. And now we have trans women in female sports, etc.
      I do honestly believe that majority of readers here support Murphy’s cause. You shouldn’t judge them as “vindictive” for a bit of justified nose rubbing, finger pointing and ” told you so/you where warned” s.
      Two of the fine qualities that I have found in the majority of the regular commenters here on Quillette, that is completely lacking in Meghan Murphy, are integrity and empathy.

      • @ Saw File

        Thanks for your time and thoughts!

        I think some of the comments I’m talking about are the one’s who would defend “he who shall not be named” (Jonathan Yaniv, the extortionist and child predator) over Meghan Murphy’s right to express that he is in fact, a male- and a predator. I’m not sure how much you kow about him seeing as the elite of Twitter, WordPress, and social media are working with him to erase all of his unsavoury actions. In particular, his proclivity for helping 10 year old girls with their tampons.

        Perhaps scan downwards a bit in the comments.

        I personally have no issues with boy’s having things just for boys, and girls having things just for girls. My father goes to an all men’s barber shop for his hair cuts, and I think it’s great. He gets time to just soak up ….man atmosphere (lol). Especially since he is the only male in the family. Again, I am an immigrant and as backwards as some things are where I came from, I think we have things that are right as well. Men need their own space to be men. Women need their own space too.
        And I also understand how some radical feminists can be purity seekers (not saying Meghan is that way- from her recent writings, I honestly think she is going through a change. She stated she has always been on the Left, but now is feeling disillusioned by it, which is why she is taking offers to write for other platforms).
        But as I said, on Twitter, I follow a wide variety of people. I’ve had some radical feminists chastise me for following/retweeting Jordan Peterson for example. Or other conservative men. And I tell them, that if they don’t like it, they can feel free to unfollow me. I get along with conservative men quite well for whatever reason.

        So I get that. I really do.

        In spite of all this, I can’t help but see the utter contempt for women- to the point that men in the comments are laughing at the plight we will all suffer as if we all as a sex deserve some come-uppance. I find it strange. Because I assume most of these men have at least one female in their life that they love. And even if they don’t know any girl children, surely they would want them safe, and treated with fairness in their lives? Most men that I know, are decent, and would protect a small girl from anything.
        I sometimes think men do not take the threat of Transgenderism as seriously as they should. And to clarify- I’m not talking about people with medical gender dysphoria. The movement has been taken over by fetishists, narcissists, and men like Jonathan Yaniv. Women and girls have been physically assaulted, raped, kicked out of shelters, put in danger, recorded by voyeurs, cheated out of medals an opportunity in sports- all lesbian events are picketed and destroyed- all in the name of “inclusive” Trans activism. And media are turning a blind eye.

        I guess I’m coming at this from a different angle because it directly affects me and my beloved nieces and nephews. I don’t want them to be indoctrinated into this. I don’t want us to live in a world where i cannot see a male, KNOW he is a male, but must pretend he is in fact a woman just like me. It’s pure insanity. I’m not advocating anything done to hurt these people’s feelings or make their lives difficult. But it’s becoming clear to me that this isn’t about Trans acceptance. It’s about power. Power to control language, speech and law.

        As I said in my above comment; this is getting eerily close to what I left. I do not agree with everything Jordan Peterson says (example again). At times, he says something I find rather insulting. But if he were ever banned, or prevented from speaking? I’d certainly be right there, defending him. And that’s because I know what it’s like to have thoughts and speech controlled. We can’t let that get any further than it already has. The cost is too great.

        If Meghan Murphy is banned from the Town square for knowing a male is a male, and I have been banned from the Town square for saying a male is a male ( and not a “genderqueer “Zehr”). When we’re all gone, they will move onto banning more and more. And the 12-18 year olds left, will exist in that space, absorbing this ideological dogma. Biological sex is a social construct. Penises are female. 2+2-5. Slavery is Freedom.

        Idk, I’ve seen @jacks’s Twitter feed and it will be a scary world if he control what we can think and say.

        Again tho, thank you so much for your comment! I’m new to commenting here, so I appreciate it.

    • Andrew Mcguiness says

      Mu Guiying – “she, and all females “deserve” this” – I didn’t read any comments which said all females deserve this, only that feminists do.

      • AesopFan says

        “pointing at this author and smugly proclaiming she, and all females “deserve” this.” — Mu Guiying.
        Andrew – I noted the same thing; that “all females” part was never said by anyone so far.
        Mu Guiying – everything else you said is basically correct; thank you for your perspective.

  47. Twitter is a cesspit of duelling egos, mobbing and hideous groupthink. The fact that the author is devoting so much energy to regaining access to the platform – albeit in the name of the lofty ideal of free speech – does not speak well for her.

      • Yes, it is a large part of the point. A healthy community that values free speech does not place such importance on platforms like Twitter, which are actively crushing diversity of opinion. People should be exiting Twitter and kindred sites in droves in the name of free speech. You can survive without it, you know.

  48. Julia says

    To see what’s going on, it’s enough to look at the comments section infested with concern trolls and handles I’ve never seen before. So, which ones are rational opinions and which ones are the SJW mob spilled from Twitter?

    I get that it’s hard to sympathise with her because she’s said divisive things. But harassment and instilling control over her speech is still different than disagreeing with her POV. Don’t be a lynch mob tool.

    • TarsTarkas says

      When you’ve had your face rubbed into the dirt over and over again, been told repeatedly that you are an evil piece of oppressive shit that ought to be exterminated, it’s understandable that there might be some rejoicing when utterers of such hateful opinions have something even moderately bad happen to them. It wouldn’t be human not to.

      I still hope she wins her lawsuit and I hope soon that Twitter, Facedrek, and other hypocritical social media platforms be made into public utilities and unable to censor anything.

    • beyondyesandno says

      @mesce, all you’re really doing is signalling to the crowd your own misandry. How do you know which of them are male sexed?

    • Saw file says


      Haha….by “male sexed”, do you mean men?

      The delusional seem to be flocking to this thread in full force. Such pitiable people.

  49. Rick Phillips says

    The real issue from a free speech perspective will be if/when the rationales adopted, by Twitter in this instance, make their way into institutions that have the potential to have a more significant impact on what forms of speech are legally acceptable. US citizens may be afforded some 1st Amendment protection. The citizens of other countries may find the establishment and enforcement of laws attempting to deal with “hate speech” more problematic.

    Carl Benjamin is a British YouTuber, political commentator and polemicist better known by the online alias Sargon of Akkad. He does not appear to be supportive of the movement identified as trans-exclusionary radical feminism. He does seem to feel that it may be necessary to support TERF “free speech” even when the contents of that speech and/or the person doing the speaking is perceived to be abhorrent. I am not promoting but you might find his assessment of the situation in the UK in this respect interesting.

    I did find and include some relevant links but I think they are probably subject to moderation (Sargon TERF search in Utube should bring examples up)

    • Rick Phillips says

      Some UTube titles.

      The Intersectional Police Arrest a TERF
      Britain’s Political Police
      The Progressive Police of Virtue and Vice

    • I have never actually met a so-called ” Terf”. It’s nothing but an invented boogeyman of Trans activists and gender ideologues. Perhaps they exist, but they are so far and few between, as to be negligible.
      I have been dubbed a ‘Terf” by Trans activists myself for merely asserting that I refuse to deny reality, and refuse to comply with their demands that a penis is a “female organ”. Or that “biology doesn’t exist”. I do not believe a male has a menstrual cycle.
      Yes, the insanity had gone that far; you can Google now that Trans women claim to have periods, and any woman who refuses their experience is “erasing their very existence”.
      Fact is, they label everyone a Terf for the slightest infraction against the orthodox. For instance, JK. Rowling “liked” the wrong tweet. The Woke horde regularly monitors celebrity tweets for unclean thought, and the next day, there were articles all over lefty media and LGBT sites documenting Rowlings heinous ‘Terfy” behaviour.
      A friend of mine ( male) who is an internalist (10 years of med school) has been labeled a “Terf sympathizer” for his refusal to dismiss human biology outright.
      But what if we just pretend SJW’s are NOT calling everyone who breathes a “Terf” for wrong think? What about those unicorns that might actually fit the label?
      The sin is; “Trans exclusionary radical feminism”.

      My first question is, excluding them from what? What is this almighty, super amazing club that a handful of females are excluding a few biological males from? Well, these are women who do not think biological males know what it’s like to be female. And that is the truth. But it’s not women who are doing the exlcuding. Nature itself excludes males from the female experience and vice versa.

      I am female. I will never know what males go through from youth to adulthood. I have no idea the ups and downs of say, experiencing male puberty. To claim I’m a “man” at age 28, and that I would have any clue of the anxiety young men go thru would be rather insulting I think. Being male or female is kind of a unique experience that is dependent on your biology.
      So what else could these evil women possibly be excluding male Trans women from?

      The big one I’ve seen Trans activists aggressively complain about is lesbianism. Lesbians reject them. And they feel they should be included as “women” in lesbian sex lives. In fact, in UK, there is a Stonewall advocate named Alex Drummond (feel free to Google) who goes to elementary schools educating youth on how he is a lesbian. On how any male can be a lesbian if he declares it.
      Alex Drummond is a biological male with a full beard. But sexual orientation excludes males from the lesbian dating pool. But now, lesbians are smeared as “Terfs” for their refusal to become heterosexual. It’s that pesky biology again.

      Fact is, most “Terfs” are regular, ordinary women (and increasingly, men), who refuse to comply 100% with Trans dogma. It’s a label one gets for ever saying “no”. And their rules are ever-changing, ever ludicrous.

      Transwomen are now using resources in the UK, to get “cervical exams”, when they * do not have a cervix*. If you believe this is a waste of money, you are a Terf.

      I’m interested in watching the videos and looking more into Sargon, I’ve heard a lot about him. But I hope he has dissected what this stuff really means before inserting himself into it. The idea he believes there are such a thing as “Terfs” isn’t promising. I’ve ran into an awful lot of supposed skeptics that repeat the “Transwomen are women. End of” cmantra, and it completely obliterates their credibility.
      Still, I will look with an open mind.

      • Yes the idea that sex and gender are completely independant of each other is crazy. Yes the idea of a trans woman claiming to be a lesbian seems paticularily risible and bizarre but all of this has sprung from dogma, ideology and process that continue to be vigorously pursued by deminists. In order to return to a reasonable position on sex and gender based on science it has to be acknowledged that men and women’s characaters and personalities are on average different and that a big part of this difference is biological and innate.

        What is most worrying about trans ideology is not the current war with some feminists but its affect on children. Historically most children who acted atypically as per gender settled comfortably into their biological sex and gender following puberty, some recognised themselves as homosexual and a very small number recognised themselves as trans. Now children are encourages to be trans and to take irrevocable and damaging steps before they even reach adulthood. There is no convincing evidence or scientific consensus that medical intervention is beneficial and and known harms caused by hormone treatment. Many of the children and young adults subject to this treatment will be harmed. The only moral policy is to delay any treatment until adulthood and some psychological investigation/counselling that the person concerned is capable of taking this decision and is doing so with full knowledge of the consequences. It is a shocking thing that expressing this opinion will inevitably result in being accused of trans phobia and hatred but that is entirely consistent with the fact I have been accused of being a misogynist simply for questioning an article which explicitly stated that the goal of public health policy should be to maintain a 5 year life expectancy gap in favour of women. If it is misogynist to claim men and womens lifes are of equal worth then why not claim that claiming sex is biologically determined is trans-phobic?

  50. jimhaz says

    Godfrey Elfwick (parody SJW) appears to have been banned from twitter again.

    Time for me to listen to JBP’s views on this matter again – I didn’t agree with him on the first listen, but might change my mind.

  51. I consider myself a feminist if by feminist one means that all people should have equal opportunities, including women. This was how I understood feminism when I was a teen in the 1970s.

    The word has radically changed meanings since so i don’t know how much I’d align with Megan Murphy. I do however share her views on many issues, including identity politics, ‘shaming,’ and so on.

    But even if I disagreed with her entirely and even if she subscribed to the brand of feminism that attacks, shames the Other and celebrates victimhood–even if that were true, it is not relevant to her point.

    Her point has to do with Twitter (and other social media) using their near-monopoly to censure speech according to their very poorly defined (undefined) political/philosophical outlook. This is huge.

    Don’t get caught up in attacking her, calling her a hypocrite or whatever. The issue is far larger than her and she is honestly a really good spokesperson for it because she is of the “left” and of the feminist brand and yet even she is attacked and silenced. (Look at Martina Navratilova too! Unbelievable).

    What is Twitter? Imagine a phone company not allowing me to use phones because I pointed out men aren’t women in a phone conversation. And imagine there weren’t any other phone companies I could use.

    So is Twitter like a phone company? It’s not acting like one.

    So what is it? A publishing company? If it is, then how can they sell our information? And then aren’t they responsible for anything they publish and therefore can be sued?

    What is happening now is they are pretending they are simply a utility service but not a common good one like the phone company, instead a private one one can choose not to use – even though if you are building a business, this is not possible. They are also pretending they are publishers, but then don’t want any of the downsides. They are completely not accountable to anyone and wield a ton of power and have a near monopoly on a mode of speech many people use for business and personal expression.

    Megan Murphy’s suit is therefore very important. No matter whether you agree with her feminism, hate her feminism, think her a hypocrite–it’s all not relevant. We must come together here.

    • d, I agree with you. The schadenfreude is thick in this comment section. I almost certainly disagree with Meghan on many issues if her detractors here have accurately expressed her views. But I don’t think that matters.

      I support her fight against Twitter.

      I wonder, would Meghan support say Gavin McInnes, Laura Loomer, Milo, or Alex Jones in a similar lawsuit? Are there any accounts she thinks deserved banning, and if so why?

      However, as I said, I support her in this endeavor. I just think it would be an interesting conversation to see if she supports those she likely disagrees with.

    • Miss Yellowbird says

      @d –

      No “we” don’t have to “come together” on this. I don’t want to align with people like MM or support her because I think she’s a hypocrite and a typical annoying internet feminist. If she loses her lawsuit against the Twatter, nothing of value is lost.

      This is just her personal vendetta – most people don’t care about Twitter. You and her other cheerleaders are vastly overestimating how important a platform it is. It’s definitely not the phone company. They can ban who they want. Besides, I personally saw MM and friends engaging in coordinated harassment and doxing online over the ball waxer that got her banned, so she is an aggressor, and not the victim. If she thinks he’s a creep she should report him and move on, not coordinate harassment on the internet against him, so Twitter was within their rights to ban her for targeting individuals.

      So maybe stop with the demanding people support her and whining if they don’t. No one has to care about Megan’s frivolous PR lawsuit and all her lapdogs in here are not helping and instead make her look like just another attention-seeking feminist with an entourage who go around nagging people on the internet who disagree with her. Yeah, internet feminists are real free-speech icons lol.

    • Victoria says

      d, you’re ignoring a critical distinction between opinion and actions constituting harassment, as defined by law or contractual agreement.

      While there is no doubt that Twitter bans people solely based on political and social views, which should indeed be resisted, even for deplorable opinions, Murphy got banned for doxxing. She consciously and maliciously wanted someone to be a at risk in their daily life. Even the phone company can ban users for harassment.

  52. Twitter Band says

    Twenty years ago nobody would’ve thought that Fox News would become the model for all media, but here we are. Cater to an ideological niche, but call yourself “Fair and Balanced,” only show facts to support your viewers’ biases (make ’em up if you have to!), and generate a nice tidy confirmation bias feedback loop.

    No matter what your pre-existing views are, there’s a Fox News for you!

    • Kaira says

      You literally make zero sense. The amount of red herrings in your one little comment is staggering.

  53. Hey Meghan. You doxxed a dude. That’s why you’ve been kicked off Twitter.

    You deliberately exposed a physical place of business that he frequents in a tweet.

    On the internet today…that’s a threat. Just the same as if this dude had posted where you go grocery shopping to his followers. You try and skirt this by stating all this info was already public in the review of a business…which it is…but then you forwarded it to all your followers. Your followers who are hilariously concern trolling the shit out of this comments section. (It’s obvious who you are)

    This isn’t about free speech. This is about you breaking the rules and then regretting that they applied to you.

    Don’t dox people and you won’t get banned from twitter. Better yet, don’t go on twitter at all, it’s not a human right, and you won’t feel so god damn persecuted.

    • Miss Yellowbird says

      @ike –

      The GC feminists sure do seem to have a problem with witch-hunting. Its one of the reasons I’m very unsympathetic to MM and GC. They absolutely did try to organize harassment and doxing of the ball waxer via GC subreddit and their user Wrong Toy was banned for it.

      It was distasteful how they went after that guy (even if he is or was a creep) and were desperate to smear his name all over the internet. They even went and found shelter on a chan type board which was funny because they would not tolerate those people and would call them racist, sexist bigots and try to do the same to them if they weren’t helping them out.

      GC are drama queens first and foremost and I think they get too much attention on Reddit because people have nowhere else to go to discuss trans issues, so the numbers go to their heads. I don’t think most of their subscribers agree with their brand of radical feminist finger-wagging and are just there because there is no where else to go..

      They tried to make themselves out to be righteous pedo-hunters, but if that’s the case they should just report to authorities and move on instead of engaging in coordinated harassment and doxing over personal grievances.

      • My BS detector went code red when I read this article.

        MM seems to be doing an Olympic level floor routine in mental gymnastics. It’s interesting to see this level of narcissism and self delusion up close. She doxxed this guy and I sincerely believe she has convinced herself that she is the victim in all this. She’s certainly trying to convince everyone else.

        I’m just surprised that a lawyer would be dumb enough to take a case that is this much of a loser.

    • You are being ridiculous.

      The person in question who you accuse Meghan Murphy of “doxxing” has been in Canadian newspapers, has run a public “review” business, and is infamous Canada wide for trying to extort 16 female beauticians for thousands of dollars by abusing the flimsy, anti-science laws of gender identity.
      They would not wax his scrotum. And he filed human rights complaints against them. Told these women to pay him $2,500 a piece, or he would bring them and their businesses down.
      He is also known ( with bountiful amounts of proof) to prey upon little girls, 12 and under, with a disturbing fixation on helping them insert their tampons. This male, even went on television to a tribunal, where he was recorded, laughing at how he got Meghan Murphy banned for “transphobia” and further wanted her arrested for “hate crimes because she doesn’t think Trans women are women”.

      The very idea that you hate feminism so much, that you are willing to defend a predator of both women and little girls, speaks volumes about your character.

      It is NOT doxxing to acknowledge information that is posted free and open to the public. It is not doxxing to quote media articles that have extensively covered this man and his actions. Yaniv did not hide his creepy obsessions very well at all.
      I’m flabbergasted that anyone would side with a man who has been caught dozens of times creeping on 10 year old girls, talking openly about how he needs to help tweens with their sanitary products and he is a 32 YEAR OLD MAN WITH A PENIS.

      • Pump your brakes a little, mu.

        He’s in newspapers. He has an online review business. He’s Canadian infamous. Copy all that. Why is it necessary for MM to point out businesses he is frequenting? Answer: It’s a threat. Don’t play dumb.

        Nowhere in my comments did I defend yaniv. I actually believe TERFs have a lot of valid complaints. IMO biological men should not be allowed into traditionally female spaces, full stop. Biological men should not be allowed to define what constitutes a female experience or a female body even if they self identify as women.

        I also believe that rad fems are actively trying to destroy traditionally male spaces and organizations while carving out special privileges and rights for women. It’s a double standard that as a father of 3 boys I see creeping past academia, into popular culture, manifesting in politics and policies, and find troubling.

        So if you want men like me on your side, (which seems counterintuitive)cut out the pearl clutching hysterics, take accountability for the hypocrisy in your movement, stop playing dumb when one of your people fucks up, and let’s get equal.

        • What movement am I in, Ike?

          You seem to know so much about women, I’m waiting with baited breath because apparently you know I’m in a movement when I’m somehow oblivious to it.
          I also don’t wear pearls (or any jewelry but an engagement ring). But thanks for the concern.

          Meghan Murphy was far from the only person talking about which salons Yaniv was extorting. I mean, where were you during all this? For one thing, Yaniv was already in the newspapers before Meghan’s tweets at the end of November.(
          – Jonathan Yaniv submitted his own Wikipedia page prior to Murphy’s ban
          – There was a published tribunal decision regarding one of Jonathan’s many extortion attempts against beauticians that has since been wiped- because everything on him online has been wiped.
          – Yaniv’s gross. predatory tweets where he sent messages to underage girls (underage meaning 10-12 year olds) were already widely circulating the internet. They were all PUBLIC. And in case anyone here want’s to see the man you’re defending, here you go:

          I suggest a swig of scotch before the photos of himself in a women’s swimsuit that he sent to teen girls in one of the many pre-teen make up forums he haunted just FYI.

          So even thought I believe, and would always defend men having their own spaces, (as I have stated in another comment, my father goes to an all male barber- fantastic). I do not want to ally with YOU, Ike. As you place the safety of a sexual predator over that of women and little girls, because your spite and contempt for a feminist clouds your judgment to the point that you abandon what I resume would be a pretty common moral code; protecting the populace from extortionists and sexual predators.

          • You were apparently front and center while I was missing “all of this” which is why I assumed (and possibly wrongfull so) that when some weirdo shows up on a comments board out of the blue (link to previous articles you’ve commented on if I’m wrong) and starts raving about how the people who normally frequent this site are misogynists for not buying into the OP’s story…that you’ve come from somewhere with an ax to grind.

            If yaniv is a sexual predator and is breaking the law and you have proof of it…go to the fucking police. If he’s guilty and gets convicted and sent to prison, men like me will be there to throw him off the top tier as a welcoming committee. But don’t expect some stranger in another country to get worked up about a chimo in your city because said chimo one-upped your fearless leader in a game of dipshit-chess.

          • lol So… Ike replied to me below, and I have no option to reply to him now. So I will reply here

            Ike seems very mad that I challenged him.

            For one, Ike has accused me of “raving about how men on this site are misogynists” in my previous comments.
            Prove it Ike.
            I have never ONCE typed the word “mysoginist”. I have stated I am not a radical feminist.

            And I am sorry Ike. But if there i an individual out there, in a city, EXTORTING businesses- to the point that he is at *16 small businesses * that he is robbing, threatening, and extorting out of their hard-earned money- I don’t care who owns them, male or female, he should be exposed.
            By your logic, to warn a neighbourhood of a predator is “doxxing”. So what? We do not warn anyone of criminals because it compromises their sense of safety? We just let person after person, business after business be compromised; their livelihoods made burdened under the strain of a serial extortionist just because you think, this man might FEEL “unsafe” when a woman in Twitter, says something??

            Thank goodness there are other male commenters on Quilettes with sense, Ike. because if it were no one but people like you, it would be a very strange place in deed.

            And Im not a stranger “out of nowhere”. Im a human being, who has been reading Quillette articles for some time, I follow Claire on Twitter. I follow Jon Kay on twitter as well. Yesterday, I decided to comment for the first time.

            So sorry, Ike. you cannot control who can comment here, no matter how much you would like to.

          • Extortion and child abuse are crimes. Report them to the authorities.

            Doxxing isn’t how decent people solve these kinds of problems.

    • Andrew Mcguiness says

      Ike ….. MM retweeted somebody else’s tweet, in which, under his own name, he reviewed a business he’d used. MM’s only addition was, “Yeeeah, it’s him.’ How is this doxxing? It’s a genuine question.

      • @andrew. Ask yourself why MM would retweet that review? It’s not a business that this guy was extorting and that’s what MM and her followers were upset about. It’s a business he gave a good review to and would regularly (might be mistaken on this part, but if you love a business you tend to return) frequent.

        So why point out this particular review? It’s already public knowledge, right? If people want to know where this guy goes to get his ass waxed, they can find out on their own.

        It’s a threat. Just the same as if you reviewed a local restaurant that you frequent, gave a rave review, and your mortal enemy tweeted,”Hey everybody, look where this asshole likes to eat.” to his 1000 rabid followers.

        That’s how I interpret it. I could be wrong, but seeing as how nobody knows why MM got kicked off Twitter more than anyone else, this is my theory and it looks like a threat from where I sit.

        Poke holes in it if you like, it won’t hurt my feelings and I could be missing something obvious.


        • Andrew Mcguiness says

          @Ike, OK I see what you’re saying, and I pretty much agree with you. I just wouldn’t call it doxing, which I understand to be publishing someone’s real identity or other personal details which are not otherwise publicly known.

          • That’s fair. What I described would be considered a stretch of the term per the parameters you laid out.

          • Isn’t there an implicit call to arms when someone is doxxed though? I think that’s what I was clueing in on.

            When someone makes public another persons private information, the information itself is not that big a deal actually. It’s the implication of what should be done with that info that is dangerous. “Take this information and attack.”.

            I think there’s the “attack” component in this instance that definitely mirrors a traditional doxxing case like the Covington one.

  54. Reader says

    “Twitter fought against the Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act, on the basis that such laws would harm “free speech.””

    They were quite right to do so! I’m sympathetic to the banning and concern for speech policing, but let’s not start justifying the biggest threat to free expression online.

    • Rick Ulrey says

      Thank you for bringing this up. FOSTA/SESTA is a tragedy that should have been opposed by everyone.

  55. Pingback: True But Forbidden 8 - American Digest

  56. Victoria says

    Like many contemporary feminists, Murphy employs a motte-and-bailey tactic to obfuscate her agenda. Delegitimizing and stigmatizing trans people is her bailey. Her motte in turn is that she merely opposes the excesses of trans activists.

    Like most bigots, Murphy focuses on the individuals in a putative group who engage in attention-seeking or misconduct. Leftists and Quillette-liberals* who would instantly see the injustice in judging black people by the actions of violent criminals, grifters, etc. who are black, often are fixated on trans activists and criminals who claim to be trans in my readings.

    The irony with neo-Marxist feminists is that their worldview is drawn from the same well as the trans leftists whom they oppose. Neither group really cares about evidence, first-principles, or simpel compassion; it’s all about group power dynamics.

    * Jonathan Kay is not merely publishing this out of high principles of public debate. You can see his disproportionate focus on trans activists, and rather conspicuous lack of scrutiny towards feminists like Murphy and Debra Soh, almost daily in his Twitter feed.

  57. Dr. Debra Soh is a medical professional and sexologist that worked at Toronto’s CAMH gender identity clinic.

    I encourage everyone to observe Dr Soh’s Twitter feed. You will find nothing but scientific fact, reason, and common sense. This is why Trans activists despise her; she has the knowledge and credentials to poke holes in their flimsy ideology. She also has a platform.This is why they seek to smear and discredit her at every turn.

  58. She’s still a liberal preaching liberal orthodoxy. She’s just mad that her orthodoxy is being trumped by a new, more radical but equally disingenuous orthodoxy. The basis for this assertion? This: “Trans-identified people may suffer discrimination and violence, just as do women, Jews, Muslims and people of colour.” No mention of men, even though the reality is that most victims of violence are men. No mention of white people, even though my guess is that most victims of violence are white. Moreover, minorities are disproportionately represented as victims of violence because minorities disproportionately commit violence, and their victims are usually their fellow minorities. However, when interracial violence does occur, 85% of the time the perpetrator is black. All this data probably comes as a shock to Meghan Murphy, because she is a liberal inhabiting the liberal bubble.

  59. She’s still a liberal preaching liberal orthodoxy. She’s just mad that her orthodoxy is being trumped by a new, more radical but equally disingenuous orthodoxy. The basis for this assertion? This: “Trans-identified people may suffer discrimination and violence, just as do women, Jews, Muslims and people of colour.” No mention of men, even though the reality is that most victims of violence are men. No mention of white people, even though my guess is that most victims of violence are white. Moreover, minorities are disproportionately represented as victims of violence because minorities disproportionately commit violence, and their victims are usually their fellow minorities. However, when interracial violence does occur, 85% of the time the perpetrator is black. All this data probably comes as a shock to Meghan Murphy, because she is a liberal inhabiting the liberal bubble. And in all probability this person who is fighting to ‘defend female spaces’ from transwomen is quite fine with women invading male spaces.

    • Sorry. Did not intend to post twice. Got a message saying ‘Quillette failed to connect’. Waited 5 minutes, refreshed, didn’t see my post, so re-posted it. Got the same message, but when I refreshed both were there.

  60. It’s good that Megan Murphy supports the right of her ideological opponents to ‘peddle nonsense’ in her words, because she’s been peddling some of the most ridiculous ideas I’ve personally encountered on the internet, as many previous posters have summarized nicely….

    … but she should not have been banned on Twitter.

    • Kevin says

      It’s surreal that the Left insists the right are lunatics yet take every opportunity to silence them. While that silence limits any ability to allow the “deplorables” and “idiots” to prove that point.

      The left are doing a lot of talking about Jim Crow laws, passed by the Democratic party and unanimously opposed by the Republicans. The supreme court blocked all Republican and civil rights efforts to strike down segregation laws, while the Courts held to one sentence “Equal but separate” Until MLK brought us together and we demanded change in support of the fact, there is only one human race. They teach children in schools that democratic socialism is a wonderful new progressive idea. In spite of the millions who perished, because they believed the promoters in their generations, of course they know how to do it better this time. But I digress.

      If “Equal but separate” is to be the new social justice normal once again, right versus left, black against white, men against women and in all the ways that identity politics seeks to divide us; Although they claim they are not “those people” any more as they project their residual hatred onto “others” the evidence says nothing really changed.

      KKK was and is, a Democrat party ideal. They simply changed out the targets and the victims. The outrage remains and the divisions will remain, as long as politicians have a side to take.

  61. Henry Miller says

    “All I have ever done on Twitter is tell the truth…”

    And that’s why the Left is after you–they, double-think-like, demand the power to define The Truth and to punish anyone who fails to conform.

  62. Pingback: Why I’m Suing Twitter | RealClearPolitics |

  63. Pingback: Why I’m Suing Twitter | RealClearPolitics – American News

  64. Pingback: Why I'm Suing Twitter | RealClearPolitics - Daily The News

  65. Pingback: Why I'm Suing Twitter | Big Sky Headlines

  66. Pingback: Why I’m Suing Twitter | RealClearPolitics – 1HotNews

  67. Pingback: Who Will Guard the Social Media Guardians? – The Conservative Insider

  68. Pingback: Why I'm Suing Twitter - Market Research Foundation

  69. pennywit says

    Have you considered creating your own site to compete with Twitter?

    • Building a counter website would discourage dialogue and divide camps even further, which would totally disregard Twitter’s initial Mission Statement (you should read it). Better to be offended than limit #freespeech

  70. Tony says

    I guess “trans” is higher on the “intersectional pole”.

  71. Pingback: Virtuality Bites – Enlaces interesantes de la semana – antroposcopio

  72. Pingback: Virtuality Bytes – Intersting links of the week 2 March, 2019 – QUEROLUS.ORG – A DIGITAL LIFE EXPOSED

  73. Kevin says

    A couple of days ago a Fox Journalist posted on Trump’s feed. Almost immediately one of Twitter’s preferred blue check-mark untouchables, called her a misogynous hateful name. I posted a complaint to this ignorance but made the mistake of quoting [with quotation marks] the abusive language and subsequently because the language appeared in my post, they locked my account. I tried to explain in respectful terms and not only would they not reopen my account, they require me to provide a personal phone number for supposed “security reasons” Mine or their was not defined. Providing your phone number to an advertising agency, masquerading as a social media platform, isn’t exactly a wise move, with no way to control how it will be used or what other information they will distribute for a fee.

    Twitter is incapable of regulating their own platform primarily because they do not protect political views and they are overwhelmingly left of center which is a bias they celebrate openly and have no intention of changing.

    Government regulation of private enterprises is normally not a great idea, however in the case of Twitter and Google they have the ability to interfere in elections, and we have seen how it was already done, therefore they represent a national security threat. Demanding more government attention and if at all possible strict regulation and fines that matter, as they have already done internationally..

  74. “Trans-identified people may suffer discrimination and violence, just as do women, Jews, Muslims and people of colour.”

    Perpetuating the above fiction plays into the “Intersectional Game”

    Here’s the truthful way to state it; Trans-identified people may suffer discrimination and violence, as does EVERYONE!

  75. Kirk Kelln says

    Meghan > I’ve read several of your feminist ravings elsewhere so have already given you 13 minutes of my life, which is 13 minutes more than you deserve. You are bottom-of-the-barrel Feminazi garbage, through and through. But, to whatever extent your speech has been curtailed by Twitter or any of the other gatekeepers of our modern public square, I’ll stand with you. To be clear, in the public sphere, you should be permitted to advance any idea you want, for any reason you like, free from censorship. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram – these are private companies that have birthed public spaces, and since the existence of the spaces depend on the public’s ongoing participation, ownership of the space is not fully private, and this is true regardless of user agreements. Good luck in your battle against tyranny.

  76. You’re a “victim” because some social app banned you? You must have a comically inflated sense of your own importance if that allows you victim status.

  77. Pingback: Who Will Guard the Social Media Guardians? | The American Spectator | EducationNews

  78. Pingback: Twitter discrimina a las lesbianas – Amy Dyess [Traducción] – Dworkinista

Comments are closed.