Meghan Murphy you are misleading your audience

This is an open letter to Meghan Murphy, writer and editor of Feminist Current.

Meghan Murphy,

You deliberately incite discrimination on prohibited grounds that you know your audience will face serious consequences for following.

What you say is a lie when you claim that denying a publicly-available service provided for women to anyone on the basis of their being transgender is justified or legal in Canada. It is not, and you know it.

“I do not have a gender identity and in fact no one does.”

Meghan Murphy

Canada prohibits discrimination on the grounds of gender identity, Meghan. Three legal cases and one elected body have upheld this prohibition but you state as a fact it’s fantasy and tell your audience to ignore this legally-enforced “fantasy”. I am confused.

In a number of public talks I’ve heard you give, you repeatedly start with a statement defining transgender women to not be women but men. I watched you do it at Vancouver Public Library. You then give a speech about why men do not have access to women’s spaces justifying your point of view. Yet, you know you are lying. You know that transgender women are protected from discrimination on the basis of gender identity in Canada where you gave a number of these speeches. You know Canadian transgender women are legally women and female despite your claims otherwise.

“If trans activists truly cared about feminism, they would respect women’s spaces

Meghan Murphy

When you make these claims, your readership might believe you and become angry at transgender people for standing up and demanding our rights be upheld. Inciting an angry mob is an awful way to earn a living, especially through lies. It is a devious trick and it carries criminal and civil liability, Meghan.

“I believe males and females are real, because I believe women’s rights and spaces should be protected, because I believe women have the right to boundaries, and because I ask questions about terms like ‘transgender’ and about the implications of legislation rooted in nonsensical, regressive ideology.”

Meghan Murphy, Vancouver Public Library

You may wish that transgender women were not recognized to be women or female in Canada, but we are recognized as women and female and you know it.

You may even feel there should be a special exception to the law about discrimination against transgender women because of your personal beliefs, but there isn’t one. It’s profoundly unlikely to ever happen. You know that it is against the law to discriminate on the grounds of gender identity, sexual orientation, or sex.

“Sex is binary, there’s nothing anyone can do about it that’s science based…it’s just a reality, it’s how we reproduce. It’s human.”

Meghan Murphy

You are an intelligent woman and a highly competent policy analyst. Your articles are extremely well thought through and you have the skills and the training to say exactly what you mean to say. You mean to make people believe transgender women are men, or at least not female. Your intention seems to go as far as to fool people into believing there is a law defining what a female is, or what a woman is, knowing this is not true.

Our discrimination laws deliberately define none of the classes (Black, Woman, Transgender, Gay) covered under our human rights laws, but the contexts
(colour, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation) of the explicit protection.

“Sex has nothing to do with you brain”

Meghan Murphy

You know the discrimination you urge others to implement is illegal in Canada and most likely know it is illegal in the UK. You probably know It is illegal in every country that is a member of the European Court of Human Rights and in a significant number of other countries. This is why I am so saddened to see you not only advocate for this illegal practice but also mislead people into thinking discrimination against my community is legal in their jurisdiction.

“I am being absolutely clear. I’ve chosen the language I have to avoid confusion. Referring to [transgender women] as male is not ‘misgendering’. There is either no such thing as misgendering or everyone is ‘misgendered’, seeing as gender is bullshit imposed on people against their will. The language of ‘misgendering’ is what is confusing, as is the lie that [transgender women] are female because they say so.”

Meghan Murphy

I admit you do it well. You don’t break any law per se. Still, you are misleading people and you know it. You use the tactics of televangelists and other well-versed supremacists who have been doing this for years. You’d even make a fine Peoples Party of Canada candidate.

I define a man as an adult male human, and a woman as an adult female human. 

Meghan Murphy

You are doing this verbally and online, and you are doing it online. We know why, of course. We both know it is not a crime in Canada to say this in public unless you are likely to cause a disturbance. For example, an act of violence inspired by what you say.

Your website Feminist Current is also publishing this incitement thanks to the legal loophole that allows you to get away with doing it on the internet.

It is that very loophole, the rescinded article 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, that is also used to distribute other supremacist and anti-abortion hate propaganda. I wonder if it feels strange knowing you fall under that when it comes to your published work about transgender women. Then again I know you believe in unfettered free-speech.

As you know, in British Columbia it is only illegal to do what you do if it is in writing on physical media. Yes, our laws are a bit out of date. Our lawmakers don’t consider publishing to a web page to be the same as publishing in a newspaper or magazine. You already know this, of course, and I guess that’s one reason why you’ve given up on finding a publisher for your book.

Anyhow, you know the discrimination you incite is a violation of both Canadian and every Canadian province’s law. You know that the things you say are on the edge of falling under the criminal code if you get too harsh or incite violence. Inciting hatred on explicitly prohibited grounds like I feel you do has repeatedly been found to be a criminal act in Canada.

You know for a fact that any organization that follows your advice is extremely likely to lose in court. As far as I can tell, every organization engaged as a respondent in an anti-trans discrimination complaint since 1999 has lost. And no, Nixon v. VRR is not precedent for service delivery of employment. Today, transgender rights are being systematically confirmed and your writings present your view as if they were a fact rather than a position contrary to our laws.

You deliberately confuse your audience and encourage them to engage in illegal practices. I’m surprised you don’t worry about liability under tort law.

Anyone in Canada who follows your example risks paying the price of your lies in a court of law. Sometimes when advocacy planning happens, I wonder if your giving this bad counsel to your fandom echo chamber is part of the reason Vancouver Rape Relief still seems to think they are not breaking the law. They are speeding towards a brick wall and nobody wants to see a historic organization fail out of pigheadedness. Still, there you were at the Vancouver Public Library with Lee Lakeman encouraging the very prohibited discrimination Hilla Kerner proudly stated Vancouver Rape Relief engages in because “trans women are men”.

Regardless, your actions here seem profoundly irresponsible and beyond comprehension to me, Meghan Murphy.

Of course, the latest legal precedent cementing this now includes the Oger v Whatcott case and the rich case law on which it was built. These rulings leave very little room for anti-transgender discrimination (read none). You and I both know it.

This decision affirms that the rights of transgender people to safety and dignity are essential human rights,”

Kasari Govender, Executive Director of West Coast LEAF

Your lawyers at JCCF have certainly warned you of this too, after they warned off the Vancouver Public Library in when they acted in your name regarding your January event there. Was it at all strange to send anti-LGBT lawyers after a public library? Did you know they also helped schools fighting off the contagion of GSA’s and an anti-abortion group protect their right to harass women? Is it gross to get help from supremacists, or does it feel like family?

Sometimes we take shortcuts to take to get to the ends, but I admit that’s a heck of a crew. I don’t know how you do it, I hope you wash your hands.

If you were to claim on any physical media (that is not private correspondence) that a woman is not female on the basis of her being transgender (me, for example) and should therefore be denied access to any service made available to women or to females, you would face a rock-solid complaint under section 7 of the BC Human Rights Code and be extremely likely to lose.

Maybe ask the JCCF.

If anyone in Canada followed your advice about women’s services, the provider would lose if it were taken to court. Their insurance underwriter might even hold you and your publication responsible for your deliberate and false statements about the legality of anti-transgender discrimination in Canada. Once they deducted it was on your advice or based on your work their client went wrong, they might seek remedy. Liability law is an ugly, high-stakes place nobody wants to lose a case in, Meghan. Did you know it carries unlimited liability.

If somebody quotes you in a book or repeats what you said in a Canadian publication, they will be violating the Canadian laws that prohibiting the publication of hate propaganda. I understand you get paid for your writing and speaking engagements and we all have to eat, but surely you know this will catch up to you one day. I know we don’t like one another one bit but I do hope you’ll follow my example and make sure everything you say is the truth, because liars never win.

In the end, I guess I do have just this one question I would love for you to find a way to answer, Meghan:

Why would you deliberately lie to your own community and put them at legal risk when many engaged stakeholders have been ready to listen to your community’s concerns for so long?

Update: On 16 may 2019, I testified to the Canadian Parliament at the House Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to assist them in their report on hate online.

The example of online disinformation came up repeatedly with a number of witnesses. You will find the testimony on this Morgane Oger Foundation news release.


21 responses to “Meghan Murphy you are misleading your audience”

  1. […] doivent attendre pendant qu’elle incite à la haine contre nous dans de fausses prémisses. > ARCHIVÉ (citation ci-dessus dans la section des commentaires): […]


    1. Morgane Oger Avatar

      Like I said, misleading.


  2. […] she targets with her advocacy have to wait while she incites hatred against us on false premises. > ARCHIVED (above quote in comment section): – although the […]


  3. sarah 🐚 (@eaturfacecat) Avatar

    Morgane Oger, YOU are misleading people. MM is not promoting discrimination, she simply wishes to talk about issues that pertain to women (and honestly to trans people too). The fact that in Canada someone can simply up and identify as a man/woman regardless of whether they have dysphoria, plans to transition is ridiculous. It is exactly what someone like Jessica Yaniv would do in order to attempt to gain monetary benefit for so called “discrimination” as well as invade women’s spaces.

    MM just wants to discuss. It is misleading to say she wants to harm trans people or take away their human rights.

    And I cannot understand how trans women are female. What are you transitioning from then? I can respect it if you or someone wants to transition, wants to be called by she/her pronouns, etc, but it is just blatantly false to say you’re female. There are many trans people who would agree with that.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Oak Bay Anti-SOGI Event Illustrates Need For Booking-Policy Review – Morgane Oger Avatar

    […] In April 2019, I presented the same advice to the Board of Trustees of the Vancouver Public Library in response to a similar problem which occured in january 2019 when Meghan Murphy booked a space at the VPL Central Branch, also for the purpose of inciting anti-transgender discrimination. […]


  5. There’s always a second chance for reformed anti-trans activists – Morgane Oger Avatar

    […] Dirks, Laura-Lynn Thompson, Barbara Kay, Meghan Murphy, Kari Simpson, Jordan Peterson, Barry Neufeld, Parents United Canada, Culture Guard, Real Women […]


  6. Laura Wright Avatar
    Laura Wright

    Morgane Oger – what you want is for women to live in a dystopia, where our concerns are legally silenced for voicing our opinions about things that directly affect our SEX. You were not born to the female sex. You were born to the sex of privilege – and your experiences growing up were as a person who grew up with male privilege. You never grew up with female experiences.
    I cannot believe you actually think a democracy is upheld by dystopian silencing of women who are concerned about our safe spaces. Men have penises. Women have vaginas. Vaginas have been getting raped by penises for literally thousands upon thousands of years. We have EVERY right to voice our concerns over men who make demands on our space.
    The trans-activist agenda that insists on confusing the public into thinking biology doesn’t exist is ridiculous. Your egregious attacks on women really need to stop.
    If you don’t like being compared to a dystopian dictator, then stop behaving like one. You don’t get inclusion in my sex when you act like a man by demanding women to submit to male domination.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. whatjanesaw Avatar

    I hope you are taken to court for libel. Also, please continue posting and tweeting. You are a one-[woman] peak trans machine. Could not have asked for better.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Morgane Oger Avatar

      Discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression is explicitly prohibited in Canada. Meghan Murphy does this by claiming transgender women are men and claiming transgender women should be excluded from services for women.


    2. Laura Wright Avatar
      Laura Wright

      Morgane Oger – once again, you really need to read into the Supreme Court judgement on Vancouver Rape Relief. They had every right to deny a transwoman employment due to the fact that that persons experiences growing up were not female. Your experiences growing up were not female. The Supreme Court actually recognizes that.
      So what were you saying about libel? All of this crap you spew about Megan Murphy only makes you the dystopian dictator you are. Making constant threats. Like a typical man who just can’t stand the fact that his every move represents patriarchy.
      Women fought for our safe spaces. You can advocate for yours. Black people don’t try to take space from native people to further their causes. This is not what human rights activists do. Trans people (especially those who are male-bodied) should NOT be trying to take space from women. It’s just as offensive and calamitous.
      And btw – your insistence on using slurs like TERF and comparing Feminists who voice concerns about the safety of our physical safety, to Nazi’s – who exterminated millions of people, is really really distasteful, offensive, dismissive to the suffering of holocaust survivors. Your lack of intelligent analysis is crystal clear.
      I know you will delete this comment from your wall, because your lack of diplomacy does not uphold the tenets of democracy. What you did to VRR is lateral violence against women – and everyone who supported you is complicit in dismissing rape and violence against women as an important issue that needs to be acknowledged. How dare you demand inclusion in my sex-segregated spaces. How dare you call yourself a woman when everything you do to threaten women is evidence that you are a man in woman-face.


    3. Morgane Oger Avatar

      I have read all the VRR judgements and quote them extensively in my blog, including the section that specifically excludes employment or the delivery of services in the BC Supreme Court decision. I have also runny analysis my lawyers who concur.

      VRR was ruled to be a political organization which gets to choose its membership.

      Fun fact: Did you know political organizations are prohibited from recieving any public funding? They are ineligible from getting charitable status.

      …so, which is it? Is VRR a political organization that gets to discriminate or is it a charity that gets public funding but must not discriminate on employment or services?

      Also, this:


  8. Miriam Ben-Shalom Avatar
    Miriam Ben-Shalom

    Rather unusual–a [transgender woman] writing about another person being misleading? Really?

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Gisele Lamarche Avatar
    Gisele Lamarche

    Oger you are so MANLY:
    “A number of studies demonstrate that men have lower moral standards than women, at least in competitive contexts. For example, men are more likely than women to minimize the consequences of moral misconduct, to adopt ethically questionable tactics in strategic endeavors, and to engage in greater deceit. This pattern is particularly pronounced in arenas in which success has (at least historically) been viewed as a sign of male vigor and competence, and where loss signifies weakness, impotence, or cowardice (e.g., a business negotiation or a chess match). When men must use strategy or cunning to prove or defend their masculinity, they are willing to compromise moral standards to assert dominance.” Scientific American.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Morgane Oger Avatar

      Hi Gisele,
      You seem to have the wrong information, as I am a woman. As an adult human female, I am unsure what the point of your comment was except to yell at a passing car.

      Please limit yourself to meaningful contributions based on demonstrable facts. No more comments from you will be approved if you do not adhere to basic decency expectations.


  10. candydeland Avatar

    I’ve read the Tribunal’s decision in full and I now know why you are so angry at your inability to strike back at Murphy. I won’t help you by pointing out what the issues are as I see them, but suffice it to say that Murphy in fact has the ability to affect precedent in ways that will set your agenda back permanently. This is good news for women and girls residing in Canada.

    Murphy has grounds to bring YOU before a Tribunal. You must know this?

    Liked by 7 people

  11. Victoria Vanasco Avatar
    Victoria Vanasco

    Megan is saying the law is unjust and explaining why — to argue as you do that it is against the law to criticize the law is extremely dangerous territory. Sometimes, maybe even oftentimes, what is legal is not moral, as any casual student of history can tell you. Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa, Jim Crow U.S. all come easily to mind as perfectly legal regimes. One must ALWAYS have the right to criticize law to avoid slippage into totalitarianism. And, FYI, there are such things as legal fictions: corporations are treated as people in some regimes, but everyone knows they are not really people, and some people argue they should not be treated as people under the law. What Megan, and so, so many others, are arguing is that the legal goal of this particular fiction that men can become or always were female is at odds with women’s rights and dignity. To be so vehemently against her right to speak about that is loathsome and downright scary.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. Morgane Oger Avatar

      Criticizing a law is a good place. Meghan Murphy has every right to state her belief that the law is unjust but she can not do it by inciting discrimination or hatred against women who are transgender.

      Could you please provide a citation in which she states that the law is unfair and why she feels it is unfair? Try as I might, I can find none which are not based on her inciting discrimination.


  12. kate styles (@bailey6117) Avatar

    Surely if what Meghan said was *illegal* as you are at great pains to assert many times, she would be breaking the law?
    And yet, you also say she is not breaking the law…

    Which is it? Legal and lawful or illegal and against the law…

    Why would Meghan need to make anyone think there is a law that determines male and female when biology does it nicely for us …
    WOMAN – Adult human female … of the class that has the ability to produce ovum
    MAN – Adult human male … of the class that has the ability to produce sperm

    That wasn’t difficult was it..

    Liked by 8 people

    1. Morgane Oger Avatar

      Meghan Murphy is encouraging others to break the law. She is not breaking the law because the provincial discrimination law only applies to physical publications and the federal law is only the criminal code making it an infraction to incite hatred likely to cause a disturbance.

      Effectively, transgender people need somebody to react to Meghan Murphy in an act of violence or aggression in a provable way and then she may meet the very high bar for an offense under s.319 of the criminal code.

      Nonetheless, she is inciting an illegal act and is liable for the consequences that she caused when “an injury” as defined in tort law occurs.

      Until then, Transgender women who she targets with her advocacy have to wait while she incites hatred against us on false premises.


    2. Laura Wright Avatar
      Laura Wright

      Morgane Oger – you use the term TERF against women all the time, which aligns you with everyone violent who uses that term to incite violence against RadFems. Choke a TERF. Kick a TERF. Kill TERFS. TERFS deserve to die. You are aligned with all of those monsters because of how long, and how often you use that derogatory slur against RadFems. As a man, when you call a woman a TERF, you are participating in misogyny. I know I have already established for you, why your advances are unwelcome for their dystopian nature. The tenets of #metoo gave women the right of consent – and you work to remove that from our sex. I hope you understand that, when you get to court.

      Liked by 1 person

    3. Morgane Oger Avatar

      Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists are feminist Fanatically Antagonistic Radical Transphobes. They are not radical feminists but a thorny discriminatory subculture are blinkered by a singular and outdated obsession.

      Let’s not forget that TERFs are not necessarily women, and are really just feminism’s supremacist subculture. I see no fundamental difference in supremacist mindsets, be they basing their prejudice on race, sex, religion, or place of birth. They just want to keep some “other” out of their percieved sandbox.


Leave a Reply to Gisele Lamarche Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: