There is something amiss at Sir Wilfrid Laurier University

Huh.  As Gord is my witness, I nearly replied to the second post with "Well, Murphy's feminism might be too extreme for some, but she's no Faith Goldy."

But Faith Goldy is a Faith Goldy.

OK, here's how I see it

1)Just as I speak solely for myself, you speak solely for yourself.  While we speak from different positionalities, I have as much right to comment on public figures as you do.  Meghan Murphy is just as much a legitimate target for critique as any other public figures.

2) It would be arrogant and presumptuous of me to claim to speak for all men, so it is equally arrogant and presumptuous for you to claim to speak for women. Again, each of us speaks solely her or himself.   

3)My views about Meghan are grounded in my solidarity with and support of the trans/non-binary community-NOT out of any hostility towards or desire to undermine the struggles of cis-women in general or cis-lesbians in particular.   I supported gay and lesbian rights long before I was even aware of the non-binary community, and continue to do so.  Also, I'm solidly pro-choice and, in my experience, the non-binary community are, to a person, solidly in support of the struggles of the original gay and lesbian communities.  Also, in my experience, the prohibitive majorities of both the gay male and lesbian communities support the non-binary community in its struggles.  My issue with Meghan is that she seems to have projected the excessively confrontational approach of a handful of overbearing people in the Vancouver non-binary community onto that community as a whole.

4) My big point in all of this is that Meghan (and, it appears, you) are seeing the non-binary community as both your enemies and as some sort of misogynist conspiracy and seem to have decided to respond to this by denying the personal truths and questioning the lived realities of the non-binary community.  Calling on non-binary women to join the fight to defend reproductive choice-that is a legitimate expectation and I'm pretty sure about 99% of them are going to be fine with doing that.   Denying that non-binary people are the genders they identify with, on the other hand, using vicious and nasty phrases like "men who pretend to be women" or "gender traitors" is totally indefensible in any liberation struggle, just as is homophobia or racism or sexism. No liberation struggle ever has any justification for denying the validity of another liberation struggle.  ALL must be liberated. 

5) Non-binary people have no alternative but to live as the gender they identify with.  If you try and force them back into the identity they were arbitrarily assigned to at birth, you are forcing them into an unsurvivable existence. There is no possibility for these people to live their truths and to know any sense of freedom within their assigned genders-if there was, they would never have identified as non-binary.  They can no more get over their gender identity than you or Meghan could "get over" your sexual orientation or that the three of us could get over whatever our respective racial or ethnic identities.  And I simply can't understand why you can't accept that the non-binary cause is NOT a threat to yours. 

And quite frankly, the argument that the non-binary cause is a threat to or a plot against the feminist, pro-choice and lesbian rights causes makes no more sense to me than the argument that the Palestinian cause is driven by nothing more than antisemitism.

I stand with LGBTQ people.

I stand with both the Palestinians and with the right of the majority community in Israel to live in peace and safety within the pre-1967 lines.

I stand with all oppressed people everywhere.

And I stand with you in wanting all your grievances with the patriarchy addressed and with your right to live in liberation, safety, and dignity.

It's just that I reject the idea that you can only live in liberation, safety and dignity if the liberation struggle of the non-binary community is suppressed.

Ken Burch wrote:

OK, I can credit her as being a fairly reasonable, progressive person.  Why in the hell, though, would she help arrange a talk by Meghan Murphy?  

Most people do not posess the right answers to all questions. Meghan's views on many issues are not oiutrageous whether I totally agree with them or not.

Murphy has supported the MeToo movement,[22] criticized liberal feminism,[23] discussed whether men can be feminists,[18][24] written about ageism within feminism,[25] and argued that trigger warnings amount to censorship.[26] In 2015, she argued that anti-bullying campaigns ignore sexism and the way young men are taught to view women.[27] She criticized Slutwalk and the attempt to reclaim a word that has been used to shame women,[28] and was critical in general of third-wave feminism, which she saw as a backlash against second-wave and radical feminism: "That whole burlesque/sex work is empowering/feminist porn aspect of the third wave is making a mockery of the movement." She was similarly critical of the feminist group Femen, who, she argued in 2013, were "making feminism palatable for the male gaze", presenting "a vision of female liberation that looks like a sexy, naked, thin, white, blonde woman". She has identified certain contemporary movements as "cult-like" in their efforts to shut down debates by calling people "phobic" (such as "whorephobic") or accusing them of "shaming" (as in "kink-shaming") if they fail to "toe the party line".[8] In 2013, she called Twitter "a horrible place for feminism ... intellectual laziness is encouraged, oversimplification is mandatory, posturing is de rigueur, and bullying is rewarded".[29]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghan_Murphy

Lets jump right to the most controversial parts of her story.

Do you think that a person who is both female genetically and in self identifition be required by law to give a bikini wax job to a person with male genitals who considers themselves a woman?

I see human rights laws as a shield not a sword so I have a very hard time with someone  of any gender who would insist that another person service their intimate needs or they will sue them. That sure looks like something an asshole man would do but this person is not a man so it just comes down to basic human courtesy and dignity on both sides.

And with that, I'm tagging out of this thread, because I've caused thread drift and that was not my intent.

Ken Bursh wrote:

"Basically, my issue with her is that it never seems to be enough for her to argue for her views.  If she wants to fight for her views, that's fine.  But does it always have to be, seemingly "anybody who disagrees with me is either a sell-out, an oppressor, or the enemy?"

If she has issues with me, the differences in our positionality largely explains that, from what I can see.  But why does she have to go scorched-earth on not only the non-binary as a community, but other lesbians and other feminists?"

i think you have got it all convoluted.  I believe that Meghan Murphy encourages debate and open discusssion but she keeps getting banned for expressing her views. She is the one who receives the death threats and threats of violence against her. She is the one according to Krop's wiki link who gets dismissed as whorephobic, transphobic, etc. And if you have a problem with Meghan Murphy then you have a problem with radical feminist theory and second wave feminism in general.

yes some of these third wave feminist positions do seem to be watered down. It is not being scorched earth to point out differences and to explain the shortcomings of these different theories.

i think that you are being too hard and critical of Meghan Murphy, and she has been banned so she cannot respond to your criticisms of her.