Article content continued

The official definition threatens women’s safety and human rights

The official definition threatens women’s safety and human rights. We believe that our legislators, as well as our medical, social service and sports associations, in endorsing the rationally untenable definition of “woman” as a human being with a vagina or a penis, have assented to the collapse of any coherent understanding of what it means to be, rather than to present as, female. The conflation of biology with subjective feeling is, Murphy correctly argues, erasing women as a social category.

Setting this rational and reasonable boundary (under the “reasonable limits” rubric of the Charter of Rights), on the understanding that transwomen and transmen fall into a new and unique social category, would have: obviated the need for human rights tribunals and courts to take up frivolous cases, such as the mischievous train of accusations against vulnerable waxologists perpetrated by Vancouver transwoman Jessica Yaniv; maintained what should be safe spaces for women, such as locker rooms and female prisons, as sex- rather than gender-specific; and re-levelled presently unlevel playing fields created by male-bodied athletes, who are devastating what should be the legitimate aspirations of female athletes.

Photo by Jack Boland/Postmedia

Only a tiny minority of ideologues believe that Murphy’s opinions are transphobic rather than female-defensive. But those squeaky wheels have established a firm hold over the rules of public discourse. Politicians, the progressive intelligentsia and media allies are ganging up on Murphy. It’s plain ugly. Most galling in this Murphy story are the double standards on what ideas are too “offensive” for the public to consider, and the wilful departure from professional journalism standards in its handling.