Article content continued

“The reality, and Twitter knows this, is this is our public square,” she said in an interview. “This is where conversation happens … I can’t share my work now.”

I don’t even see how we can uphold women’s rights if there is no cohesive definition for women

Murphy is associated with the right-wing Intellectual Dark Web movement through the publication Quillette, and she has been a controversial figure in discussion of transgender people and their rights, what she calls gender identity ideology.

“The whole situation destroys women’s rights. I don’t even see how we can uphold women’s rights if there is no cohesive definition for women,” she said, and referred to matters of wide interest she has been prevented from discussing on Twitter, such as the rights of transgender people in sports, prisons, and designated spaces for women.

The complainant in the human rights cases against salons denied the lawsuit’s claim that all 16 of them relate to genital waxing. One is about a haircut, for example. She said she is “legally female,” and that neither Murphy nor her lawyers know as much about her genitalia as they claim to in the lawsuit documents. She also denied the claim of having connections at Twitter. The National Post is not naming the complainant in accordance with an order of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.

Photo by Richard Drew/AP Photo

Murphy’s lawsuit alleges Twitter “covertly made sweeping changes to its Hateful Conduct Policy sometime in late October 2018, banning, for the first time ‘misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.’ This new policy banned expression of a political belief and perspective held by a majority (54 per cent, according to a 2017 Pew Research poll) of the American public: that whether someone is a man or a woman is determined by the sex they were assigned at birth … (Twitter) retroactively enforced its new policy against he plaintiff in this case, Meghan Murphy.”