Megathread TERFs / Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists / Gender Critical Feminists - ft. r/GenderCritical & related reddits, Mancheeze, Cathy Brennan, GCDad, RadFHarva, Jamie Shupe, etc; "Gender Critical Feminism is Homophobic" - Cathy Brennan, 2019.

[AnOminous]

Interestingly it's one of our own: @JulieRei

She was the voice of the trans character in the abortive "Gen Zed" project and there's a thread on Hayden Black, the con artist/tranny chaser responsible for that fiasco:

https://kiwifarms.net/threads/hayden-black-gen-zed-is-a-pipe-dream.12112/

 

[Nykysnottrans]

Interestingly it's one of our own: @JulieRei

Trans rights and Women's rights are NOT in opposition. They are directly complementary. When you advocate against one, you're also inevitably advocating against the other. It's why groups like @Heritage are using TERF's Anti-Trans bias. To set up precedents for Pro-Life policies.
https://twitter.com/JulieRei/status/1093872398892335106​

Oh, I see, she's an SJW, "TERFs are anti-abortionists". Bleh. The day gender clinics are targeted and picketed the way abortion clinics are is the day I will believe this alarmist trans SJW bullshit about how "TERFs are exactly like anti-abortionists". Get off your ass and go do some clinic defense and get a clue before you run your mouthfeel like that. Has a woman ever killed her abortion doctor for refusing to give her an abortion? A trannie killed their doctor for refusing to give them bottom surgery, which was very womanly of them. In 2015 there was a shooting at Planned Parenthood, when was the last time someone shot up a gender clinic because they hate troons? (Yes, I know poor trannies go to Planned Parenthood for hormones and might have inadvertantly ended up in the crossfire if there was a shooting at PP, but that was not why PP in Colorado was targeted, it was because they offer abortions, not because they offer hormones to troons.)

As for the claim that abortion rights and trans rights are congruent: if there was a way to detect transness in the womb (and there was an article on Medium recently alluding to this being the case), would trannies object to a cis woman having abortion to get rid of a trans fetus? Because by this reasoning, if you support unbriddled transitioning (which is what we have now, abolition of gatekeeping, DIY internet hormones, informed consent, UN saying you don't need GD to be trans) you should likewise support unbriddled abortion, including a cis woman's right to abort a trans fetus. Would SJW trans activists participate in their own eradication by supporting cis women's abortion right to get rid of any fetus for any reason, including it being trans?

 

[trannyfucker]

Rosa Freedman is a terf Jew who had her door pissed on at her university for being a terf

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-46454454

Anyway, she's just called out Posie for posing with an actual Nazi
https://twitter.com/LYSGLIMT/status/1094604346111737858

https://twitter.com/GoonerProf/status/1094703663484932096 (http://archive.li/FsOkQ)

Posie has replied with 'i don't know who that guy is'.

https://www.facebook.com/theposieparker/posts/2389070771212889?comment_id=2389126987873934

(i'm not sure exactly what she is doing, but she seems to be on some sort of terf tour of Norway, I'm not quite following what the event she was at was supposed to be, and if the presence of Nazis was obvious.)
https://www.facebook.com/events/2220140954869760/
https://www.facebook.com/events/2308376112506006/
https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pål_Steigan

 

[sperginity]

Rosa Freedman is a terf Jew who had her door pissed on at her university for being a terf

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-46454454

Anyway, she's just called out Posie for posing with an actual Nazi
https://twitter.com/LYSGLIMT/status/1094604346111737858

https://twitter.com/GoonerProf/status/1094703663484932096 (http://archive.li/FsOkQ)

Posie has replied with 'i don't know who that guy is'.

View attachment 662348

https://www.facebook.com/theposieparker/posts/2389070771212889?comment_id=2389126987873934

View attachment 662353
View attachment 662358
View attachment 662359

(i'm not sure exactly what she is doing, but she seems to be on some sort of terf tour of Norway, I'm not quite following what the event she was at was supposed to be, and if the presence of Nazis was obvious.)
https://www.facebook.com/events/2220140954869760/
https://www.facebook.com/events/2308376112506006/
https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pål_Steigan

jesus, posie can't catch a break! Her husband is loaded though and UK libel laws are really strict so she probably could get a judgment out of this. Being photographed by a nazi who grabbed her by the arm doesn't confer nazism onto posie, how fucking dumb are people? They keep passing around pictures of her with Jordan Peterson at a book signing like it means anything except that she was enjoying 12 rules for life, the number one selling book in the world at the time.

BREAKING NEWS: Finally a trannie has agreed to debate a head-TERF - Julie Rei Goldstein versus Meghan Murphy.

I've listened to Julie Rei Goldstein debate on the Wrong Think podcast with Jon Kay and Debra Soh. Julie's tactic is to selectively quote studies or to only quote studies that support whatever she is defending (usually pediatric gender transitioning). It is tedious. I think meghan murphy may have a hard time with this because you have to know all the literature really well to call Julie out on misrepresenting it or failing to mention better studies with different results. Unless the conversation is steered away from "what do studies say about this??" it is gonna be a confusing debate for most people to watch. If they face real world problems that are happening or the philosophical or political implications of transgender ideology then it might be good to see.

 

[Nykysnottrans]

I've listened to Julie Rei Goldstein debate on the Wrong Think podcast with Jon Kay and Debra Soh. Julie's tactic is to selectively quote studies or to only quote studies that support whatever she is defending (usually pediatric gender transitioning). It is tedious. I think meghan murphy may have a hard time with this because you have to know all the literature really well to call Julie out on misrepresenting it or failing to mention better studies with different results. Unless the conversation is steered away from "what do studies say about this??" it is gonna be a confusing debate for most people to watch. If they face real world problems that are happening or the philosophical or political implications of transgender ideology then it might be good to see.

Like I said, "real world problems" are not necessarily legal problems. People being delusional about what they are might be a "real world problem", it is not a legal problem because the law already grants you the right to be delusional, namely in the form of religious rights. If the courts were about upholding objective reality they would have abolished any and all religious rights long ago. Going into court waving studies into judges' faces saying "look, judge, gender is completely made up" is not how you are going to win a legal argument. Judges are just gonna shrug and say: "So what gender is fake? So is religion but we already protect that, so who the fuck cares if gender, religion or any other identity is "real" or not? We certainly don't."

My problem with this upcoming debate is that it's advertised as being about "rights", suggesting that it's about the law, but neither of the speakers/debaters are lawyers or seem to be familiar or experienced with legal issues. They don't seem to be involved in any current or past legal cases that are either about trans rights or women's rights. How are they going to debate about "rights" if they don't even know what the relevant laws are that grant them those rights they claim to have?

The two speakers are also from different countries, Julie is American (I think from California?) and Meghan is Canadian. Are they going to debate American laws or Canadian laws? Meghan did a podcast with an American lawyer - apparently her reputation in Canada is such that she couldn't even find a Canadian lawyer willing to speak to her - who talked about a bunch of American case studies relevant to women. If Meghan cannot even distinguish American laws from Canadian laws she is not in a position to have a debate about "rights". How the fuck are you going to defend your "rights" when you don't even know what your jurisdiction is?

 

[Silence of the Troons]

TL;DW Meghan Murphy is suing Twitter

 

[AnOminous]

TL;DW Meghan Murphy is suing Twitter

>half-hour to find out why

Anyone know why? The TOS probably limits her to arbitration and that in California or wherever they have their paid toadies to decide against you in a rigged process.

 

[Silence of the Troons]

>half-hour to find out why

Anyone know why? The TOS probably limits her to arbitration and that in California or wherever they have their paid toadies to decide against you in a rigged process.

She posted a TL;DR explanation in the description

I doubt she will win, but maybe the case will at least get news coverage...

 

[eternal dog mongler]

I've listened to Julie Rei Goldstein debate on the Wrong Think podcast with Jon Kay and Debra Soh. Julie's tactic is to selectively quote studies or to only quote studies that support whatever she is defending (usually pediatric gender transitioning). It is tedious. I think meghan murphy may have a hard time with this because you have to know all the literature really well to call Julie out on misrepresenting it or failing to mention better studies with different results. Unless the conversation is steered away from "what do studies say about this??" it is gonna be a confusing debate for most people to watch. If they face real world problems that are happening or the philosophical or political implications of transgender ideology then it might be good to see.

Most people (TRAs and GC included) don't have the expertise necessary to judge the validity of clinical studies. I agree that it's a dumb rabbit hole to go down.

The majority of studies I have seen on the transgender population have been absolutely fucking dreadful, full of recruitment bias and attrition bias. Like, attrition rates of 50% regarding post-SRS self-reported mental health outcomes.

I'd consider anything over 5% with some skepticism, but I guess standards are very lax in the world of TRAs. For example, there have been a few studies seeing if high-intensity interval training improves patient outcome for people with congestive heart failure. Their attrition rates are below 5% and people have literally died during them. Trans studies somehow have attrition rates ten times worse than that?

 

[AnOminous]

She posted a TL;DR explanation in the description
View attachment 663129 I doubt she will win, but maybe the case will at least get news coverage...

Surprisingly, they don't seem to have an arbitration clause.

They do have this though, and it is California.

The laws of the State of California, excluding its choice of law provisions, will govern these Terms and any dispute that arises between you and Twitter. All disputes related to these Terms or the Services will be brought solely in the federal or state courts located in San Francisco County, California, United States, and you consent to personal jurisdiction and waive any objection as to inconvenient forum.

 

[sperginity]

Most people (TRAs and GC included) don't have the expertise necessary to judge the validity of clinical studies. I agree that it's a dumb rabbit hole to go down.

The majority of studies I have seen on the transgender population have been absolutely fucking dreadful, full of recruitment bias and attrition bias. Like, attrition rates of 50% regarding post-SRS self-reported mental health outcomes.

I'd consider anything over 5% with some skepticism, but I guess standards are very lax in the world of TRAs. For example, there have been a few studies seeing if high-intensity interval training improves patient outcome for people with congestive heart failure. Their attrition rates are below 5% and people have literally died during them. Trans studies somehow have attrition rates ten times worse than that?

Julie was arguing against Debra Soh, a woman who has a PhD in sexual neuroscience. It was painful.

on a different note- I cross posted all the lawsuit stuff to the yaniv thread. The website is https://meghanmurphylawsuit.com/
She says she retained a really well regarded free speech attorney so I don't think he would take a case like this if it had no chance. It must have some chance of succeeding, or at least clarifying the role that tech companies will be allowed to play in restricting speech in canada.

 

[AnOminous]

Julie was arguing against Debra Soh, a woman who has a PhD in sexual neuroscience. It was painful.

on a different note- I cross posted all the lawsuit stuff to the yaniv thread. The website is https://meghanmurphylawsuit.com/
She says she retained a really well regarded free speech attorney so I don't think he would take a case like this if it had no chance. It must have some chance of succeeding, or at least clarifying the role that tech companies will be allowed to play in restricting speech in canada.

The choice of law provision in the TOS specifies California law, and Canada generally enforces such agreements.

 

[Nykysnottrans]

TL;DW Meghan Murphy is suing Twitter

Here is the lolsuit:
https://meghanmurphylawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Complaint_endorsed.pdf

LMAO, as far as I can tell she's just wasting her money:

The San Francisco-based three-judge appeals panel agreed with Twitter in a ruling dated Aug. 17 that it’s protected by a federal law that recognizes online service providers have the right to decide what content to publish or withdraw.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-censorship-lawsuit-by-banned-white-advocate​

And she won't be able to appeal either:

Siding with Twitter, an appellate court has halted white nationalist Jared Taylor's lawsuit alleging he was wrongly banned from the service.

In a decision issued Friday, California's First Appellate District said the Communications Decency Act protects Twitter from liability for decisions about what content to allow on the service.

https://www.mediapost.com/publicati...ourt-halts-white-nationalists-suit-again.html​

TERFs don't understand the law once again. I see she has a fundraiser too, so she's spending other people's money on the lolsuit instead of her own. I am not even going to link to it because you can just on the basis of the Jared Taylor case which way this lawsuit is gonna go.

I am sure Twitter has a backup of Meghan Murphy's entire timeline, both her DMs and her public tweets, which puts Twitter at an advantage, because they can selectively pick and choose from her tweets and DMs without Meghan being able to dispute the (mis)contextualization, because she no longer has access to her timeline to show the context of a tweet. To get access to Meghan's timeline her lawyers are going to have to subpoena Twitter for discovery, which means that all of her tweets, public tweets and private DMs, will become public in civil court as evidence for anyone to go through.

I don't even think she realizes that Twitter could really fuck with her by making her DMs public in the name of providing evidence of their background investigation into her use of the platform, while (disingenuously) arguing that they are doing it so that both sides have access to the relevant evidence. If there is any evidence in those DMs of Meghan conspiring with other Twitter TERFs to dogpile troons, she's fucked because she admitted in the above video that Twitter told her that they looked at her private as well as public tweets in deciding to ban her. I know for a fact that she would regularly retweet troons' stupid tweets knowing her fellow TERFs would respond to them and that those tweets would show up in the "Mentions" timeline of the troon being either @ mentioned or whose tweet she had embedded by linking to it. Troons themselves do this with TERFs too, everyone knows that embedding someone else's tweet in your own tweet is a feature of Twitter that someone with a lot of followers can easily exploit to flood someone's mentions with replies that include both the sender and the "target". Both troons and TERFs have exploited this feature to dogpile their enemies on Twitter. She can't pretend she didn't know this.

All Twitter has to do to show that the ban was justified is dig up tweets of Murphy misgendering troons - of which there are hundreds, I am sure - as well as tweets that she sent to troons directly misgendering them. I know for a fact that Murphy was arguing with Nyk/ContraPoints after he put out his stupid TERFs video, calling him "a porn sick man" to his face in a tweet, which was both hilarious and totally true in the context of his Blogtv past that he tried to cover up. I am sure there are countless of other examples of Meghan engaging troons while misgendering them directly, and I am sure there are dozens of troons contacting Twitter right now offering to provide evidence of how Meghan misgendered them. If Twitter can show that Meghan directly misgendered troons while tweeting at them (as opposed to, say, she was misgendering them behind their backs while in private conversation), she's pretty much fucked.

I am not a lawyer and I am not her lawyers, but I really don't see how she could win this, especially after the Jared Taylor case.

 

[AnOminous]

I am not a lawyer and I am not her lawyers, but I really don't see how she could win this, especially after the Jared Taylor case.

You don't have to win a lawsuit for it to serve its purpose.

 

[Nykysnottrans]

You don't have to win a lawsuit for it to serve its purpose.

What is the purpose here? Isn't it for her to get her account back? Or do you think it's just for media-whoring the TERF cause and crowdfunding a lost cause? She says in the Youtube video that she cannot do her journalistic work without Twitter - I don't buy that for a moment, there are plenty of TERFs on Youtube, Facebook, reddit and other platforms she can network with there, but she claims that she needs Twitter to contact people, so whatever. Anyway, I looked up some more cases and as far as I can tell there has never been anyone who has succesfully sued Twitter for getting banned:

On Tuesday, the court released a tentative ruling and lays out the many, many reasons why Johnson has no case at all, both under CDA 230 and the First Amendment.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...lans-to-grant-anti-slapp-win-to-twitter.shtml​

“Although it does invite the public to use its service, Defendant[]Twitter] also limits this invitation by requiring users to agree to and abide by its User Rules, in an exercise of Defendant’s First Amendment right. The rules clearly state that users may not post threatening tweets, and also that Defendant[Twitter] may unilaterally, for any reason, terminate a user’s account. The rules reflect Defendant’s exercise of free speech,” the ruling stated.

“Defendant’s choice to close Plaintiff’s account on the ground that Plaintiff’s tweet was threatening and harassing is an editorial decision regarding how to present content, i.e., an act in furtherance of Defendant’s free speech right. Defendant’s choice not to allow certain speech is a right protected by the First Amendment.”

https://thehill.com/policy/technolo...-far-right-activists-lawsuit-over-twitter-ban​

I don't know what the hell her lawyers told her, but it seems to me like she is wasting her time and other people's money. At this point I don't think her litigious dumbass even realizes how discovery might seriously bite her in the ass. If any of the TERFs who are pseudonymous on Twitter had contacted Meghan Murphy over DM revealing who they really are to her in DM, all of these TERFs might end up getting d0xxed now if Twitter decides to put her DMs into evidence. Good job, TERFs, you trusted this litigious dumbass and now you might get doxxed because of her, in public civil court documents.

 

[SourDiesel]

Well, I mean, those that believe it's a possibly useful lawsuit have already stated why they think so:

1) It's an American lawsuit and now all of our boy Yaniv's dirty laundry will be public record.

2) The only defense Twitter has is to basically publicly admit it's lied to its users about their platform's free speech policy and you can and will get banned for any bullshit that might offend a tranny at any time and they don't care.

3) likely internal investigation into just wtf is going on with the trannies at twitter that this lawsuit is even a thing right now.

4) Bear in mind, most people have no idea what's going on with this shit with trannies and TERFs, etc. and how easily twitter will ignore it's terms of use if it doesn't like your opinions. This will make blow it up to some degree.

All of these things are positive developments and none require Murphy to actually win the lawsuit. It's quite smart and hilarious actually. Clever girl.

 

[Nykysnottrans]

It's an American lawsuit and now all of our boy Yaniv's dirty laundry will be public record.

Yaniv is not a party to this lawsuit, so how will all of his dirty laundry become public? Just because he claims to know people at Twitter doesn't mean he's telling the truth, or that there is a paper/digital trail that connects him to anyone at Twitter.

The only defense Twitter has is to basically publicly admit it's lied to its users about their platform's free speech policy and you can and will get banned for any bullshit that might offend a tranny at any time and they don't care.

What TERFs don't understand is that is an entirely credible tried-and-true defense that has worked like a charm every single time Twitter went to court because of #butthurt banned users wanting their accounts back. I keep searching for any cases anywhere in the world where a user sued Twitter and got their account back, either in California or any other legal forum, but I can't find anything. I only find articles about Twitter winning these lawsuits. This blog post was particularly insightful:

The court correctly treats this as an easy Section 230 case. Consistent with the modern trend post-Sikhs for Justice v. Facebook, the court treats users’ posts as third party content to Twitter, so 230(c)(1) applies instead of 230(c)(2).

The only 230(c)(1) element at issue is whether the claim treats Twitter as a publisher. The court says “California courts have held that a service provider’s decision ‘to restrict or make available certain material–is expressly covered by Section 230′” (citing Doe II v. MySpace, with additional cites to Fields v. Twitter, Riggs v. MySpace, Cohen v. Facebook, and Sikhs for Justice). The court also cites language from the Roommates.com en banc ruling that “any activity that can be boiled down to deciding whether to exclude material that third parties seek to post online is perforce immune under Section 230.”

The plaintiffs argued that the unfair competition claim is based on Twitter’s marketing collateral. The court responds that Section 230 protects publishing third party content regardless of how plaintiffs plead the claim. “Here, the duties real parties allege Twitter violated derive from its status or conduct as publisher because petitioner’s decision to suspend real parties’ accounts constitutes publishing activity” (cite to Cohen v. Facebook and Fields v. Twitter, with a backup cite to Hassell v. Bird).

This ruling has several powerful implications. First, it is a reminder that Section 230 sometimes applies to an Internet service’s marketing claims that relate to their publication of third party content–even where the defendant allegedly violated its own promises. This is not an unprecedented outcome (see, e.g., Milo v. Martin), but it may be counter-intuitive. Second, it highlights how Section 230 cuts across all claims, so the plaintiff’s pleading decisions shouldn’t matter. Third, this is the first opinion I’ve seen citing the California Supreme Court’s Hassell v. Bird ruling, and the court treated it as a strong endorsement of Section 230 despite the murkiness of the four opinions.

https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archiv...in-in-must-carry-lawsuit-taylor-v-twitter.htm​

I am seriously beginning to question Meghan Murphy's motivations at this point. Not to mention her online research skills, apparently she didn't even bother to do a Google search to see whether such a lawsuit has any merit. It seems to me like she's driven by feminist narcissistic rage and her desire to become a world renowned career-TERF rather than sound judgement or sound legal advice. I thought feminists wanted to avoid being a stereotypical example of a stupid woman driven by her estrogen-drenched #butthurt rather than logic and reason, but there you go. I also question the kind of feminist crowd that Meghan has surrounded herself with who keep assuring ther that this lawsuit is a good idea. She has all of these TERF followers kissing her ass for filing a frivolous lawsuit rather than telling her that it's a pointless money-drain.

likely internal investigation into just wtf is going on with the trannies at twitter that this lawsuit is even a thing right now.

Trannies at Twitter are not a party to this lawsuit. We all know Twitter has trans employees, trannies are drawn to these tech jobs because they are autistic codebros and they like the prestige that comes with working as a codemonkey for a big tech company with brand name recognition. That doesn't mean that Twitter is some huge bastion of SJW trannies setting policy. TERFs think that there is a head-trannie at the controls who decides who to ban but that's not how it works. What if it turns out it was just some dumb algorithm telling some indifferent cis person what to do, and they were just blindly carrying out orders from the algorithm? I don't think TERFs realize just how much is automated at these big social media providers. Maybe it was just a simple "three strikes and you're out" system that led to the ban.

Bear in mind, most people have no idea what's going on with this shit with trannies and TERFs, etc. and how easily twitter will ignore it's terms of use if it doesn't like your opinions. This will make blow it up to some degree.

Not true, conservatives have long known that there is an anti-conservative bias at Twitter. Jack Dorsey was questioned by the House about anti-conservative bias at Twitter. It's TERFs themselves who didn't give a fuck about this Twitter bias until they themselves started getting banned.

All of these things are positive developments and none require Murphy to actually win the lawsuit. It's quite smart and hilarious actually. Clever girl.

This is why TERFs will lose from the troons: they think filing a frivolous lawsuit is good publicity and will make the TERF cause blow up. It's no different from the type of shit PETA was doing a decade ago, filing frivolous lawsuits saying animal captivity is slavery. Rather expensive, wasteful way to promote a losing cause, but then again women are court room drama's target audience, so it's unsurprising these feminists have a romantic glamorized idea of what going to court is really like. TERFs have no sound long-term legal strategy, they are just grand-standing and congratulating one another for impotently flailing their arms at Twitter, which does nothing to help women and nothing to help anyone. It shows why TERFs have raging idiots like "Posie Parker" as their figureheads, they are not about winning but purely about expressing their rage and being adored by other feminists for doing so. I am beginning to suspect that TERFs are being misled by ambulance chasing lawyers who think they can make some money from raging feminists. Ironically, in the Youtube video that Meghan uploaded where she talks about her lolsuit, you can hear a siren in the background. Does that singal the arrival of the ambulance chasing lawyers?

 

[SourDiesel]

It's already getting media coverage and that's what matters. Yaniv is involved because that's who she was talking about when she was banned. It doesn't matter whether he's directly involved. His bs is now court record in the states.

I can tell you're extremely invested in this for some reason. These are not my ideas. I was merely parroting what other, more experienced kiwis have pointed out earlier in this thread. Take your issues up with them please.

 

[AnOminous]

I am seriously beginning to question Meghan Murphy's motivations at this point. Not to mention her online research skills, apparently she didn't even bother to do a Google search to see whether such a lawsuit has any merit.

I don't think Harmeet Dhillon is representing her in this case out of any illusions as to its legal strengths or weaknesses or that Meghan Murphy drafted it herself.

(Also I will note it is filed in the very same court, San Francisco County Superior Court, where the case you're discussing was posted, so any appeals will be to the very same court, the First Appellate Division of the Court of Appeal.)

This is why TERFs will lose from the troons: they think filing a frivolous lawsuit is good publicity and will make the TERF cause blow up.

Far from being a TERF, Dhillon is a high ranking Republican.

 

[Nykysnottrans]

It's already getting media coverage and that's what matters.

Only TERFs would call a feminist who wastes other feminists' money filing a bad faith lawsuit "clever" for exploiting her 15 minutes.
I call it as I see it: stupid, wasteful, pointless and desperate. Not to mention cynically self-promoting.
I know she desperately wants to go into the feminist history books as the TERF who stood up for the right to speak truth to troons, but abusing the legal system to raise awareness for your cause because everyone is either ignoring you or deplatforming you is just pathetic attention-whoring.

Yaniv is involved because that's who she was talking about when she was banned. It doesn't matter whether he's directly involved. His bs is now court record in the states.

All this fucking legal hassle and all that feminist money wasted because of a man? Very feminist.
Of course this lolsuit does absolutely nothing to help any woman anywhere or anyone for that matter.
It's just another Section 230 frivolous lolsuit from another #butthurt Twitter user.
This is what happens when you have a generation of women growing up watching The Good Wife on the telly.
They all want to be Alicia Florrick.

The /law armchair lawyers of reddit think that this will end with a demurrer from Twitter ("Lawyers informally define a demurrer as a defendant saying "So what?" to the pleading."). This comment was funny:

"The attorneys representing Murphy write for Breitbart and one is a professor at Michigan State University."
https://www.reddit.com/r/law/commen...hy_sues_twitter_after_she_was_banned/egcq68l/​

What a stellar legal team Meghan. Keep donating feminists, make these Breitbart lawyers rich.

This is one of her lawyers on Twitter:

2/ Our firm filed this lawsuit Monday as local counsel. Filed on behalf of Canadian feminist writer Meghan Murphy, the case raises important issues about censorship on social media platforms such as Twitter, and the ability of these platforms to change their terms of service...
https://twitter.com/pnjaban/status/1095213524236845058

3/ without notifying their users, and then retroactively imposing new rules to strip users of their accounts and silence them. Our client questions the denial that there are differences between women and transgender men, as do many other feminists. Her use of the wrong pronoun...
https://twitter.com/pnjaban/status/1095213524966617089

4/ got her permanently banned from Twitter. We are suing Twitter for violating its own Terms of Service and breaching its contract with users, as well as engaging in unfair business practices against Murphy and other users. A link to the lawsuit is here:
https://twitter.com/pnjaban/status/1095213525641900032​

This is from an article on the website THEM (the most cultic of SJW trans cult websites) giving an example of Meghan misgendering a troon in a tweet, explaining why this is unbareable torture for troons:

Take this concrete example, from Meghan Murphy, founder and editor of the trans-exclusionary site Feminist Current.

https://twitter.com/MeghanEMurphy/status/1012076754087735296

Murphy was reacting to a situation in which Clymer was allegedly asked for ID to use a restroom, and then kicked out of a restaurant. Murphy calls Clymer a “dude” and repeatedly uses the pronoun “he” to refer to her despite Clymer's own stated identity. Murphy’s use of “dude” to refer to a trans woman clearly functions in a similar way as a slur against her, a way to question the validity of her identity and degrade her in the process. The fact that the misuse of pronouns also function in this way is even more pernicious, because people can and do repeatedly insult trans people without any consequence by using the wrong pronouns to refer to them.

https://www.them.us/story/twitter-needs-to-treat-misgendering-trans-people-as-hate-speech​

There are literally countless of examples of Meghan doing this, even while tweeting troons themselves, misgendering and deadnaming them to their faces. All Twitter has to do is find those instances, present them in court and say that this was part of their background research into her conduct on Twitter. Twitter can say that their algorithm alerted them to her account being a repeat offender (that way they can disavow political bias and blame the algorithm), that they then had a human go through her timeline to see if the algo had made a mistake, that they found that she was consistently deadnaming and misgendering transpeople, to the point where enforcing their new policy meant banning the entire account. Twitter can even include the article from THEM to show the court that Meghan's conduct on their site was highlighted by troons as a form of harassment.

I can tell you're extremely invested in this for some reason.

I see feminists being casual about filing frivolous lawsuits as a way to advertise their gender criticism in the media. Courts are not your advertising platform. I find this abuse of the law and this waste of legal resources very disturbing coming from a group of women claiming to uphold "rights" while purporting to debate troons on the merits of the law (that they are unfamiliar and nonconversant in). Worst of all is that she's asking feminists to donate to this litigiousness, who happily oblige her because... they are OK with this. They think it's a good idea to file a mertiless lawsuit for the sake of media whoring your cause. I hate troon censorship of the social media but this too is really dirty and nasty.