Read more

Brandon works for ⁠The Christian Post⁠ and produced the podcast, ⁠Generation Indoctrination⁠. I spoke with him about what he’s learned in a decade of covering the gender identity movement and what should be considered the biggest medical scandal of our lifetimes.

Give a gift subscription

Do you support The Same Drugs but aren’t yet ready to commit to becoming a monthly paid subscriber? Consider a donation! The Same Drugs is fully independent—a one-woman show, as it were. I am grateful for any and all support!

Donate

Brandon works …

Read more

It felt like everyone but me was excited about AI. It can do all your work for you, Meghan! It can answer your emails! It can write your articles for you!

No, it couldn’t. But even if it could, I didn’t want it to.

The enthusiasm almost everyone I knew had for farming out their brains and relationships and creativity to tech baffled me. I liked being human. I liked my work. I liked my relationships with human beings.

My humanity—flaws included—was the whole point of my writing, and my work in general. One of the great gifts of podcasting is that I learn from my guests. One of the great gifts of writing is the process—you come to a better understanding of your subject, of yourself, and of the world around you. I engage with people online, via email, in the comment section, and in real life because it matters to me to do so. I have learned things from these engagements. I have changed my mind about certain issues and beliefs I held because of these engagements. Farming them out to a bot is a loss for me, but also I can’t imagine that my audience would be interested in hearing from a Meghan Murphy bot.

There’s a reason I do everything myself—from the writing, to the editing, to the social media clips, to the responding to emails and messages and comments—and it’s not just because I can’t afford to pay someone to do it for me (though I can’t haha). I want everything I produce and say and share to be completely authentic to me. What would be the point, otherwise? Why would anyone follow me or care what I have to say or subscribe to my Substack or YouTube channel or podcast on Spotify if they weren’t specifically interested in what I had to offer? Why would I choose to be a writer if I didn’t want to write? Why would I produce interviews with people if I wasn’t interested in hearing what they had to say?

There are about a zillion other people with podcasts and opinions out there. The only thing I have going for me is me. And though I despair for a humanity that doesn’t care about its humanity, I suppose that’s the one thing I—and others, overly attached to their slow, messy brains and related ludditery—have as a weapon in this fight against the great robot takeover: Our imperfect, authentic selves, and all the typos and mispronounced words that includes (sorry, I may pronounce “heretic” wrong forever).

When announced a new feature in the Substack app—“Pangram,” a tool that will scan text to detect whether it was written by a human or “with AI assistance”—I thought, to quote Calvin, as I did in my high school year book grad write up (I wasn’t as cool then as I am now), “Gosh, that was over quick.”

This is not to say, of course, that the AI revolution is over—indeed, it’s only just begun its path towards destruction—but I think much of the excitement many felt, anticipating what it might do to human engagement, art, and social/media is on its way out. Almost immediately we were trained to announce “AI” on social media videos featuring animal interactions that made no sense or of Will Smith surrounded by crowds of people with extra fingers, as well as in response to too-perfectly written posts (apparently the em-dash is a giveaway, but I refuse to give it up—I trust you can tell these are my authentic em-dashes). And while many jobs are likely to be farmed out to AI (sorry, transcribers, graphic designers, copywriters, and whoever used to do your social clips for you) writing (actual writing that people want to read), thank god, is not going to be one of them.

Likewise, despite what we’ve been told about the future of podcasting, I very much doubt anyone is interested in listening to an AI version of Joe Rogan.

While, sure—your research question can be easily answered by Grok or Google Gemini (keep in mind it still has a good chance of being answered wrong and/or being politically biased—even AI will tell you that!), no one wants the writing, commentary, humour, opinions, or interviews they seek out from commentators, writers, comedians, podcasters, or journalists to come from a bot.

While the fact that Substack needs a tool like Pangram to help you determine what is human and what is botted is perhaps depressing (what kind of “writer” is using AI, anyway?), it’s also good, because it means that humans still want to engage with other humans. They still want the foibles and flaws and (please, please, please?) typos produced by non-robot people. They don’t want a perfect sentence more than they want the sentence to have been written by someone who really means it.

The speed at which AI slop took over social media might have been worrisome if everyone didn’t start detecting it and hating it almost immediately. Yes, the people behind these AI slop accounts might have made more money than me last year, but their longevity is fleeting, and I still have not just a skill they can’t take from me, but a soul. (Hang on to yours, is what I’m encouraging, for the record.)

And there’s more good news! Substack writer, , published an article last week about the fifty-something “health influencers” hawking “NMN” as the fountain of youth and beauty. They were 57, thin, happy, beautiful, full of energy, and also… not real people.

And while it could be maddening to discover you were being sold a lie by an AI lady you can never look like, it is a reminder that almost everything we see on apps like Instagram today is fake. Shobin writes:

“Social media has been slowly blurring the line between reality and fiction for years. First it was airbrushing. Then Facetune. Then beauty filters. Then four-ring-light setups that erase every pore, wrinkle, and skin texture before a video is even uploaded.”

But it’s not just the airbrushing, normalizing catfishing to an extreme degree, it’s that “influencing” itself is fake. The entire endeavor is an embarrassing charade. What kind of person decides to sell a lifestyle, personality, or face that doesn’t exist, all the while pretending to be “authentic”? Perhaps someone who is now worried about being replaced by AI…

Well, good. I hope every “writer,” “content creator,” and “influencer” who has banked on their audience’s inability to differentiate between real and fake is shaking in their boots. I hope that video you posted of your botoxed face pretending to cry, while talking about “embodied truth,” followed by a video about manifestations which is actually a video of you doing a handstand in a thong, is replicated one million times over by an AI lady that’s hotter than you. I hope the creeps you make engagement bucks off of give their clicks to a man in Pakistan instead. I hope they sign up for his OnlyFans account instead of yours.

That’s the thing about selling your soul—there’s a tradeoff. And those who chose profit over integrity and authenticity are perhaps seeing that the downside of this choice is that they are easily replaceable. We are now more attuned than ever to recognize the fake, which means the real now holds more value, and that (I hope) we will actually value the flaws of realness over the sheen of fakeness.

Long live my typos.

Give a gift subscription

I am a living, breathing, independent writer and podcaster with skin and functioning organs. I avoid putting most of my work behind a paywall, because I want humans to read it, but I also depend on (human) subscribers and donors to make a living. If you enjoy my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber! If you aren’t ready to become a paid subscriber, but wish to support my work, please consider a donation. Many thanks. I appreciate your skin, functioning organs, and support 💞

Donate

This episode streamed live on YouTube, X, and Substack on Tuesday, July 21.

Give a gift subscription

Not ready to commit to becoming a monthly paid subscriber? Consider a donation! I am fully independent—a one-woman show, as it were. I am grateful for any and all support!

Give a gift subscription

Do you support The Same Drugs but aren’t yet ready to commit to becoming a monthly paid subscriber? Consider a donation! The Same Drugs is fully independent—a one-woman show, as it were. I am grateful for any and all support!

Donate

Read more

This episode streamed live on Thursday, July 9th on ⁠YouTube⁠, ⁠Substack⁠, and ⁠X⁠.

Not ready to commit to becoming a monthly paid subscriber? Consider a donation! I am fully independent—a one-woman show, as it were. I am grateful for any and all support!

Donate

Give a gift subscription

Do you support The Same Drugs but aren’t yet ready to commit to becoming a monthly paid subscriber? Consider a donation! The Same Drugs is fully independent—a one-woman show, as it were. I am grateful for any and all support!

Donate

Read more

This episode streamed live on Substack, YouTube, and X on July 2, 2026.

Give a gift subscription

“U.S. Supreme Court allows states to ban transgender girls and women from school athletic teams,” a headline at The Globe and Mail announced yesterday.

“The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld state laws barring transgender girls and women from playing on school athletic teams, in another setback for transgender people,” Mark Sherman writes for The Associated Press.

Well gosh, that sounds mean. Everyone should have the right to compete in school sports, right?

Good news: everyone still has that right, despite what our trusted news media and politicians tell us.

In truth, what happened on Tuesday is that SCOTUS ruled that states have the right to ban males from competing in female sports. In a landmark 6-3 ruling in West Virginia v. BPJ and Little v. Hecox, Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, saying, “We disagree” that “schools must allow biological males who identify as female and have taken puberty blockers or hormones to compete on girls’ sports teams.”

“The question before the Court is: Under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, may schools maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females? In other words, may schools determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex? The answer is yes.”

This conclusion elicited endless melodramatic responses from politicians like Scott Weiner and Tim Waltz, who called the decision “cruel,” apparently without irony.

On X, Weiner wrote:

“The Supreme Court has once again fueled the campaign to erase and dehumanize trans people. And the way the Court wrote the decision opens the door for other efforts to eliminate trans people from public life.”

Ok, brah. Settle down. No one has been dehumanized or eliminated from public life. Men and boys remain free to exist in public society and in sports. They just can’t claim to be female in all circumstances, in every state.

Weiner adds:

“Banning trans young people from playing sports is cruel and discriminatory. Trans youth in sports are tiny in number—for example, fewer than ten NCAA athletes out of 500,000—and they’re harming no one.”

In fact, they are harming “someone,” and that someone is women and girls. The half of the population you, apparently, don’t see as humans who exist or should have rights.

Funny that!

It is truly wild to me that anyone could claim, with a straight face, that the thing everyone has known for all of human history (and beyond—I’m fairly certain animals are never confused about who among them is male and who is female), which is that men aren’t women and boys aren’t girls, is “cruel” and “dehumanizing.” Especially considering that this “minority group” of men and boys pretending to be women and girls have the power to eliminate the hard-fought-for rights of half the population.

Is it not cruel to derail and destroy the athletic careers and opportunities of women and girls just so a few mediocre male athletes can cheat their way to scholarships and trophies? Is it not cruel to put girls and women at risk for serious and life-threatening injuries on the volleyball court and in the boxing ring because they are made to face down the deadly strength of a male? Is it not cruel to stand by and watch as a 16-year-old girl is sexually assaulted by a male wrestler, only in a position to do so because he was allowed to compete in a women’s wrestling event?

Sara Jacobs, Democrat and U.S. Representative for California's 51st Congressional District, called the Supreme Court ruling disgusting, which is a weird descriptor considering the actually disgusting incidences I just referenced, which are only a few among many.

When supposed news sources like The Associated Press are publishing statements like, “The court’s six-justice conservative majority… has repeatedly ruled against transgender Americans in the past year” and “More than two dozen other Republican-led states have adopted bans on female transgender athletes,” it feels like there really is no point to the media.

These lies were not limited to a few outlets, either. They were widespread. USA Today wrote, “States can ban transgender women and girls from competing on female sports teams, the Supreme Court ruled June 30.” CNN, NBC, and ABC News all maintained the language of a “transgender sports ban.” The New York Times’ headline read, “Supreme Court Allows States to Bar Transgender Athletes From Girls’ Sports.”

Everyone writing these lines knows this isn’t true. They know that there is no “ban”—just a decision that says individual states have the right to ensure only women and girls are allowed to compete in female sports. They know they are misleading their readers into believing this is some form of “discrimination” or an attack on something called a “trans person.” Yet, knowing this, these outlets opted to publish “misinformation”—the thing we were all told to watch out for, over and over again, by these same people during the Covid scam. In that case, the supposed “misinformation” was actually the truth, and in this case, the supposed truth is actual “misinformation.”

Weiner had the audacity to label the truth a “propaganda campaign… lead[ing] to violence against trans people and creates an atmosphere of fear and marginalization.”

Are they trying to drive us crazy? I don’t know. Are they selling their souls in an attempt to save their jobs and social status? Yes. Do far too many people in this society lack integrity? Sadly, yes.

Not one person who repeats these lies is deserving of our respect. Not now, not ever. Men aren’t women, boys aren’t girls—end of.

Refer a friend

Did you enjoy this article? I’m glad! I am a mere independent writer and podcaster, fighting to speak the truth in a world that looks evermore like a South Park skit. If you aren’t yet ready to commit to becoming a monthly paid subscriber, consider a donation! I am grateful for any and all support!

Donate

Carrie is a researcher and public policy campaigner in the UK. ⁠I spoke with her about her experience.

Give a gift subscription

Do you support The Same Drugs but aren’t yet ready to commit to becoming a monthly paid subscriber? Consider a donation! The Same Drugs is fully independent—a one-woman show, as it were. I am grateful for any and all support!

Donate

Give a gift subscription

This episode has been made available for early access to …

Read more

For weeks now, X users have been debating “duty sex”—that is to say, whether a wife is obligated to “get her husband off” a certain amount as part of the marriage contract (and what should happen should she fail at this obligation).

The “certain amount” expectation seems to range from about 2-3 times a week, which sounds reasonable, unless of course you are married to someone you don’t like very much or are busy. The “expectation” aspect of the debate is one among many things men do not understand about women and their sexual inclinations.

To “expect” sex is inherently unsexy and is an automatic turnoff. The moment you start whining or complaining about not getting sex is the moment you are most likely absolutely not going to get sex. When a woman knows you expect it, she’s probably not going to want to do it, and if she does, she is likely to feel resentful or gross about the whole thing (also an unsexy feeling).

Men also seem not to understand how boring-to-gross-to-rapey unwanted sex feels for women, partly because men almost always want sex (sorry if you feel huffy hearing this, but in my experience it is true).

Women’s bodies do not take well to penetration that happens when we aren’t actually turned on. It is uncomfortable, can be painful, and often feels like a violation. Putting your boner in a woman is never going to feel like a violation. You can argue that it feels bad, if, like, you didn’t want to for some reason, but did it anyway, but it’s not going to feel like that vagina violated you. Also, you obviously did want to on some level because you got hard, meaning you were indeed turned on. You can call whatever that feeling is something, if you want to be a baby about it, but it isn’t a violation of your body.

Men of the Internet have argued that they do things they “don’t feel like doing” all the time in relationships, so why can’t a wife give her husband sex or a blow job a few times a week, even if she doesn’t “feel like it.” Well, that’s because having a conversation or going to the grocery store or mowing the lawn or watching a romcom is nothing like being raped. And no, I am not saying you are raping your wife because she’s not 100% “in the mood,” but I am saying that women’s experience of sex, as the receiver, the penetratee, and the more vulnerable party, is much different than men’s experience of sex.

Some men have suggested that if their hypothetical wife declined to sex him as much as he wants to be sexed, he had the right to cheat or stop providing for his family.

This is also a stupid argument, because cheating is a betrayal and a lie. If you want to have sex with someone that isn’t your wife, then you should divorce your wife, not engage in behaviour that is unethical, cruel, and potentially endangers her health. Men will argue that it is unethical and cruel of her to “withhold sex,” which fundamentally misunderstands what is going on when a woman isn’t having sex with her husband or long-term partner. She isn’t doing it to be mean. She’s doing it because she doesn’t feel like it. And it would be in your interest to figure out why, rather than just being a bitch about it.

The last thing that would ever make me want to fuck a man would be if he cheated on me, which, hilariously, is what some men seem to think will “motivate her” to hold up her end of the bargain, as it were.

Likewise, assuming that your wife or girlfriend is intentionally torturing you or “defrauding” you, having “lied” early on in the relationship to “rope you in,” then, being free to go back to not liking sex with you, having locked you down in a marriage, isn’t going to get you anywhere.

First of all, I very much doubt you’re that great a score as a husband if this is your attitude. Second, generally women do marry men they like and are into, sexually. The reality is that, unfortunately for everyone, women’s interest in sex wanes years into monogamous relationships. This is just… normal. I’m sorry. Women’s libidos will magically return once they are in a new relationship, after a breakup or divorce, as evidence of this.

Read more

This episode streamed live on Substack, YouTube, and X on June 22, 2026.

Give a gift subscription

Referenced in this episode:

Raymond Ibrahim

Islam’s Sexual Enslavement of White Women: A History in Paintings

Warning: Nineteenth century paintings depicting female nudity follow…

Read more

2 months ago · 1173 likes · 18 comments · Raymond Ibrahim

Heretical Insights

Were 250,000 English Girls Raped by Grooming Gangs?

Note: The purpose of this article is only to criticize the estimated number of rapes proposed by the report. I do not deny the other sensational claims made by the authors, such as that most of the perpetrators are Muslim, and that authorities often turned a blind eye out of fear of being called racist…

Read more

a month ago · 102 likes · 43 comments · Aaron

Saving Culture (from itself)

Moi aussi Thaïs d'Escufon

I would like to introduce you to the story of Thaïs d’Escufon, a 26 year old French woman who in the last few days has gone viral outside of France, after she was convicted of “public insult” by the Paris public prosecutor’s office…

Read more

a month ago · 161 likes · 39 comments · Jenny Holland

Authoritarians always claim to be “protecting” you while removing your rights and freedoms. Thanks to easily propagandized Canadians, afflicted with brain-melting Trump Derangement Syndrome, the Liberal Party—in power yet again, despite spending the past decade destroying Canada—has passed Bill C-9, the Combating Hate Act.

Now, you will be protected from saying anything the Liberal Party deems “hate.”

Bill C-9 is a Canadian federal law amending the Criminal Code to “strengthen protections against hate crimes and hate propaganda.” Mark Carney, Canada’s robot dictator, claims the "Combating Hate Act" is aimed at "protecting communities."

For those less well-versed in authoritarian speak, this means that the government decides who is “vulnerable” based on their chosen ideologies, then doesn’t allow people to criticize or speak truthfully about those ideologies.

Some of you may recall that I was one of the only people in Canada to speak out against, then testify against, Bill C-16—Canada’s gender identity legislation. Bill C-16 amended the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to add gender expression and gender identity to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. The bill was passed and became law in 2017, despite my warnings, and ever since I have been accused of violating the human rights code by calling men who identify as women “men” and by criticizing the concept of gender identity ideology itself.

So far, the result has only been things like social media bans and constant no-platforming. Every time (no exaggeration) I have had a planned talk or panel discussing transgenderism in Canada, we have lost the venue, as they are threatened with violating hate speech laws and the human rights code by hosting me. To date, no one has been able to actually criminalize me, because I still had some free speech protections in Canada. Those rights have now been further eroded.

Conservative MP Roman Baber explains that, on top of all this, the Liberals rammed through Bill C-22, which will “require telecoms and internet companies to seize all Canadian metadata, including their geographic location and who they called or texted in the last year, without committing an offense and without a search warrant.” It will also require internet companies to break encryption. So, Canadians have no privacy, and your speech can be deemed “hate,” and criminalized on that basis.

In its submission to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) writes:

“Bill C-9 attempts to define ‘hatred’ by excluding expression that solely ‘discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends,’ and by asserting that ‘hatred’ means ‘the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike.’ As is the case with ‘hate,’ there is no clear, objective or identifiable standard of what does – and does not – constitute ‘detestation’ or ‘vilification.’”

Criminalizing “hatred” is a nonsense concept. As the JCCF explains:

“Hate is an emotion. Regardless of how courts or legislatures may seek to define it, the determination of what is ‘hateful’ will always depend ultimately on the personal feelings and subjective prejudices of the police, prosecutors and judges who see or hear the expression in question.”

Bill C-9 received Royal Assent on Wednesday night, while Canadians were literally and figuratively asleep, and its provisions are set to come into force on July 18, 2026. Stay tuned for the barrage of human rights complaints submitted by lunatic trans activists, dragging those of us who refuse to toe the line on gender identity nonsense through human rights tribunals, fined and possibly charged with “hate crimes.”

I have warned Canadians about this bill and other versions like it, presented by the Liberal Party, for years. In April, I wrote about Barry Neufeld’s case for Spiked. Neufeld was a former school trustee who was taken to the BC Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) after criticizing the SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) 123 school curriculum. SOGI teaches students from kindergarten and above, that ‘everyone has a gender identity’. After years of hearings, and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, Neufeld was found guilty of hate speech and was ordered to pay $750,000 in damages for “injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect” to an anonymous group of “LGBTQ teachers.” In its judgement, the tribunal states:

“Transpeople are, by definition, people ‘whose gender identity does not align with the sex assigned to them at birth.’ If a person elects not to ‘believe’ that gender identity is separate from sex assigned at birth, then they do not ‘believe’ in transpeople.

‘This is a form of existential denial.’”

I have said many times over that there is no such thing as a “trans person.”

What I mean by this is not that people who identify as “trans” do not exist, but rather that it is not possible to change sex, to be “born in the wrong body,” or to not have a sex at all. According to the BCHRT, I am guilty, then, of “hate speech,” because I am “denying the existence of trans people.”

Already, I have received an email copy of a complaint filed against me with the BCHRT by a man named Jonathan / Jessica Yaniv, explaining:

“The respondent’s deliberate use of my deadname, followed by public mocking after being placed on notice, caused significant harm to my dignity, identity and sense of personal security. Being publicly misidentified in this way is deeply dehumanising and communicates that my identity as a woman is not valid or worthy of respect.”

Yaniv is of course the man made famous after filing complaints against 16 estheticians after they declined to wax his “female” balls in 2018. After referring to him as “him,” I was permanently banned from Twitter. (Restored by Elon Musk after he bought the platform, thanks to my lovely friend Joe Rogan.

The Canadian Constitution Foundation explains that Bill C-9 “Creates a new standalone hate offence. Even minor regulatory breaches could be turned into serious crimes if labelled ‘motivated by hatred.’” The law, they say, “will chill debate, silence dissent, limit discussion on controversial moral questions, and erode one of the most fundamental freedoms in our democracy.”

The law doesn’t protect Canadians from anything. What it does do is give the government the power to criminally prosecute Canadians for their opinions.

Canadians have voted themselves into authoritarianism.

Give a gift subscription

Do you enjoy The Same Drugs but aren’t ready to commit to becoming a paid monthly subscriber? Consider a one-time donation! Every little bit helps 🙏

is a Canadian neuroscientist, former academic sex researcher, and author of ⁠”Sextinction: The Decline of Sex and the Future of Intimacy.” ⁠⁠⁠I spoke with her about sex robots, dating apps, how porn is making our sex lives worse, and why it’s ok to kink shame.

Refer a friend

This week, I was joined by writer, comedian, and host of ⁠Walk-Ins Welcome⁠ and ⁠Dumpster Fire⁠, , to discuss Freedom 250, the fallout, and more.

This episode streamed live on Substack, YouTube, and X on June 16, 2026.

Refer a friend

Did you love or hate the Freedom 250 bash at the White House? Should Dana White apologize for putting it on? Should Nate Bargatze apologize for attending? Should Josh Hokit apologize for calling Michelle Obama a man?

Join myself and live today at 2PM PT/5PM ET to discuss!

Tune in live!