Proponents of Drag Queen Story Hour want library doors open to them but closed to others

Those advocating for Drag Queen Story Hour don't support freedom of expression, they support their expression.

Inspired by the controversy surrounding “Drag Queen Story Hour,” wherein mostly men dress up as cartoonish and often hyper-feminized versions of “women” and read stories to children, The Globe and Mail elected to stand up for free expression.

One might see this as a good thing.

The author of the piece, Gillian O’Reilly, referenced my talk held at the Toronto Public Library (TPL) in 2019 — which was protested by around 700 people, the police told me, having barricaded off the entire block behind the library, simply so I could enter the building safely — as an example of past controversial events that went forward on account of libraries’ commitment to the principle of freedom of expression.

On October 29, 2019, protesters gathered outside the TPL with signs reading, “No free speech for hate speech,” “No hate in our city,” and (unironically) “People before ideology.” They hounded and harassed attendees, screaming “Shame!” as they entered and left the building via a police-protected corridor, shielding them from physical attack. When I finished my talk, “Gender Identity: What Does It Mean for Society, the Law, and Women,” the police, looking rather terrified, told me I couldn’t do any of the media interviews I’d planned afterwards nor stay to chat with attendees, as the crowds outside had become so frightening they needed to escort me out of the building immediately before things got even more dangerous. They offered me a blanket to cover my head as I left with my private bodyguards and numerous police officers, which I declined.

Prior to the event, several Toronto writers began a petition demanding the TPL shut down the event, citing “hate speech” and referring to the group who organized the talk, Radical Feminists Unite (RFU), as a “hate group.” Nearly ten thousand progressive Canadians signed the petition, believing their view that males should be entitled to legally identify as “female” should trump the right of women to say that biological sex is real and that women should not be required to share all spaces — from transition houses to change rooms to prisons — with men, even if those men call themselves Gwen.

Notably, considering the context of the Globe article, two drag queens names Fay and Fluffy, the creators of “Fay and Fluffy’s Storytime,” announced they would be ending their relationship with the Toronto Public Library on account of city librarian Vickery Bowles’ decision not to cancel RFU’s room rental, and maintain the library’s obligation “to uphold the fundamental freedoms of freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression as enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

A statement posted on Fay and Fluffy’s Instagram page explained the duo could not “continue a relationship with a space that will host someone who is actively fighting to take away my legal rights as a human.” In solidarity with “queer and trans staff members,” they wrote, “we are appalled that they now have to go to work for a place that would host someone who spews the kind of hate that Meghan Murphy does.” Referring to me, Fay and Fluffy, write:

“This is someone who argues against trans people having safe space to pee and someone who has been removed from Twitter for hate speech; we need to make a statement about this.”

fayandfluffy

A post shared by Fay & Fluffy (@fayandfluffy)

Apparently, Fay and Fluffy believe their free speech rights should be protected, even when engaging in libel.

Indeed, it is clear that those who promote and profit from these controversial drag story hours are certain their free expression should be protected whereas the free expression of those who challenge their ideologies should not.

I have never and would never demand the library ban Fay and Fluffy’s act, which has quietly resumed at the Toronto Public Library, presumably because they found somewhere to pee after all. This is despite the fact I find the Drag Queen Story Hour odd, to say the least, and feel parents’ concerns around having strange adult men, dressed as women, reading stories to their young children, should be considered fairly, rather than simply written off as bigoted. I do not understand why it is important for bearded men in pink latex gloves to read stories to children, when surely there are librarians well-equipped to do so, but the narcissism of today’s LGBTQ+ activists must take precedence over practicality, so here we are.

My broader concern with these acts is that they openly teach gender identity ideology to children, which is both confusing and dangerous, leading children to believe that if they don’t adhere to gender norms they might be “born in the wrong body,” in which case their body may need “fixing,” in the form of hormone treatment and surgery. I would imagine that if another religious group approached the library in the name of opening children’s minds to Mormonism they would be rejected immediately. But when it comes to the belief that some boys are girls or that some people don’t have any biological sex at all, these religious zealots are embraced wholeheartedly, and detractors are labelled as hateful.

Considering the hostile, hateful, and dishonest reaction of individuals like Fay and Fluffy — who demand their expression be accepted and defended without question while simultaneously doing everything in their power to censor, ban, and vilify those who wish to have an open conversation about their beliefs and activism — to me and to others who don’t follow their faith, the Globe’s publication of a piece entitled, “Freedom of expression in public libraries must apply to all,” felt a little tenuous.

Indeed, this is a newspaper that refused to allow me the right to reply after publishing a defamatory piece by columnist Denise Balkissoon decrying my audacity at “declaring who is and is not an adult woman” and asserting that I “target” women in my “privileged” feminism.

Without a hint of irony, Balkissoon explains that “true feminism seeks everyone’s safety,” adding, “A lack of compassion for an incredibly vulnerable population is incompatible with a movement grounded in equality.” One presumes she is including imprisoned women now forced to share cells with violent male criminals, and battered women escaping their abusers who must sleep in rooms alongside men, making them feel justifiably unsafe, in her “compassionate” approach to women’s rights, which places men’s preferences above all.

Balkissoon argued that banning me from speaking at the TPL would be justified on account of my understanding that males have penises, even if they wish they didn’t, claiming I would never “welcome honest dialogue” with trans activists — a strange thing to assume, considering that is what I have fought for over the past seven-odd years.

It has been trans activists and their progressive supporters who have refused not only to dialogue with me, but who have attempted to prevent me from dialoguing with anyone at all. Not only do they refuse to attend my talks (that is to say, go inside and actually listen — they are happy to stand outside and bang on windows) or engage with me in debates or media segments, lest they find their arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny or basic understandings of mammals, but they want to stop me from speaking at all — even to those who want to hear me.

Supporters of Drag Queen Story Hour have continued in this vein, refusing to engage with detractors or consider any aspect of their detractors’ concerns as valid. When it is their expression that is being called dangerous and controversial, the response from progressives and LGBTQ+ activists is “no debate.” Suddenly, they become proponents of “open-mindedness” and “inclusivity.” But the moment they are challenged to defend the speech of others, the doors shut, their mantras and ethics only operating in one direction.

To see a publication like the Globe — which has refused to allow me to speak for myself while allowing their own columnists to publish libel about me, unchallenged, and advocate for censorship on that basis — come out nearly three years later in defense of what is in fact a library mandate (that is, to uphold the principles of free speech and free expression), only because those deemed politically incorrect are the ones now challenging another group’s “expression,” rings hollow.

The woke activists and the media that does their bidding don’t have principles, they have preferences. It is when you are faced with views and speech that challenges your own — even that you find dangerous or detestable — that you are offered the opportunity to exhibit integrity and ethical fortitude. Unfortunately progressives and their media institutions continue to fail on all counts.