MJ MURPHY: . . . join the many people learning how to think clearly under social pressure.

NLP Breakdown pic.twitter.com/sTVwKwvwEh

— MJ Murphy (@hothingsgirlsay) June 23, 2026

00:00. "There is no right or wrong way to be a woman."

00:04.  Okay.  So the false universal when he says "there is no right or wrong way to be a woman," it sounds compassionate because it appeals to individuality.  The hidden move is that it quietly removes any objective criteria from the category while still insisting the category remains meaningful.  If there is literally no right or wrong way to be a woman, then the category itself becomes impossible to define.  So a useful challenge would go something like this.  If there is no right or wrong way to be a woman, then what makes someone a woman in the first place?  The statement destroys the boundary while pretending to defend it.  

And that is the whole point.  If you are doing all of this, if you're transitioning to assimilate into approval from parties that have the strictest rules on gender expression, you will fail.  You will be disappointed and you will be miserable, because nothing you ever do will be enough for those people.  If you're . . .

All right.  So this creates an enemy before evidence is presented.  The audience is encouraged to dismiss criticism not because the criticism is wrong, but because the critics are supposedly impossible to satisfy.  This is a classic persuasion move.  Discredit the referee before the game starts.

If you're doing this, if you're transitioning, you need to do this because it's about you . . . 

Now this is one of the most powerful modern frames.  So the frame assumes that authenticity equals truth, but authenticity and Truth are not the same thing.  I can sincerely feel something; I can authentically believe something that tells us the belief is sincere.  It tells us nothing that whether the belief is true.  

Because it's the only option for you . . . 

Okay, the biggest hidden assumption appears here.  If you're transitioning you need to do this because it's the only option for you.  So there is an embedded assumption transition is an appropriate or necessary solution.  That assumption is inserted before it is examined.  An NLP practitioner would call this a presupposition because the audience is encouraged to accept the premise in order to process the sentence. 

And because you are fighting like hell too be the truest version of yourself possible not for any . . .

So the question of whether someone is a woman quietly becomes "Are they being true to themselves?" Those are completely different questions.  The audience is invited to answer the second question because it feels kinder.  But answering the second question doesn't answer the first. This is a classic NLP move replace a difficult factual question with an easier emotional question.

or for any other reason.  And actually there's something about that that I want to say.  I got a comment on Facebook the other day on one of my reels, and it was essentially somebody calling me selfish for transitioning.  Yes.  I am doing this for me.  That's the point.  You should do things for you. 

Yes, "I am doing this for me" this functions as a conversational shield because once something is framed as "I'm doing this for me," any criticism can be portrayed as attacking personal happiness rather than examining the claim itself.  But many actions done for me still affect others.  Whether something is personally fulfilling is separate from whether it is socially true, socially beneficial, or should require other people to participate. 

If you are a CIS hetero-man and you want to have bigger muscles because you . . .  

This is an analogy design to transfer emotional acceptance from one category to another we see this all the time.  The problem is this.  Building muscle doesn't require society to redefine what a man is.  Transition does involve claims about sex categories, language, spaces, records, Sports, prisons, and social recognition.  So the analogy works but it focuses on personal choice while omitting, while omitting, the social implications.  

You want those for you, go for it, my man.  Get the protein, hit the gym, whatever.  If you want to have bigger muscles so that somebody else thinks you're hot or cool, maybe don't do that.  Maybe think about that a little bit.  And then if you decide it's for you, go for it, man, go for it.  But if you're doing anything for the approval of others, you got a really think about that.  First, living for the approval of others is an addictive thing and it is always disappointing.  You have to live for yourself first. There is nothing selfish about living for you.  You are the only person inhabiting your head and your body.  It's got to be for you.

5:14.  Okay.  Did you notice how every factual question got replaced with an emotional one?

"What is a woman?" becomes "Are you happy?"

"Is it true?" becomes "Is it authentic?"

"Should society recognize this claim?" becomes "Why are you judging me?"  

The conversation quietly shifts from reality to feelings, from evidence to Identity, from facts to personal validation.  Once you see this substitution, you can't unsee it.  And that's exactly why I wrote Breaking the Spell.  It's not about telling you what to think it's about teaching you how to spot the hidden assumptions emotional pivots presupposition and linguistic sleight of hand that shape conversations before the debate even begins.  If you want to learn how to see the machinery underneath the words, grab your copy of breaking the spell and join the many people learning how to think clearly under social pressure.