Megan Mulls It Over

+JMJ

“America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance. It is not. It is suffering from tolerance: tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so much overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded.” – Venerable Fulton J. Sheen, “A Plea for Intolerance” (1931)

Note: In this post, as I have done consistently throughout the course of this blog, I will use pronouns in a way that affirms biological and ontological realities, even though this means violating standards of political correctness. If you are new to this blog and are interested in some background on why I have made this decision, I suggest reading some of my past posts on Chelsea Manning. As I have said before, there are plenty to choose from because this blog is probably the closest thing there is to a The Chelsea Manning Show.)

As a young child, I knew that RuPaul was a man who liked to dress in women’s clothing. Then when I got older I learned that RuPaul was a gay man who liked to dress in women’s clothing.

And just recently, I learned that RuPaul is a full-blown social engineer.

The Season 7 winner of RuPaul’s Drag Race, Violet Chachki, recently repaired the Internet (or whatever the opposite of “breaking the Internet” is) with a photo he posed for with a 10-year-old boy who was dressed in drag. For the remainder of this post I will refer to this man by his real name, which is Jason Dardo. Ordinarily I would refer to him by whatever name he wants to be called, because I don’t view proper names in the same light as pronouns. But I am making an exception due to what I read in his Wikipedia entry about the origin of his stage name.

The last name “Chachki” is, as I suspected, what Wikipedia refers to as “a variant of the Yiddish word ‘tchotchke,’ a small object that is decorative rather than functional.” It’s seriously creepy that someone would choose that as part of his or her name.

I would have gone with “Violet,” but then I saw on Wikipedia that that name “was inspired by Jennifer Tilly’s character in the film Bound.” I was not familiar with that film, but could kinda guess from the title what sort of film it was. But I clicked on the link to its Wikipedia page anyway, just to find out for sure. And it only took me a few sentences to realize that it was, in fact, that kind of film. “But Megan, how did it take you that many sentences to realize that it’s basically a porno?”

Because Wikipedia refers to it as a “neo-noir crime thriller film.” Which I quickly found out is another way of saying “pretentious porno.”

Anyways, this photo that Dardo took with this 10-year-old child attracted the attention of a few because of what Dardo was wearing in it.

Which was nothing.

Except for a pair of pumps. And what this article from RedState describes as “a small piece of tape covering his manjunk.”

Let the record show that you won’t get busted for kiddie porn if you’re the only one in the picture who’s naked.

For the record, according to RedState, the photo ended up not being included in the article that it was taken for (which appeared in Huck Magazine).

I think we can all agree that if the child in the photo were a girl, we would be seeing a lot more in the mainstream media about it. The fact that the photo wasn’t actually included in the article it was taken for would make no difference. Once one person wrote or vlogged about it, the news would have spread like wildfire, and we would have seen front-page headlines slamming the magazine, Dardo, the child’s parents, and probably RuPaul as well.

I blame feminism for this. If we should hate men, why should we care about boys? They’re just going to grow up to be part of the problem, right?

This situation is also complicated by the fact that Dardo, according to Wikipedia, “identifies as gender fluid.” I consider this a complicating factor because I’m sure there are many on the Left who would think that it’s “bigoted” to condemn the behavior of someone with such a hip gender identity.

I tried to find out more about Dardo’s background, but this article entitled “Everything You Need to Know About Rupaul’s Violet Chachki” was no help. (Kinda interesting how the title refers to him as if he’s RuPaul’s property, huh?) It mostly talks about his clothes and makeup. I did find out from it, though, that he was “raised strictly Catholic.” I initially rolled my eyes when I read that because I was thinking a combination of “Here we go, get ready for some Church-bashing” and “Wow, just the kind of publicity the Church needs now.” But then I stopped because I thought, “It wouldn’t surprise me at all if there’s a predatory priest somewhere in his backstory.”

As far as the child in the photo, his name is Nemis Quinn Melancon-Golden, stage name “Queen Lactatia” (or “Lactacia” depending on the article). And as the RedState article points out, it’s kinda creepy that a child would be using a stage name “based on the notion of people sucking his nipples.” (In the sentence immediately following, the author points out the boy/girl double standard at play here with, “…flip it around as a female, and see how that goes.”)

And just to show my readers that I don’t get all my news from right-wing publications, check out this little gem from PinkNews (which, just to be clear, was presumably written prior to the shooting of the Dardo photo. The Dardo photo was taken for an article that ran this month, and the PinkNews article is from last January). I can assure you that PinkNews is not an LGBT version of The Onion, although I understand if you think that after you see some of the drivel that’s in there.

The insanity starts with the headline itself, which states that Melancon-Golden was “horrifically abused after modelling for LGBT fashion company.” Needless to say the article does not consider the subject photoshoot (which, again, just to clarify, is not the one with a naked Dardo) to be a form of “horrific abuse.”

According to the article, both Melancon-Golden and the owner of the fashion line he was modeling for, House of Mann, received lots of backlash on social media for the shoot. Melancon-Golden was “targeted with vile comments.” (By the way, I love that they use the word “vile,” for the same reason that I love the words “horrifically abused” in the title. Because I consider them both to be Freudian slips about the true nature of this whole mess.) And owner Brandon Hilton “has received death threats and countless tweets telling him he’s a paedophile.”

I definitely don’t condone the death threats, but I’m not losing any sleep over the pedophile comments. Accusations like that are merely an occupational hazard when you make your living by taking sexually suggestive photos of children.

But Melancon-Golden’s mother disputes that the photos are suggestive and thinks that the critics’ problem is that they just don’t “understand drag.” She thinks that the photos of her son from this shoot are innocuous because the clothing he was modeling didn’t come from House of Mann’s burlesque line. In fact, she is outraged that people would think that she would allow her son to wear such clothing. She says, “…Lactatia will NOT be modelling their burlesque pieces, and the fact that we need to clarify that is absolutely absurd.”

First of all, the distinction between burlesque wear and the jumpsuit that Melancon-Golden is wearing in two of the pictures shown is a distinction without a difference. The jumpsuit is quite revealing, and his poses are suggestive. He is also very heavily made-up. “But Megan, it’s just makeup! Drag is not the same thing as burlesque!”

Yeah, but the line between the two isn’t exactly the size of Trump’s dream border wall.

Furthermore, I keep coming back to the question of, “What would people say if Melancon-Golden were a girl?” Let’s be honest, the makeup alone would be enough to cause mass outrage if this were the case.

And even if the jumpsuit photos could be explained away, what about the video still image further down in the article where he’s lying on stage with a leg in the air? That looks kinda like a burlesque pose to me, even if the dress didn’t come from the burlesque line. (No, I didn’t watch the video.)

Mom was in a similar state of denial in the Huck Magazine article. I remind my readers that the Dardo nude photo did not make the cut for this one, but the photos that were chosen weren’t exactly G-rated. In the one at the very top, Melancon-Golden is wearing a short dress with fishnet stockings and sitting with spread-eagle legs (one of which is across his mother’s lap).

And yet, Mom insists, “…we have to censor things,” “…there are adult aspects of drag that he’s not allowed to apply to his show,” and, my personal favorite…

“We would never try to overtly sexualise our child.”

But she would let him pose spread-eagle in fishnets. Nothing sexual about that, right? Let me guess, the people like me who see something sexual in that are the ones with the dirty minds. Not the parents who let their 10-year-old son wear that outfit. Or the photographer who took the photo. Or the people who think the photo is just for fun or no big deal.

And, returning to a previous theme, there was also the small matter of that photo with a naked adult man. Was that not sexual either? Oops, I forgot about the piece of tape that Dardo was wearing. That changes everything.

And I am oh so curious to know if these parents would allow their daughter to wear the same clothes and do the same poses as their son. Actually, they probably would. But, as mentioned earlier, the level of public outrage would be much higher if this were their daughter rather than their son.

In fact, there’s a good chance that a child welfare agency would have already been knocking on their door.

Back to the issue of the Dardo nude photo and my characterization of RuPaul as a “full-blown social engineer.” Some of you might be thinking, “But Megan, just because one of RuPaul’s contestants did something disgraceful doesn’t mean that RuPaul promotes that kind of stuff!” In the interest of full disclosure, the RedState article doesn’t seem to think so. It describes him as “a super nice guy” (emphasis is the author’s, not mine).

In fairness, I don’t know if RuPaul had anything to do with the Dardo photo, but even if he didn’t, he has been very involved with peddling the drag lifestyle to children. He has been a vocal “supporter” of 11-year-old Desmond Napoles (stage name “Desmond Is Amazing”). Young Mr. Napoles refers to himself as a “drag kid” and a “queer kid.” That’s right. He’s not old enough to know the ins and outs of long division, but he supposedly knows exactly where he fits on The Acronym, thanks to a leftist near you. (For the record, I still consider the q-word to be a slur because I come from the old school where it was one, but I chose not to censor it here, just so my readers would be sure what word I was referring to. “Come on, Megan, everyone would have known what word it was!” Maybe, but readers like me who are fed up with all this might have gone into denial and racked their brains wondering what a “quarter kid” was.)

For a glimpse of how thrilled young Mr. Napoles is with his glitter-filled existence, I recommend this video from YouTube vlogger Hunter Avallone. This is not an unconditional endorsement of Avallone’s channel – he can sometimes be mean, and I definitely don’t approve of some of the jokes he makes, including some of the stuff in this video.

But if after watching this video, you think that Avallone’s snark is the biggest problem, I would suggest that you have some serious problems of your own.

The clip that he shows in the linked video is one from the YouTube channel entitled Queer Kid Stuff, hereafter referred to as “QKS.” (Yes, that’s really a thing. Isn’t it ironic that the people in our society who are most in need of the refuge that safe spaces provide aren’t the ones who are begging for them?)

Avallone describes the QKS episode featuring Napoles as an “all-time low” (0:09-0:11) for the channel. The clip opens with a teddy bear puppet telling us that “Today is an extra-special day” (0:45-0:47) because the puppet is hosting and that there is a “super, super special guest coming in” (0:47-0:51). We meet Napoles at 1:15. (Shoutout to everybody who wanted to hurl when they saw the “Meet a Queer Kid!” chalkboard in the video. All the trouble that the parents of yore went through making sure their children didn’t use a certain word, and then the Left comes in with, “Well, it’s actually more complicated than that…”)

Avallone manages to inject some humor by pointing to an alien thingamabob on his desk and saying, “…I’m to the point where I’m about to beg one of these hos to float on down and abduct me off this wretched planet…” (1:36-1:43).

But the mood goes back to serious as he explains that Napoles was “recently seen dancing at a gay bar where attendees threw dollars at him like a child stripper” (2:10-2:17).

And then we go back to QKS, where the teddy bear host’s first question for Napoles is, not surprisingly (although I wish I could say “surprisingly” with a straight face), “What are your pronouns and how do you identify?” (2:38-2:40). Napoles responds, “My pronouns are he/him, and, um, I identify as a boy” (2:41-2:45). If you are not following along with the video, you might have guessed by the “um” that he hesitates somewhat before calling himself a boy. And he also makes his voice sound more “feminine” when he says that part of the sentence.

I interpreted the hesitation as shame at being male, no doubt because of things he’s been told about “toxic masculinity” by his parents and their preferred media outlets. And I interpreted the deliberate feminization of his voice as a way of saying, “But I’m not like one of those dangerous boys.”

Translation: I will think what you want me to think and do what you want me to do, almighty feminist overlordesses.

When the teddy bear asks Napoles what he does, he describes himself as, among other things, “an LGBQ activist slash advocate” (3:35-3:38).

And it wouldn’t surprise me at all if some QKS viewers think he should be taken away from his parents because he forgot the “T” in The Acronym. Not because of anything else in this video.

Actually, the “Q” sounds like a cross between “T” and “Q,” the way that he pronounces it. This poor fellow is so confused, nervous, and uncomfortable that he can’t remember a sequence of letters that is constantly in his face. Avallone noticed this, too, and says, “Right off the bat, you can tell this kid doesn’t fully grasp what he’s saying, and he’s just parroting what his money-hungry parents told him to say” (3:46-3:54).

Back at QKS studios, the teddy bear has asked Napoles to tell the viewers “a little bit more about what a drag kid does” (4:07-4:10). Not surprisingly, the bear goes on to say (emphasis is mine), “We learned about drag queens and drag kings on Queer Kid Stuff, but we don’t know what a drag kid does” (4:11-4:17).

Napoles answers with a very simple, “A drag kid is a kid who does drag. Get it? Drag. Kid. Haha” (4:18-4:22), and the kid is so sad that even the “Haha” sounds scripted, forced, and very out of place considering his obviously downcast demeanor. Even the bear’s response “Hahaha” sounds forced (4:23-4:24). Looks like somebody might be growing a conscience – better stop it before it gets bigger!

Avallone reiterates his views on Napoles’ demeanor after this segment, saying, “…it’s obvious the kid doesn’t care, and he does not wanna be there” (4:40-4:44).

When the teddy bear asks Napoles about how he got his start in drag, he says, “Well, when my mom was watching the first episode of RuPaul’s Drag Race, I stopped playing with my Thomas toys…” And he also reveals that this occurred when he was two years old (4:44-5:00). I found it interesting and very telling that he says his mom was the one watching RuPaul’s Drag Race. He doesn’t say, “I was watching.”

And something tells me that those Thomas toys might have been thrown out over much kicking, screaming, and crying from young Mr. Napoles. And hopefully some gasket-blowing from the elder Mr. Napoles, although I’m not holding my breath for that one.

After this segment, Avallone points out the obvious truth that Napoles’ story is an example of parents extrapolating normal, transitory childhood activities into lifelong identities. Avallone says, “How many kids do you know that like to just dress up for fun? Well now, these aren’t kids dressing up, having fun, and just being goofy. No, they’re drag queens, meant to be dancing at gay bars!” (5:29-5:42).

At the end of the day, this is not about what toys a child likes to play with. If a boy likes to don the occasional boa or other item of girls’ dress-up clothing during playtime, the world is probably not going to come off its axis. But, as we saw with Melancon-Golden’s parents, Napoles’ parents are encouraging their minor (very minor) child to be part of a subculture that is very sexualized and undoubtedly filled with plenty of depression and substance abuse as well.

Furthermore, no one is going to convince me that taking on a drag persona does not cause confusion in a child of Napoles’ age. Someone that young is not going to be able to fully understand, “Just because I’m regularly dressing and performing in female clothing doesn’t mean that I’m a girl.” (In fact, I think we can conclude from Dardo’s own gender confusion that adults aren’t always able to understand this either.) And I think that if Napoles’ parents continue on this trajectory, it is only a matter of time before he will start calling himself “gender fluid” or some other newfangled gender identity.

The teddy bear goes on to ask Napoles more about his activism, and he responds (very unenthusiastically by the way), “I go to protests, I go to the Pride Parade, I go to memorials” (6:03-6:12). And then in a moment that (metaphorically) knocked me over (although I should have been prepared for it at this point), the teddy bear says, “We did an episode about the Pride Parade” (6:12-6:14).

Ooh, ooh, did y’all show some clips of when NAMBLA’s sent over a delegation?

“Megan, that is so wrong! Haven’t you heard about all the times that NAMBLA has been banned from or ejected from pride parades?” Indeed I have.

But I think the people in the audience during Napoles’ performance at the gay bar would look at those times with a “Why y’all hatin’?” rather than a “Good riddance, perverts!”

Next the teddy bear asks Napoles if he has “any advice for young kids who might wanna be a drag kid themselves” (6:34-6:38). And his response is priceless, as it includes, among other things, that they should “just start with some lipstick, or, maybe, ChapStick” (6:45-6:49). This was hilarious to me and, frankly, quite refreshing because it blew this whole “drag kid” business right out the water.

What drag queen would give a shoutout to something as unglamorous as ChapStick?

Napoles’ parents and his drag “mentors” probably cringed at this part because not only did it call into question Napoles’ commitment to drag, I would argue that it also called into question his homosexuality. I know that stereotypes aren’t foolproof, and I also know that there are a lot of gay men who don’t wear makeup or dress in drag. But let’s be honest – the guys who would be most likely to conflate lipstick and ChapStick are straight guys.

So the elder Napoles are probably feeling that awkward moment when you realize your 11-year-old might be a closeted heterosexual.

So I enjoyed some laughs about the ChapStick, but my sadness quickly returned at the next segment when the teddy bear asks Napoles what his “favorite thing to wear as a drag kid” is (7:30-7:33). Napoles responds “…some platforms!” (7:34-7:36) with one of those diva hand moves that ends up knocking down a stack of blocks on the table. When I first saw this, I thought, “No big deal. Knocking over the blocks was probably an accident, or he’s just like every other 11-year-old boy who likes to knock over blocks.”

But I realized it was something more when he answered the next question, which was “Platforms? Platform WHAT?” (7:36-7:39). (By the way, it was also super depressing that the teddy bear had to ask him what platforms were. No, it’s not an outrage for kids to not know what platforms are. But it is kind of an outrage that this show’s very young target audience is familiar enough with the terms “Pride Parade” and “queer” that they don’t have to be told what those words mean.)

Napoles responds to this question with, “Platform SHOES!” (7:39-7:40), and there is seriously all kinds of rage that comes out in the word “shoes.” And at that point, I realized that knocking over the blocks was probably just a microcosm of what he wanted to do to everything in the room, including the teddy bear. I can’t say I blame him.

According to Avallone, this QKS gem is evidence that even the most bottom-feeding of projects can always stoop lower. He says, “It’s almost shocking that Queer Kid Stuff would stop promoting the already abysmal crap they usually promote to promote even more abysmal crap. It’s like taking an already stale pizza and sprinkling cancer cells on top” (7:58-8:12).

We see one last bit of what Avallone aptly calls “forced sass” (8:20-8:21) from Napoles as he gives some final advice to his viewers. Napoles encourages kids to “Be yourself always no matter what anyone tells you and pay the haters no mind, ‘cuz they’ll never be as fierce as you and I” (8:12-8:18). Immediately afterwards, we see a genuine smile on his face for the first time as he goes back to playing with the blocks. I think this was mostly due to relief that he remembered that mouthful of a closer and that the interview was coming to an end.

The lack of genuine happiness from Napoles in this video is notable, since it’s supposed to be promoting the lifestyle his parents have chosen for him. If Queer Kid Stuff can’t make it seem fun, who can? (This reminds me a lot of the overarching dynamic in an article from The Guardian about Chelsea Manning that I discussed in my October 24 post entitled “Chelsea Manning Is Still Man Enough.”)

A YouTuber who has done a great job of summarizing what all this means is Lucas (don’t know what his last name is) of The Amazing Lucas. As with Hunter Avallone above, this is not an unconditional endorsement of Lucas’ channel. I don’t agree with him on everything, and there are times when I agree with him, but his delivery is off-putting to me. Nevertheless, he has, in my opinion, very effectively called out the madness that is the subject of this post. In fact, it was from some of his videos that I first learned about the “drag kids” mentioned herein, as well as the too-buried-to-be-infamous Dardo photo.

Lucas makes a very compelling case for how LGBT activism is leading to a normalization of pedophilia. A lot of people, including many non-liberals, roll their eyes at this because they think that it’s saying that all LGBT people are pedophiles or think that pedophilia is okay. That’s not it.

Lucas’ argument is that LGBT activism has been a slippery slope that started with promoting acceptance of homosexuality, then transgender ideology, and now the placement of children on The Acronym. In this video about Napoles, Lucas states that this is “a step towards pedophilia” (1:35-1:37) because “if they’re adult enough to choose their own gender” or a life as a “drag kid,” why wouldn’t they be “adult enough” for an “adult relationship”? (1:55-2:32)

After Napoles danced in the gay bar (as previously mentioned in the section regarding Avallone’s video about him), Lucas did another video about him that focused specifically on that incident. This video was striking to me because I thought Lucas did a good job of explaining how the frog in boiling water metaphor applies to this situation. This is an image that I have referenced multiple times on this blog. It refers to the idea that a frog will (purportedly) jump out of a pot of boiling-hot water, but will remain in a pot of water that is slowly brought to a boil.

Lucas acknowledges that many viewers will have a “knee-jerk reaction” of disgust to the video of Napoles dancing and view the values being presented as “degeneracy” (0:30-0:37). He argues, however, “that as time goes on, that knee-jerk reaction will become less and less severe. It’ll become more mild, it’ll become more docile…” (0:41-0:49).

Lucas’ video about the Dardo photo is notable for the take-no-prisoners language that he uses to describe the state of Western civilization. He opens with, “This is called depravity” (0:00-0:02) and, after introducing the Dardo photo (0:37-0:50), says, “I can’t even fathom…this type of wickedness. This is just pure evil” (0:51-0:57). I also like how he describes the current culture as one that involves simultaneous “dumbing down” and indoctrination of the general public (5:13-5:21).

A possible cause for hope that I see in all of this horrific nonsense is backlash from a number of Twitter-famous people who are themselves part of the LGBT community. One is Fionne Orlander. In the early days of drafting this post, I had a link to his Twitter page over his name, but I removed it when I saw that, according to Twitter, “Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!” I’m not sure if this is due to deplatforming, but I definitely have my suspicions. Even if he wasn’t deplatformed, Twitter is definitely not sorry that his page is gone. He is a Brit who identifies as a “trans woman” and is in the process of medically “transitioning,” but he doesn’t use women’s restrooms because he doesn’t want to make women feel uncomfortable.

**Update: On January 29, I discovered that Orlander’s page is back up, so I have now added a link to it over his name.

Last year he commented on the growing alignment of pedophilic individuals with the LGBT community, saying, “You can’t sit with us.” And on January 12, he retweeted this gem about Huck’s article on young Mr. Melancon-Golden from a Twitter user who calls herself “Deviant Lesbian”:

“We spent decades having to fight against being perceived as sexual deviants, predators, ‘recruiters.’ Please just burn queer theory to the ground.”

Side note: I’m kinda loving a couple of the things that Deviant Lesbian put in the description under her Twitter name (I don’t know what the technical term for that section is). “Unapologetic vaginophile” is problematic, but “runaway from the woke circus” and “queer is a slur” are awesome.

Another LGBT person who is speaking out against this madness is Debbie Hayton, another Brit who identifies as a “trans woman.” It was from his tweets that I learned that the New World Order-preferred term for someone who is attracted to children is “MAP” (“minor-attracted person”). Hayton has tweeted (for example, on December 31, 2018, and January 3, 2019) about Twitter’s separate standards for feminists who use the “wrong pronouns” and pedophiles. As you might have guessed, Twitter has been a lot more trigger-happy with the ban button for the first group than for the second.

I offer the examples of these two men and one woman not to endorse their sex lives or all parts of their worldviews. I think that they and others like them are fighting the good fight when it comes to the role of children in the LGBT movement, and I think that their sex lives and worldviews testify to their credibility. These are not uptight religious nutjobs like me. These are liberal, pro-choice people who don’t think gay sex is immoral and who aren’t even categorically opposed to “transitioning.” (Although, notably, the two men mentioned view it as basically a last-ditch effort to cope with gender dysphoria, rather than something that changes or “affirms” one’s biological sex. They are also opposed to the practice of administering hormone blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender-related surgeries to children. My guess is that Deviant Lesbian feels the same way about children and hormones/surgery, but I’m not sure if she shares the “last resort” view regarding adult transitions.)

Many of these LGBT people who are going against the current consider themselves feminists. And the clashes between them and feminists who support pronoun tyranny and blocking puberty are evidence to me that feminism’s proverbial chickens are coming home to roost. For decades this philosophy has sown division between the sexes, even when certain individual feminists have not. And now that a growing number of men are saying that they’re women, feminism isn’t quite sure how to react. So it does what any other destructive ism would do: splits into warring camps that hurl vitriol at each other, even though they share some of the same core beliefs.

One of the camps is made up of radical feminists, otherwise known as gender-critical feminists, which is the camp that the LGBT rule breakers referenced above would align more closely with. “Radical” in this case does not necessarily mean “willing to break stuff,” so I will typically say “gender-critical” in order to minimize confusion. This group generally believes that men who identify as women should not be allowed to enter female-only spaces (such as bathrooms or locker rooms) or compete on all-female sports teams. (There are some in this camp, however, who are willing to allow men in certain female-only spaces if they have undergone a certain level of “transitioning.”)

The other camp is made up of intersectional feminists. These are the ones who are obsessed with correct pronouns and want men who identify as women to be given full access to female facilities and sports teams. Notably, some of the men who call themselves “trans women” in this camp believe that it is wrong for lesbians to be unwilling to consider having sex with them. Womp womp womp.

As you might have guessed, there is a lot more that could be said about this war, but that will have to wait for future posts.

Suffice it to say that there’s never been a better time for the sexes to stop hating each other long enough to stand up for the safety and well-being of children.

Verso l’alto,
Megan