Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
You Can’t Say That on Twitter
She tweeted that “men are not women,” and for that, Meghan Murphy, a feminist journalist, was banned from Twitter. An anodyne statement of biological reality qualifies as “hate speech” for some of the gnomes at Twitter HQ. Murphy received a rote notification that “you may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.”
Excuse me, but that sound you heard was me spitting my coffee across the desk. I cannot count the number of times I’ve been harassed on Twitter on some of the above grounds. Twitter has benefits, but let’s face it, threats, vile abuse, and harassment have become a key part of Twitter’s brand. Louis Farrakhan has an account. Terrorists romp through its pixels with ease, and the Russians deploy bots like biological agents. Only a select few offenders are punished or banned.
When founder Jack Dorsey was asked on Sam Harris’s podcast why suspensions and other disciplinary actions always seem to go in a PC direction, Dorsey was phlegmatic, “I don’t believe we should optimize for neutrality.” That was Silicon Valley-speak for “We are not fair.”
That is his right. It’s a free country, and, though hailed as the national cyber townhall, Twitter is a private company. It has declined to engage Murphy directly (Dorsey: “We don’t have a robust appeals process”), but has churned out agitprop about “hateful conduct” with metronomic regularity. This is not to say that Twitter applies even its own vague and shifting standards evenly. I and others have tweeted concerns about the trans movement — particularly with regard to children — without repercussions. But that must have been sheer luck. In Murphy’s case, the company targeted her for violating a policy that it had changed without any public notice. This is the new ban on so-called “deadnaming” — using the former name of a person who transitioned to the other sex. If Murphy’s lawsuit gains any traction, the company may have to explain itself. Until then, we are left to consider the Orwellian dystopia that travels under the name progressivism.
One of Meghan Murphy’s thought crimes consisted of asking, in response to someone else, “How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between a man and a transwoman?” That is what is known as a challenge, not an epithet. It earned her a warning. She also referred to a trans-identified male as “he” — that is the forbidden practice of “misgendering.”
Murphy, along with many feminists and some conservatives, resists the trans movement’s efforts to permit people who are born male to enter women’s restrooms, locker rooms, prisons, and other environments where, as Murphy puts it, “women feel uncomfortable seeing a penis.” This is a live issue. In Washington, DC, women at a downtown health club have retreated to toilet stalls to change clothes since the club now refrains from stopping men who enter the women’s changing room. Who’s to say who belongs where? Wouldn’t want to put a foot wrong in the new gender-neutral utopia. One trans person Murphy identified in print as male was seeking to counsel women at a rape crisis center in Vancouver, though the center hires only women.
Murphy’s website, Feminist Current, has questioned the science and ideology behind transgenderism, and Murphy is indignant that people with XY chromosomes can compete in women’s sports. Personally, I might have taken a softer tone, adding some acknowledgment that people with gender dysphoria deserve compassion. But Murphy is expressing a point of view, dammit, and way too many opinion arbiters here in Oceania won’t have it.
Twitter is hardly alone. Many a mandatory diversity workshop, college orientation, and hotel policy do the same. Three female undergraduates are suing Yale for a fraternity culture that they say enables harassment. Fraternity parties, they claim, place men in positions of power. Ok, but notice the language in the lawsuit: “Simply put, fraternities elevate men to social gatekeepers and relegate women and non-binary students to sexual objects.” Non-binary students?
Murphy’s objection is that this sudden reimagining of what it means to be human has been imposed, not agreed upon, and certainly not discovered by science. Many women, concerned about hurting someone’s feelings, especially — as Murphy phrases it, someone from “a marginalized group” — are shy about standing up for themselves and their own comfort. Above all, these matters need frank discussion, not authoritarian diktats issuing from our Twitter overlords.
Published in Culture
Twitter has protection from libel under the section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This is the idea that they are a neutral platform and not a speaker or publisher. They are allowed to moderate out threats and vulgarity but not political view points.
If Twitter does not gear toward neutrality but excludes view points, then they should not longer be considered a neutral platform. They are picking and choosing who gets published. They should loose their protections and be held liable for all the garbage that ends up on Twitter.
A fine post, Mona, and on one of my own pet topics. More like this would be wonderful.
The same-sex marriage issue and the transgender racket have this in common: unlike any other instance of activism I can recall, they are both focused on compelling other people to use certain words in ways they’d rather not. This flies in the face of the First Amendment. It is also reminiscent of the forced confessions of totalitarian regimes: there is a special kind of evil in compelling people to profess what they don’t believe, in literally forcing them to be dishonest and to misrepresent their own thoughts and feelings. It is an awful theft and debasement.
There is only one solution: quit Twitter immediately. Its marketing potential is not worth the headache. Leaving Twitter entirely will relegate it to an echo chamber, reminiscent of The Nation magazine. That is to say, a siloed environment where the most radical lefties (and Trump, of course) can shout at each other and denounce conservatives to their heart’s content. The rest of us need not be bothered by it.
“The only winning move, is not to play.”
Mona,
Not since Gruber said, “a lack of transparency can be a huge political advantage”, have I heard anything so profoundly ridiculous. Time to drag Jack Dorsey in front of a Congressional investigating committee again.
Fry this guy until his stock price plummets. I know how to handle these things.
Regards,
Jim
Never Twittered. Never will.
@monacharen – outstanding article. Oh my gosh – there are so many issues – I am a new fan of Murphy – she is the Murphy Brown of 2019! I have heard you on Glenn Beck and elsewhere defending families – boys for God sake! I find it ironic, and extremely disturbing, that all this gender crap which took off under Obama, is also coinciding with the new silencing of free speech as well as a new language to filter speech, as well as the “deciders” of what is allowable to be controlled by just a handful of very powerful, very now wealthy companies that run social media. This is the BIGGEST concern, politically, socially, economically, religiously….need I go on? We are just now realizing, what Europe is experiencing, and Chinese citizens, and many others……….
The censoring across Europe is enough to wake up any sleeper of what is going on in this world – where freedom (of the press – of speech – of religion) is being challenged.
You are spitting coffee – PLEASE – keep talking!!