A liberal woman from Canada has been banned from Twitter for violating its rules against “hateful conduct.” Her sin? Calling out a transgender man for his advocacy of prostitution and pornography as “empowering for women” and critiquing the transgender ideology.
Despite its CEO telling Congress the contrary a few months ago, Twitter has amped up its pattern of politically one-sided application of its terms of service.
Last week, the social media giant permanently banned Meghan Murphy, a writer based in British Columbia, for critiquing transgender ideology online. The platform repeatedly suspended her account for this then ultimately banned her last week, saying such behavior “violated [its] rules against hateful conduct.”
Murphy was truly perplexed at her banning:
What is insane to me, though, is that while Twitter knowingly permits graphic pornography and death threats on the platform (I have reported countless violent threats, the vast majority of which have gone unaddressed), they won’t allow me to state very basic facts, such as ‘men aren’t women.’ This is hardly an abhorrent thing to say, nor should it be considered ‘hateful’ to ask questions about the notion that people can change sex, or ask for explanations about transgender ideology. These are now, like it or not, public debates — debates that are impacting people’s lives, as legislation and policy are being imposed based on gender identity ideology…
Apparently, there is only one way to see the transgender issue, according to Twitter:
On Twitter, Murphy regularly engaged in debates about sex, gender, and women’s studies. In fact, she holds a master’s degree in the field from Simon Fraser University. In other words: She isn’t stupid or a troll. She’s an educated, opinionated woman, seeking to use her Twitter platform to develop her understanding of the topics and to engage others in debate.
“In August, I was locked out of my Twitter account for the first time,” Murphy writes, explaining the timeline. “I was told that I had ‘violated [Twitter’s] rules against hateful conduct’ and that I had to delete four tweets in order to gain access to my account again. In this case, the tweets in question named Lisa Kreut, a trans-identified male.”
Her tweets called out Kreut for trying to boycott and defund Vancouver Rape Relief. Twitter didn’t care what the feud was about or that it was legitimate and fact-based. They only cared about the fact that Kreut was transgender and decided to define disputes about transgenderism as “hate speech.”
Transgenderism is a political ideology. When the “personal” becomes “political,” even gender becomes politicized. To point this out, and to question the validity of transgender ideology isn’t hate speech; it’s engaging in a rational debate about a political issue.
But this proves to be too much for Twitter, which realizes questions of this sort are damaging to the transgender ideology. Actually, if you think rationally about the basis for transgenderism for more than two minutes, you have a lot more pointed questions than Murphy is asking. But questioning ideology leads to uncomfortable answers. So it’s better that the questions, along with the questioner, be banned.
I’d say that Twitter has become a joke, except it’s hardly funny to glimpse the future of the United States without traditional First Amendment protections.
Written by Rick Moran.
A warning to America about the people of Sodom & Gomorrah. . .