Twitter Declares War on Biology

By Michael Brown Published on November 28, 2018

I recently did a little computer-generated test to help determine my “physiological age” as compared to my “chronological age.” (Thankfully, I was 8 years younger than my chronological age, 55 rather than 63.) One of the first questions I was asked was whether I was male or female. Why? It’s because — brace yourself! — men are biologically different than women. What a revolutionary concept!

But if a computer program is going to determine your physiological age vs. your chronological age, it needs to know something about your biology. To repeat, men are different than women.

Medical science understands this.

Genetic studies understand this.

Common sense understands this.

But it appears Twitter no longer understands this.

Updated Terms

So, Twitter has updated its terms of service. It added further information under the category of “Repeated and/or non-consensual slurs, epithets, racist and sexist tropes, or other content that degrades someone.

Specifically, Twitter explains, “We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category. This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.”

Note carefully that last sentence, which singles out “misgendering” and “deadnaming.”

Twitter forbids you from being scientifically and biologically correct. To do so is to risk being banned.

And what, precisely, do these terms mean? To misgender would be to refer to Bruce Caitlyn Jenner as “he.” To deadname him would be to call him Bruce rather than Caitlyn.

Twitter now forbids this usage. Twitter forbids you from being scientifically and biologically correct. To do so is to risk being banned.

This is completely outrageous, not to mention irrational.

It Seems Biology is Bigotry

It turns upside down the very true statement that “biology is not bigotry.” It determines instead that biology is bigotry.

And if you dare raise your voice in protest against this social madness, you risk being banned.

Who cares about your conscience and convictions. Who cares about scientific reality. Speech that falls outside the lines of transgender political correctness is absolutely forbidden.

I was filling out information on a website recently, and because it was ascertaining medical information, it asked whether I was male or female. (There’s that knotty question again!) But no sooner did I click “male” then a message popped up on the screen, assuring me that this company was “inclusive.” They simply needed this information for medical purposes.

That, my friend, is a picture of the upside down world in which we live today.

Sacrificing Truth is Not Protecting From Harm

From the LGBT perspective, Twitter has done something wonderful. As explained by the Advocate, “Twitter has banned the misgendering and deadnaming of transgender people, earning it widespread praise from trans users and their allies.

“The social media platform updated its terms of service on this matter in October, but it was not widely reported until last Friday, Pink News notes. Twitter made the move in an effort to stop anti-trans abuse, which often involves using the wrong gender or old name in describing a trans person. Misgendering and deadnaming are sometimes used to out people as transgender, something that can put them at risk of physical harm.”

Certainly, I stand with the LGBT community in wanting to protect trans-identified people from physical harm. Absolutely. Count me in.

But I’m not about to sacrifice truth and science and personal integrity in order to comply with an increasingly radical social agenda. Not a chance.

Twitter Banned Prominent Canadian Feminist for Stating the Truth

A headline on the Federalist recently announced, “Twitter Permanently Bans Feminist For Writing That ‘Men Aren’t Women.’”

Feminist Meghan Murphy had had a lot to say about her ban. “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…”

Unfortunately, today, perceptions trump science. We’re informed that some men menstruate and that not all women have vaginas. We’re told that children in our elementary schools are subjected to special presentations designed to undermine the idea that boys will be boys and girls will be girls. (Perish the thought! Such thinking is bigoted and antiquated.)

We’re Told ‘Not All Women Have Vaginas’

So, in case you haven’t heard, “Leaders at a college in Michigan decided to cancel its production of “The Vagina Monologues” because it’s discriminatory, given ‘not all women have vaginas.’”

Eastern Michigan University made the decision “after the resource center conducted a survey, asking respondents about ‘The Vagina Monologues.’ Those opposed to the drama said they were concerned about the fact that the production excludes some women, namely those who don’t have vaginas.”

And who might those excluded women be? You can be assured the focus was not on intersex women with biological abnormalities. No, it was on men who identify as women.

Lest you question my logic here, a Washington Post editorial in March argued that women’s protests should drop the vagina symbol. They say it’s because “it leaves out some women — namely, trans women. Not all women have vaginas, and not all vagina-havers identify as women. A rhetorical strategy whose goal is universality falls short if it excludes some of the most marginalized women.”

There you have it.

And all the while, as Ryan Anderson pointed out, even the New York Times reveals painful truths about transgender lives.

War on Biology, Science and Truth

Again, I do understand that there are individuals who do not conform to biological norms. To say it once more, I deplore the intentional harming of those who identify as transgender. And I know that there are happy trans-identified individuals. That’s between them and God.

But for Twitter to forbid users from making biologically accurate statements about others is to declare war on biology, science and truth.

Let’s stand together against this dangerous ideological onslaught.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Ken Abbott

    So stop using Twitter. We all had good and full lives before Twitter existed. We will do so again.

    • GLT

      It’s really easy, I did it.

  • There is no point to being on Twitter, if there ever was one. Please remove your Twitter sharing buttons and together, let’s starve the beast.

    • Paul

      Amen! Along those lines I wonder why Michael keeps using youtube and then repeatedly whines about how they mistreat him. Stop feeding the beast!!

      • Patmos

        YouTube didn’t always censor people for political purposes.

        • Paul

          The change there started many years ago with the firearms community. Google and the rest as well. Banning firearms related advertising and then moving to banning content. To think a hobby and sport enjoyed by millions of Americans, a sport in the Olympics, and a right enumerated in the Constitution of the USA, has been the subject of censoring on par with porn at google, youtube, facebook and twitter for years. Is censoring firearms related advertising and content not ultimately a political statement? And yet now Christians and conservatives think they will somehow get a fair shake from these companies? The writing has been on the wall for a very long time but ignored. Stop feeding the beast!

  • John A.

    I pray the Lord returns soon because this world, while fallen before, has gone totally wheels-off crazy. It’s unsustainable.

    • Not at all. The devil had a 100 year reign from 1917-2017. The devil is now panicking as he has already lost so much control in one year.

      Don’t give up now of all times.

      • The devil’s got his man installed in the White House, so I don’t think he’s too upset. Yet.

        • Howard

          The devil always hedges his bets. You can’t beat him with magic or with politics; he wrote most of the rules for both of those practices.

          “The moral of this story please attend to very well:
          Exactly who the devil is is often hard to tell.
          He may be short and ugly or he may be fair and tall.
          He may just be the man for whom you voted in the fall.”
          — from “The Farmer on the Dole” by P.D.Q. Bach

        • It is very possible that the devil will move onto working with the political right now that the left has outlived themselves.

          you can already see the pagan resentment of Christ forming among right-wingers.

          But the devil has already lost, the right is nothing without Christians. In fact, the right is nothing at all as it is just a retread of past leftism.

        • Howard

          I don’t think you quite understood my meaning, or I suspect you would not have voted it up. The devil would have “got his [person] installed in the White House” regardless of who won the election in 2016. It has been decades since the American people have had an actually good candidate available from a major party in a presidential general election, but even so, the candidates presented in 2016 were truly abysmal. Additionally, our two-party system is like the good cop / bad cop trope. The good cop and the bad cop pretend to be at odds with each other, but this is just a charade; they are really on the same side. That is what I meant by the devil hedging his bets. He wants you to think you can outsmart him by committing fully to “the right candidate”, a strategy that is guaranteed to fail.

          As for the comparison with magic, consider that people who attempt to engage in “real magic” are seeking power over spirits for whatever reason. (This is very different from prayer as Christians understand it, since prayers must come from a humble acknowledgement of weakness rather than a proud assertion of power, and prayers always contain, explicitly or implicitly, “Thy will be done” or “nevertheless, not my will but Thine be done.”) Do spirits sometimes act as though figures drawn with chalk or carefully worded incantations compel them? It seems they do, because this deceives the would-be magician into thinking he is really in control, when in fact he is being played. The comparisons with politics should be clear. People tend to turn to politics in a craving for power, very often a power that they cannot truly possess and are wrong to even desire, and they are led along with the assurance that they will get the power they lust for if they just try hard enough and make enough “sacrifices” by doing things they know to be wrong.

      • John A.

        WI don’t give up. But the Bible is clear regarding the end times. The return of the Lord is the cure. And I’m not sure why you think 2017 had such significance.

        • This is not the end times. The “right” just wants it to because they are cowards and fatalism is an excuse to do nothing.

          The reign of the devil began in 1917 and it was a 100 year reign as agreed upon by God. What is 1917+100?

          Also, 2017 is when the world became truly going mad, had nothing to do with trump.

    • Howard

      Would over-reacting to the policies of a social media company count as wheels-off crazy? Would it count if you act like Rev. 13:17 said, “And that no man might buy or sell or post on Twitter, but he that hath the character, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name”?

      • John A.

        Have you noticed what is going on around you? What schools are teaching? Rulings by the court system? The gender issues? The fact the all logic and common sense is now considered “extreme” and “hate speech”? Yes, the world has gone bat**** crazy.

        • Howard

          Yes, I have, but to borrow a line from Battlestar Galactica, “All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.” It happened, for example, during the Reign of Terror in France, and it happened under the Bolsheviks in Russia. The Albigensian heresy was pretty crazy, too. Maybe you would just consider the persecutions under Henry, Elizabeth, and Cromwell evil, rather than being completely crazy, but they were on the spectrum — and of course there were select Roman emperors, Ottoman sultans, etc. to add to the list.

          But if I complain about these things being crazy, it is because they tortured and murdered good people and deprived them of the ability to support their families, not because they denied them a platform in which to publish their ideas at no cost to themselves. That last inconvenience is not like the others.

          Twitter might well be obnoxious. I suspect that even if it is, enough people on Twitter are obnoxious to make it not worth my time. If, on the other hand, we go through with some of the government regulations some people want to “fix” this problem, so that Twitter is forced to host pro-life people, and if (which is not likely) this survives as Constitutional challenge, it would open up the door to having the Catholic World Report forced to host pro-abortion people. A “fix” that might end up forcing EWTN to host pornography (and in today’s world, you are crazy if you think no one would try to force that if they could) is no fix I want.

          • John A.

            Funny you mention Reign of Terror. I see one coming in our coutry led by the millennial generation. As for quotes, I’ll quote Luke 17:26-36. I’m not advocating govt control of things. Exactly the opposite. What I’m saying is that the end is near. See Rom 13:11-14. I couldn’t care less about Twitter. Deleted my account long ago.

          • Howard

            Oh, the end of the USA is probably near — though, as with the Roman Empire, the name is likely to be claimed by successors who would be completely unrecognizable to the founders. But it’s entirely too provincial to think that USA=world.

            You DID start going on about the Second Coming in response to a story all about Twitter, and here you are talking about the End of the World again, so don’t tell me you “couldn’t care less about Twitter.” You either think that “Twitter Declares War on Biology” has something to do with prophecies in Luke, or you are bringing up an irrelevant non-sequitur, but hey, I don’t know you, and maybe you left a message about the End of the World under a story about tonight’s Pac 12 championship football game.

            If you think the world has never seen as much ugliness as today, you don’t know history. It’s already clear you don’t really know prophecy. You might take the time to look up why St. Cyril of Jerusalem correctly surmised that although Julian the Apostate was clearly *an* antichrist he could not have been *the* Antichrist. But then, the fact that neither Robespierre nor Hitler nor Stalin was *the* Antichrist could have been of only limited interest to their actual victims.

          • John A.

            You’re too smart for me. Time will tell how smart you are.

  • Up_Words

    Here is a good place for a Christian IT specialist to begin a new business/ministry: a Christian social media platform!

  • Patmos

    I said it before and I’ll say it again, the left has become a Monty Python sketch come to life, only it’s not funny because it’s real. How do you get through to these people?

    Jesus said no one can come to me unless granted by the Father, and furthermore Paul wrote that how can they believe if they have not heard? And how can they hear without a preacher? And how can they preach unless they are sent?

    Is there a point where God stops sending people? The West seems to be looking for an answer to that question.

    • m-nj

      The pattern would be Pharoah … he hardened his heart repeated, then God hardened his heart and “gave him over” to his sin and rejection of the truth. All laid out so well by Paul in Romans 1, too, with the repeated refrain “…God gave them over…”

  • QUESTION: Would this have ever occurred in early 1600 America whose governments of, by, and for God were established upon His immutable/unchanging moral law, including Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, and Deuteronomy 22:5?

    ANSWER: Of course not!

    CONSEQUENTLY, there must be a moment in America’s history when her Christian character and biblical course were officially altered.

    That point was in 1787 when a cadre of Enlightenment and Masonic theistic rationalists (aka, the constitutional framers) replaced the early 17th-century biblical governments with their own humanistic government based upon capricious man-made traditions that invariably opened Pandora’s box to this and other abominations being foisted upon America.

    UNTIL Christians and patriots become courageous enough to identify and address the genesis of America’s woes, matters will only get worse.

    FOR MORE regarding these two polar opposite forms of the government, see Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.”

    Then find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.

  • Yossi

    I could understand how it could be a violation of their standards if someone deliberately harassed a specific “trans” person in a manner like “nyah nyah, your name is actually Bill and you’re really a man pretending to be a women” (or whatever), but to merely state a view on the overall issue, especially one so backed up by science and reason and have that judged as “hate speech” and “harassment” is just meshuga (crazy).

    • Andrew Mason

      I would also contend it’s bigotry that in theory violates Twitters ToS. If Twitter bans people from expressing facts e.g. that Bruce is still Bruce, then it is classifying reality grounded individuals as second class citizens. Hmm wonder if a lawsuit might be possible?

      • Try the question in a different context. If you constantly refer to a married woman by her maiden name, wouldn’t that be rude? So too if someone changes their name by deed poll – would you still call them their old name? I would hope, rather, that you would respect them enough to call them by their new name.

        I figure it’s just being polite.

        • Ken Abbott

          Polite on the same level as referring in conversation to the man who thinks he is a poached egg as “Your Yolkiness.”

        • Andrew Mason

          Not at all. I frequently do refer to female friends by their maiden name. It’s nothing personal, it’s simply the way I’ve always known them. The difference with your context is that by getting married they are changing their status – single to married. They’re still the same person and not trying to deny it. By contrast trans claim to be the other gender despite this not being possible. Just as you don’t refer to an anorexic by their weight identity so too you shouldn’t refer to a trans by their gender identity. You need to address the reality of their situation not buy into their insanity.

          • So your premise is that transgender people are insane?

          • m-nj

            Do you REALLY want a response to that question, or are you just trolling to start an argument?

            It’s called “gender dysphoria” for a reason, e.g., it is a MENTAL aberration or defect, and as such, should not be affirmed.

          • OK, I’ve tried twice to post a response. Am I doing something wrong, or am I being censored by a moderator?

          • Andrew Mason

            Most likely you’re trying to use a banned word. If that happens try tweaking your response and then reposting.

            As regards trans being insane, depends on the individual. Some are mad, some are bad, and some are victims of medical malpractice.

          • Thanks. Looks like the issue is trying to link to a medical article. I’ve tried again to get it to work.

            Anyway, TL;DR: gender dysphoria is not classified as a mental illness, and hasn’t been for at least 5 years.

          • Andrew Mason

            Oh I’m not arguing psychology if that’s what you thought. As a soft science the field is even more subject to political influence than other areas of study.

          • Not psychology; psychiatry.
            The medical manual I referred to above is the US psychiatric manual, DSM-5.

          • Andrew Mason

            I’m confusing my APA’s. My bad. Doesn’t change my argument that much though.

          • Is your argument that psychiatry can be ignored because it is (a) not medical, (b) not science, or (c) both?

          • Andrew Mason

            Not ignored, simply treated with a modicum of skepticism.

          • OK, that last post worked, so I’ll try again. And try to remember what I wrote.
            We used to think that many “mad” people were possessed by demons – when our medical knowledge advanced, we realised most of these people had mental illnesses.
            We used to think that some so-called “conditions” (e.g. “hysteria” that only affected women, homosexuality, etc.) were mental illnesses – when our medical knowledge advanced, we realised they were NOT mental illnesses.
            The fifth edition of the psychiatric manual DSM-5, “the term ‘gender dysphoria’ has replaced gender identity disorder. This change in terminology removes the ‘pathology’ from being transgender, which is not a mental health condition.”

          • I’ve tried adding a link to the article I quoted from (I hate unreferenced quotes; I prefer to read articles myself rather than relying on second-hand reporting), but the site doesn’t seem to like that.

          • I’ve tried adding a link to the article I quoted from (I hate unreferenced quotes; I prefer to read articles myself rather than relying on second-hand reporting), but the site doesn’t seem to like that. You may have to cut and paste this:
            www [dot] racgp [dot] org [dot] au/afp/2015/November/gender-dysphoria

  • The biological qualities of biological systems are best identified according to biological fact, not personal preference. Those who fill out government forms according to personal preference should be tried and convicted of a felony: falsifying government documents.

  • Chavoux

    I missed this in the TOS… just deactivated my account. I cannot in good conscience agree to this.

  • Gecks

    Have a feeling I might be torture testing their policy in casual conversation some time soon – and not in some elaborate protest either.

    I’ll be so un-disappointing to find myself banned or suspended.

  • Royce E. Van Blaricome

    It won’t be long before a Christian, or anyone with a still functioning God-given conscience, that has any integrity will be banned from all social media. Try saying an Unbeliever is “spiritually-dead” on FB and see what happens. Yet the God-haters can call Christians lunatics, insane, believers in a “sky-fairy”, bigots, haters, and a host of other vulgar things I won’t repeat and NOT ONE thing is done about that.

Inspiration
If the Foundations are Destroyed, What Can the Righteous Do?
David Kyle Foster
More from The Stream
Connect with Us