Twitter and censorship: “What Is a Woman?”
There’s been a recent brouhaha on Twitter about perhaps not showing “What Is a Woman?” because a few speakers in the Matt Walsh documentary “misgender” some trans people (I’ve seen the film and it’s very good, by the way). Ace has the Twitter story here. It seems that the problem was caused by workers making the decision, and Musk ended up overruling it.
To me, these events are a reminder that there still are probably plenty of Twitter employees who are aching to go back to their old leftist ways, and who will do so unless forced to abandon these practices by Musk or someone else. On the other hand, as a blogger, I know how out-of-control things can get if it’s a complete free-for-all on a website. Some way to filter out spam is necessary, but not just that. Egregious racial and sexual insults as well as porn and obscenities and death threats will actually take over if some standards aren’t set.
But misgendering is certainly not anywhere near where I think the line should be drawn. It’s a reflection of the leftist “words are violence” mantra – that is, any words with which they don’t agree. The trans movement has declared that not using a person’s preferred pronoun is tantamount to actual violence against that person, which is an absurd claim. But it’s an important one, because censorship is one of the left’s main tools – one to fight when they are the ones being censored, and one to implement once they get into power.
Jordan Peterson first rose to prominence by sensing the danger of compelling a person to use certain pronouns. To many people, it seemed a minor issue at the time: why not be polite and call someone what he or she – or they – want? Here’s a video from about five years ago in which Peterson addresses the subject:
At the other extreme of “misgendering,” there’s a UK fashion magazine featuring a pregnant “man” as its cover model for Pride month: “The cover model, who is writing a children’s book called ‘My Daddy’s Belly: The Miracle of Male Birth,’ has documented his pregnancy on a blog and social media. . . . Brown, meanwhile, said he has not been surprised by all the harsh criticism ‘because, obviously, this is not a usual everyday thing.’ He said he and his partner have also received ‘a lot of love, a lot of queer joy.'”
Photos of the pregnant “man” at the link (eye bleach recommended): https://nypost.com/2023/06/02/fashion-magazine-cover-featuring-pregnant-transgender-man-logan-brown-sparks-outrage/
It’ll be interesting to see which of the 57 genders the offspring of this fabulous couple will identify with as it grows up.
Looks like two high-profile Twitter employees left after this latest censorship episode. Good for Elon.
The proper pronoun to use when addressing a person is “you.” You would only use
“he” or “she” when talking to someone else. Why should the person care which pronouns I am using when the person is not around? What’s more, it is very difficult to remember to use feminine pronouns for an obviously masculine person and vice versa. All our instincts are against it.
Anyone asks me what my pronouns are – or I’m simply responding to their assumption I give a shit about theirs – is met with “lord” and “sovereign”.
If there’s a complaint, I tell them that they risk damaging their lord’s feelings, making them haters as well as insurrectionists. If they say those aren’t pronouns, I point out that they themselves have set the rules (eg: ‘frog’/’frogself’, ‘fey’/’feyself’).
Mock them in all seriousness. Put on a confused/concerned face letting them know you simply can’t picture someone being so uninclusive.
I’ll use as an illustrative example the recent Jeopardy multi-champion Amy Schneider. It was not known (but was increasingly suspected) that what appeared to be a woman had, in fact, been born male.
Finally, it turned out that over the course of many games, the champ came out — but that coming out is not the point of my comment here.
Given that Amy Schneider “presents” as a woman, albeit *not* at all a very feminine one, and especially given that the coming out happened many games into the consecutive victories streak (it reached forty!), I will think of Amy Schneider as “she” — but here comes my key point:
I will think of Amy Schneider as “she” for MY psychological comfort and not for the comfort of any other person or entity.
This essentially piggy-backs on J’s (6:47 pm) comment, that the appropriate pronoun to use when talking to the person is “you”, anyway. It’s what *I* am comfortable doing (“all our instincts are against it”), and while I’m not going to be in-your-face about it, especially if for some reason I were talking to Amy Schneider, I am not going to censor my speech or play these lefties’ damnable ideological games either.
Never mind that these trannie activists get jollies being in MY face about their dysphoria, while many vociferously insist that I respect their wishes. When lately have these pests been caught respecting MY wishes?
Jordan Peterson has it quite right.
Whatever went on in the Twitter Knowitall back room, after the two resignations, the film did appear accessibly and I invested an hour and 35 minutes in watching it. Intently.
Damn, it’s good, and by his well thought-out questioning Matt Walsh pretty much got all sides of the debate clearly on the table – we even get to see a couple of trans-favorers taken to their very limits, threatening to end their interviews, and some first-person discussions with those who’d been through surgical ‘transforms’ and had their reflections ready.
I can’t despise enough those who’d censor the distribution of this edifying film – they’d make great kommissars if ‘progressivism’ ever takes control.
I watched about a third of it. My wife and I saw “Unplanned” in a theater when it came around.
When everyone has his own pronouns, won’t pronouns be sort of like names? Doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of having pronouns?
Jordan Peterson is quite right: to use the pronouns that a neurotic narcissist demands is to lie.
Also: Theodore Dalrymple
“In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
See also vranyo
“why not be polite and call someone what he or she – or they – want?”
Because as it turns out, there is a vitally-important distinction between being polite and gracious about giving something, and being coerced into turning it over on command. Only one is voluntary, the other is not.
Doing things voluntarily, out of the goodness of one’s heart, inspires other to reciprocate – and there is also a natural expectation that, when I’m being polite and gracious, that you’re going to be, also. This implicitly-agreed mutual respect is the important building block of a high-trust society.
We can also see what coercion brings, now, too. For those of us that care to see. They don’t call it the Golden Rule for nothing.
@Aggie – here is a vitally-important distinction between being polite and gracious about giving something, and being coerced into turning it over on command.
Bingo. Particularly, in this case, finding the coercers organized into an arrogant mob, who insist on Their Way or the highway, and have evolved grim successes as enforcers.
Remember, Twitter is in San Francisco. People there swim in a leftist sea. Does a fish recognize water? Undoubtedly, whoever(s) wanted to suppress this video was positive they were doing the right thing and heard no dissenting voices, either at work or among their social circles. Trying to change this culture is not going to be easy. Convincing these people that they aren’t on the side of righteousness may not be possible.
Short term solution: coercion. Fire a few – pour encourager les autres and all that.
Long term solution: move the hell out of California.
I’d rather be honest than polite. Their feelings are not my concern.
Re: pronouns to describe an individual’s chosen gender.
“There is no swifter route to the corruption of thought than through the corruption of language.”
“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
George Orwell
Pingback:If All You See... - Pirate's Cove » Pirate's Cove
I watched all of it, it was interesting and worth my time, and did present all sides.
I had no idea on Kinsee:
https://www.winterwatch.net/2022/06/albert-kinsey-the-lying-godfather-of-fraudulent-sexual-research/
The company I work for has asked us to list our pronouns in our profile at work. I was initially hesitant to as I didn’t want to join in the virtue signalling.
However, I have found it useful since our company is so multinational so many times the name is a foreign name to me and I do not know whether it is a man’s name or a woman’s – so listing your pronouns help. Of course, that was not their original reason for asking us to list pronouns; they were just virtue signalling.
…Jeopardy multi-champion Amy Schneider. It was not known (but was increasingly suspected) that what appeared to be a woman had, in fact, been born male.
I strongly suspected it after the 3rd or 4th episode, so I went online and verified. Amy’s facial expressions while thinking or betting were the giveaway.
My pronouns are whatever and f***all….
Kindly try to use them correctly….