On December 11, 2019, the 4thWaveNow Twitter account was disabled. That morning, we received an email from Twitter, claiming we had engaged in “hateful conduct” with this tweet:

Presumably, the “hateful conduct” was our use of the term “natal male” in the tweet’s concluding clause. In its Rules and Policies document, Twitter says a tweet that engages in “hateful conduct” will “promote violence against, directly attack or threaten” someone on the basis of their identity.

Did this tweet engage in hateful conduct?

Let’s let the founder’s daughter speak for herself, shall we? She belongs to a population of young lesbians who once believed they were trans—a population Katy neither advocates for (yes, we do) nor understands from personal experience, being a natal male.

The now-unavailable tweet also included a link to an article by the daughter of 4thWaveNow founder—a 22-year-old lesbian and cofounder of the Pique Resilience Project—wherein she describes her former trans-identification and subsequent desistance.

We appealed the false claim that the term “natal male” is “hateful” (more on that terminology shortly). Our appeal was immediately denied, and two subsequent appeals have been thus far ignored. Our only option appears to be deleting the tweet to end our total account lockout. Right now, this is what Twitter users see where the tweet originally appeared.

But the plot quickly thickened. On the day our account was frozen, the journalist Jesse Singal wrote an email to the Twitter press office, inquiring whether mention of biological [in this case, “natal”] sex was now against the Twitter rules. Singal expressed concern that such suspensions might affect his own work.

Singal received an email response from Twitter employee “Liz” which he posted on his Twitter feed. Liz couldn’t have been more unequivocal in her mea culpa on Twitter’s behalf:

“This was our mistake and shouldn’t have been actioned….We work quickly to make [it] right.”

Case closed? Evidently not.

It has now been 6 days since the lockout, with no responses to our appeals, no unfreezing of the account, no emails from Twitter…nuttin’. Since “working quickly” is highly unlikely to mean almost a week (especially given the use of past tense in Liz’s email), we can only surmise that the Twitter representative–clearly someone with significant authority–either lied to prominent journalist Jesse Singal (to what end, exactly?), or something else happened behind the scenes that caused “the team” to ignore Liz’s very clear admission of fault on Twitter’s behalf.

Our only option continues to be deleting the tweet (and taking an undeserved “strike” against our account–something we’ve not had in five years of tweets), but given Twitter’s self-admitted “mistake that should never have been actioned”—why should we delete it?

Since it’s unlikely Twitter suspended the 4thWaveNow Twitter account for anything other than referring to birth sex, let’s look a little closer at the term “natal male” and whether (and how) it should be interpreted as “hateful conduct.” This is of particular interest, since the very next morning after our account was frozen, another report against us turned up in our email—this time for using the term “natal boys.” But this time, Twitter rightly concluded the tweet broke no rules.

Putting aside the obvious inconsistency in Twitter’s “hateful conduct” policy, “natal male” is not, in fact, “misgendering,” a Twitter policy we are well aware of:

How does using the term “natal” in reference to birth sex “dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes”? The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), version 5 (DSM-5) uses the term at least six times in its latest rendition—including in its definition of “transgender:”

The DSM-5 defines “gender assignment” thusly:

And it’s not just the DSM-5: Natal [sex or gender] is a term used by many trans-supportive sources, websites, and scientific studies. It’s a standard term often used as a synonym for “assigned sex at birth” or AMAB/AFAB.

Be that as it may, whoever(s) reported our tweet clearly thought the term “natal male” was offensive. Fair enough: They could have (instead of tattling to the Twitter Thought Police) engaged an argument here, and there are at least two we’ve seen routinely before: (a) a trans woman has always been female, and/or (b) just because someone was “assigned” male at birth doesn’t mean they don’t understand the experience of lesbians born female [leading us back to (a)].

Mature adults who approach matters in good faith engage in discussion, usually hoping their conversation partner can, at the very least, see their point of view (if not agree with it). But that’s not what people who tattle to Big Tech censors do. Instead—like the authoritarians they are—they try to shut down those who don’t conform 100% to their point of view.

Mass reporting, gaming the Twitter terms of service, playing “gotcha” on Twitter—what, exactly, do the trans-activist scolds think they have achieved? When, in fact, has the suppression of dialogue resulted in changing anyone’s mind?

If “natal male” is a term of offense, can it be long before the term “transgender” itself is verboten? Because “trans” or “transgender” explicitly refers to transitioning from one state to another state. Why allow the term at all, since it points to the inconvenient truth that a person was at one time something different?

Perhaps that is the end game: Make any and all terminology that would differentiate a trans person from a “cis” person unsayable (oddly, “cis” is not on the Twitter Thought Police list of bannable Crime-Words, given that many of us take offense at it), and you’ve achieved at least one Orwellian goal:

“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”—George Orwell, 1984

The key point here is of greater import than one Twitter account (of many) being muzzled by this absurd but ominous censorship. The real issue is the chilling of everyone‘s discourse, the right to be exposed to many varied opinions on (like it or not) the social media platform most used by those with power to influence policy and public opinion.

To stay afloat on the platform, we are forced to write and converse with each other in coded, sanitized language; to paraphrase and obfuscate meanings. Orwell’s Big Brother couldn’t have thought of a better medium to control the masses.

When you silence someone by misusing the (already censorious) policies of one of the most powerful social-media companies in the world, you’ve tainted thought itself.

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” — George Orwell, 1984

Is it any wonder so many people now question the motives and tactics behind (what many of us originally thought was) the Next Civil Rights movement–a movement we started off supporting?

Stay tuned for updates.

Share this: Twitter

Facebook

