Twitter has stepped up its war on reality.
Last week, it permanently banned a feminist who committed the unconscionable sin of repeatedly insisting that men aren't women. This past weekend the company clarified its stance on the issue. According to the new rules, you are not allowed to engage in any "slurs" or "tropes" that might offend transgender individuals. These "slurs" and "tropes" include "misgendering" and "deadnaming" a transgender person. Of course, "misgender" means referring to a person by their biological (read: actual) sex. "Deadnaming" sounds like a codeword the CIA might use, but apparently it means calling a "transgender woman" by his original male name, or a "transgender man" by her original female name. Any of these offenses might earn you a permanent ban from the platform.
Some conservatives seem surprised by the increased attempts to silence those who acknowledge and affirm biological realities. I am only surprised by their surprise. This was always inevitable, and it will only get worse from here. After all, what other choice does the Left have? They literally cannot engage with the other side of this debate because there is no debate. "Transgenderism" is an article of faith. It has no referent in physical reality. It cannot be defended logically or scientifically. If they are going to maintain their radical theory of gender, they can only do it through intimidation and force.
The leftist position on this topic is so divorced from reason, so utterly indefensible, that they cannot even explain their own view, let alone defend it against an intellectual challenge. They can only issue assertions and then shout ad hominems at anyone who refuses to immediately believe and adopt their philosophy wholesale. To demonstrate this fact, here are five very basic questions that any proponent of "transgenderism" and gender fluidity should be able to answer easily, but cannot:
1) How precisely does a biological male come to the conclusion that he is really a woman?
2) If he arrives at this conclusion based on the fact that he "feels like" a woman, how does he know what it feels like to be a woman?
3) What exactly is a female feeling?
4) Even if it made sense to speak of female feelings and female thoughts, and even if it were possible for a man to know for certain that he is experiencing those feelings and thoughts, in what objective sense do those feelings and thoughts make him a woman rather than simply a feminine man?
5) But the Left tells us that gender is a social construct. They reject the idea that women must necessarily have any particular feeling or thought or taste or preference. If gender is indeed an artificial construct and our physical features have no bearing on our identity as "man" or "woman," then what in the hell is a woman? A woman, in that case, is not defined by her feelings, thoughts, ideas, preferences, or her body, reproductive organs, chromosomes, DNA, etc. So what is she defined by? If he isn't defined by anything, then how does it make sense to call yourself a woman? Isn't that like calling yourself a whooziwhatsit or a thingamadoodle? Isn't "woman" now a term empty of all objective meaning?
I have never heard any leftist offer a satisfactory answer to these questions. Rarely have I seen anyone even attempt an answer. That's because there is no answer. They are proposing square circles. They are insisting on something that is not only scientifically but logically impossible. All they can do with such an insistence is insist it. Only logical propositions can be explained and defended. So, they don't bother. And why should they? If they can make their ideas mandatory, it doesn't matter that the ideas are absurd.