I Guess I Shouldn’t Feel Badly About Facebook Banning Ethics Alarms…

…since the social media giants are slowly but surely revealing their true nature as machines of speech and viewpoint censorship, and social control.

Today’s Big Brother avatar: Twitter.

Ray Blanchard, Ph.D., a respected psychologist and adjunct professor at the University of Toronto was blocked on Twitter for expressing his opinion informed by clinical experience. His articulately and civilly presented  position was flagged for “hateful conduct.”

The professor served on the working group for gender dysphoria (the persistent condition of identifying with the gender opposite your biological sex) for the DSM V, which contains the official definitions that assist psychologists diagnose patient disorders. Over the weekend, he  tweeted his professional conclusions on transgender identity.

My beliefs include the following 6 elements: (1) Transsexualism and milder forms of gender dysphoria are types of mental disorder, which may leave the individual with average or even above-average functioning in unrelated areas of life. (2) Sex change surgery is still the best treatment for carefully screened, adult patients, whose gender dysphoria has proven resistant to other forms of treatment. (3) Sex change surgery should not be considered for any patient until that patient has reached the age of 21 years and has lived for at least two years in the desired gender role. (4) Gender dysphoria is not a sexual orientation, but it is virtually always preceded or accompanied by an atypical sexual orientation – in males, either homosexuality (sexual arousal by members of one’s own biological sex) … or autogynephilia (sexual arousal at the thought or image of oneself as a female) (5) There are two main types of gender dysphoria in males, one associated with homosexuality and one associated with autogynephilia. Traditionally, the great bulk of female-to-male transsexuals has been homosexual in erotic object choice. (6) The sex of a postoperative transsexual should be analogous to a legal fiction. This legal fiction would apply to some things (e.g., sex designation on a driver’s license) but not to others (entering a sports competition as one’s adopted sex).

This clinical opinion by a qualified expert was reported by at least one, probably many, Twitter users who, like the growing number of progressives within the Leftward social movement, believe that their power and control of society will arrive more swiftly if dissent and contrary views are marginalized, suppressed, and branded as hate speech. Twitter swiftly complied. The professor was silenced. His position was a thought crime: it would not be permitted in the interests of “the greater good.”

Fortunately, Ray Blanchard is internationally known, and Twitter’s tactic shook some nests with pretty big hornets inside. Helen Joyce, an editor at The Economist, wrote,

“Ray Blanchard served on the gender dysphoria working group and chaired the paraphilia working group for DSM V,” Joyce tweeted. “He is a world expert in the field. Twitter has just suspended his account for a thread setting out his findings from A lifetime of research. Unreal.”

Jesse Singal, contributing writer at New York magazine, wrote,

“Gender dysphoria is in the DSM-5. Despite endless rumor-mongering and misinformation to the contrary, it *is* considered a mental disorder. Maybe it shouldn’t be! But it’s beyond insane to suspend someone for expressing an opinion which lines up with the DSM. I have less and less faith that, as a journalist who often writes about science, I will be able to continue using Twitter without getting punished for communicating scientifically accurate information.”

There were many more who condemned Twitter’s nakedly political act. Oops! I guess we were a bit aggressive there! Better retrench, or everyone will be on to us!

After 24 hours, Twitter restored the professor’s account, and said it had made “a mistake.” The mistake, I submit, was that it jumped the gun in the Left’s rush to install totalitarian speech suppression. We’re not quite there yet. Facebook can block Ethics Alarms, because Ethics Alarms lacks allies in high places. If the social media platforms just quietly, incrementally pinch-off dissenting voices that challenge the tactics, distortions and actions of those representing “the right side of history,” the frog will be boiled before anyone notices.

If Twitter and Facebook were serious about supporting free speech, they would suspend the accounts of users who abuse the reporting system, and use it to stifle opinions they disagree with.


Pointer and Source: Tyler O’Neil

7 thoughts on “I Guess I Shouldn’t Feel Badly About Facebook Banning Ethics Alarms…

  1. How long before China or Russia sets up a social media platform with no restrictions on speech or content (screened carefully to their own people, of course) and offers it to the West? How quickly would it propagate across numerous scientific and academic fields, and then offer an unimaginable source of data and intelligence to our enemies, as well as a very effective mechanism to further splinter Western culture?

  2. This is about the most blatant power-grab I have ever seen. Blanchard is a name I am familiar with. I am very surprised that Twitter dropped his account without any idea what the consequences would be. I expect Trump’s account to be next.

  3. Off-topic, but does anybody know how long I’ve been misspelling my own handle? “dargin_dragon”, really? I’ve been using auto-complete…my bad.

  4. The ban was wrong.

    The thing about autogynephilia theory (AGP) is that it can’t be disproved.

    This is because it states that all autogynephiles lie and say they are not autogynephillic, so both A and ~A are regarded as evidence in support by the theory itself.

    In that regard, it cannot be said to be a scientific theory

    Moser’s work showing that cis women and trans women both give the same answers to psychological tests for autogynephillia meant AGP is no longer as fashionable as it was 10 years ago, and it’s now regarded as being up there with “vaccines cause autism” in terms of evidencial basis. Not as harmful though.

    Blanchard himself is a figure who can be regarded as controversial in academe, if only because of his ill advised demonstration of machine powered dildos using paid performers in lectures to undergrads.

    Also his refusal to engage in academic debate with anyone even slightly sceptical of his findings. I gave up trying many years ago, after enduring some very salty language not usually found in academe when i requested some data he claimed to have about MRI scans showing bisexuality didn’t exist.

    That work remains unpublished in scientific journals, though its predecessor popular book “gay,straight or lying” is still available. As is his book “The man who would be queen”, despite the admission that the case studies reported in it were largely fictional, though still supposedly representative.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.