Twitter censorship re who exactly has a penis?

[Oldstyle]

Here's a consultation from Twitter who are proposing expanded 'hateful conduct' guidelines:
"Dehumanization: Language that treats others as less than human. Dehumanization can occur when others are denied of human qualities (animalistic dehumanization) or when others are denied of human nature (mechanistic dehumanization). Examples can include comparing groups to animals and viruses (animalistic), or reducing groups to their genitalia (mechanistic).
Identifiable group: Any group of people that can be distinguished by their shared characteristics such as their race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, serious disease, occupation, political beliefs, location, or social practices."
No mention of 'sex' as a characteristic here you notice so women are fair game but we won't be able to mention that, for example, Karen White has a penis. Or am I jumping to conclusions? Either way, please respond to the survey. It's very short.
blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/company/2018/Creating-new-policies-together.html

And here's a screen shot of one response:

The censoring of women's speech is getting to absolutely ridiculous levels. I told twitter exactly what I thought of their policy and would suggest as many people as possible do the same.

I have the feeling it won't do any good though. I am feeling pretty depressed about it today.

It it pretty fuckinf dehumanising to deny someone their right to the definition of their sex.

I find it dehumanising to be called a “menstruater” or “cervix possessor” when the word “woman” would apply.

What do you reckon the chances are that this is what they mean?

Slight to be honest Lets - there's been nothing about Twitter to date that makes me feel that they have women's safety and dignity at heart. The reference to 'reducing people to their genitalia' and the absence of 'sex' as a defining feature of a group does seem to suggest that this proposal has a very specific intention i.e. to get GC people off Twitter.

Filled it in, but I guess Twitter will just hound women out anyway.
I'm too angry about all this now to keep quiet.

Surely it contradicts itself or am I being thick?

It says it’s bad to reduce groups to their genitalia.....then talks about identifiable groups which are any group which share characteristics.

Surely women have a shared characteristic by virtue of the fact they all possess vaginas and XX chromosomes?

I tell you what, I would love not to have to think about what's in people's pants. Unfortunately, from the day when my mother had to sit me down, aged 9, and explain what was involved in two of my schoolmates having been raped in the local fields, so that I would understand why I was no longer allowed to roam around the fields climbing trees and damming the stream and all the other stuff 9 year olds love doing with their mates, I have had to worry about it.

I worry about it when men cat call me. I worry about it when they grope my arse. I worry about it when I have to talk myself out of dodgy situations. I worry about it walking home at night. I worry about it when I'm alone in a train carriage with a man behaving erratically and aggressively.

I don't do this because I am obsessed with genitals. I do this because some men - a minority, but still far too many - use their genitals to rape women. And some of those men* (Karen White, Davina Ayrton, Jessica Winfield/Martin Ponting, the list goes on and on) identify as trans.

*Yes, I am going to refer to these convicted rapists as men. Several years ago I explicitly asked whether I would be deleted for "misgendering" a convicted rapist, and Justine herself came on the thread and said no.

The send button doesn't seem to bw working for me. Also notice they use gender instead of sex.

I filled it in with a heavy dose of sarcasm. It will make zero difference, Silicon Valley won't care about what we think.

twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1044621851320877057

There is a summary here for anyone who hasn't already seen it.

Its wonderful, women abused and threatened by men and "they are looking into it" until you give up complaining.

The send button doesn’t seem to function.

I completed the survey and listed "pregnant persons" "cervix havers" "nonprostate bearers" and "not men" as example of terms which meet the definition of dehumanizing language by defining women by their biological functions or by what they are not.

I forgot menustruators

I don't do this because I am obsessed with genitals. I do this because some men - a minority, but still far too many - use their genitals to rape women.

Exactly. And I wish I could expend more energy on working out why and less energy on trying to hold on to the rights of women.

I couldn't get it to post first either, kept getting an error about the first question (selecting how clear it is) even though I'd done that. Then tried it in a private browser window and it worked

I have the full set (the other components being life and liberty).

I filled it in, not quite so eloquently though. Those that are having trouble, have you tried a different browser? Someone said it works in chrome. Worked on Opera for me too. Maybe it doesn't work so great on phones?

It's very hard to fill in on my phone, impossible to edit the text in the boxes. Also a very badly designed survey with a lot of free text rather than tick boxes, which allow an overview of actual responses.

A bit like the Mumsnet censorship information, it reads like word salad. This is a feature of all of the writing inspired by TRA philosophy: it basically doesn't make sense and has to jump through hoops to say anything concrete without using any of the offensive language. Because that's the way we've talked about material reality for centuries and the language has developed to reflect that reality.

Will changing the language prevent us from understanding reality, or will this experiment with mind control fail, because ordinary people will continue to see what's in front of them and discuss it in the terms they've always used?

Anyone on Twitter, might be worth @ing marthalanefox in all of this. High profile woman on their board. She must feel super proud to represent such a misogynistic organisation.

Well to me that rules put the use of TERF as that term directly relates to sex.

For Q1 I included that they have omitted sex which is a protected characteristic in the UK and EU (Equalities Act 2010) and not the same as gender. (It was difficult trying to get that in with everything else in 280 characters )

FWIW on all these consultations when they confuse or replace gender with sex. I mention the Equalities Act and how sex is biological fact.

Twitter has issued a clarification that the policy is meant to be you can't call people "maggots" or whatnot or claim women (they blacked that out and inserted [gender]) are only good for sexual intercourse.

We shall see.