An Open Letter to Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, on the Suppression of my Post on Transgenderism
TO: Jack Dorsey, CEO of twitter, jack@twitter.com
FR: David Gottfried
Re: a) Your expansive definition of hate speech will curb and chill robust debate,
b) My banishment from Twitter runs afoul of the 1st amendment which is applicable even thought you are, apparently, a private entity,
c) What is called transgenderism is often patent psychopathology,
d) the notion that a castrated man equals a woman reflects a debased and misogynistic conception of womanhood,
and
e) Science is something that is always subject to debate and good scientists never bow to a “fact” simply because a liberal democrat says it is a fact.
Dated: October 17. 2021
I writing to you, Mr. Jack Dorsey, with respect to my banishment from twitter. At the conclusion of this e mail, I will supply basic identifying data which won’t be disclosed to the public at large. First, I will relate the operative facts and the reasons why my ostracism from your site was wrong.
Sometime within the past few months (I do not recall the precise date), I posted a message on twitter which was rather critical of doctors who perform medical procedures, on minors, to effectuate a so called “change” of their sex.
If I recall correctly, my post’s most pungent prose was my assertion that the most draconian punishments should be meted out upon “doctors” who chemically castrate pre-pubescent boys with testosterone blockers.
Twitter advised me that this resulted in the suspension of my right to participate in or use twitter.
Twitter gave me an option which would allow me to resume participation and to regain posting privileges: I was told that my posting privileges would be restored if I deleted my “offending” post which found fault with the practice of chemically castrating young boys. I deleted the post. Then I was advised that I would have to do more: I was told that I was compelled to acknowledge that my post had violated twitter policies. Although I deleted my post, I will not say that I acknowledge that it contravened your policies. I will not say I am sorry for that which I believe.
My Right to Appeal Your Determination
I tried to appeal your determination. However after writing one or two brief sentences, I had consumed all the space allotted for my appeal. If users cannot articulate more than a few words in appeals we make directly to you, perhaps we should bring our appeals to the public or the Courts.
Actually, as I write this, I recall a 1971 Supreme Court case that is DIRECTLY ON POINT (This means that the legal points in the case are the same legal points in my case with Twitter)
The facts of that 1971 Supreme Court Case:
A boy walks into a shopping mall with a T shirt or sign that says, “Fuck the War.” (It may have read “fuck the draft.” I read this case years ago, in law school.)
The boy is thrown out of the shopping mall
The boy argues that his 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech had been violated
The shopping mall argues that since it is a private entity, the 1st amendment is not applicable
The Supreme Court rules for the boy: THE COURT’S RATIONALE: The shopping mall is so vast that it has displaced and replaced the public main street of American tradition. The public forums of yesteryear, the village green, the town hall, etc., no longer exist. The Shopping Centre is our new Main street and public forum. Therefore, if one wants to disseminate his ideas, one must go to the shopping mall.
I submit to you that if one wants to express oneself one must trod on your precinct of the internet.
Why you Don’t seem to Understand what Hate Speech Is
I submit to you that my post should not have been deleted and would not have violated any reasonable code of behavior which had been reasonably implemented and construed.
Years ago, before the enlightenment, the Vatican demanded that Galileo hang his head in shame and atone for his wicked idea that the earth moved around the sun. Although you do not have the immense power of the Vatican, your dalliance with illogic recalls the Vatican. You seem to think it is bad to punish doctors for mutilating children’s genitals. I guess that’s another way in which you are like the Vatican as it used to castrate young boys so they might serve in the Church choir.
My position rests on the following reasons:
1) Although draconian punishments are defined as severe punishments, they do not necessarily refer to or connote physical punishments or punishments which transgress the law. For example, a twenty-year prison sentence would be a draconian punishment and it, arguably, fits the crime. Accordingly, it is manifestly unjust for you to banish my post because I call for the imposition of draconian punishments on doctors who mutilate the bodies and biochemistries of young boys.
2) I do not welcome violence, and I abhor violence, but I do believe in the principle of self-defense. A ten-year-old boy is not in a position to know what he wants or what is good for him. Sexuality is fluid and fickle in childhood. A child might watch a cartoon with a charismatic cartoon character, who is portrayed as a female, and that child might be temporarily interested in becoming female. Unfortunately, in these anti-male times, if a bunch of misandristic social justice warriors get their hands on him, they will compliment him if he acts feminine and they will convince him he should be transformed into a chic and svelte female.
Actually, I have known guys. who thought they were females, who grew out of it because of environmental changes. In other cases, the increased male hormone production sparked by puberty modified the boy’s perception of himself and desires, and he soon discarded his “transgender” inclinations.
I knew a boy who, at the age of six, loved to put on women’s make up. (He was the son of one of the biggest power brokers in NYC Democratic Politics) His salvation was his Lesbian Mother (The parents split up when he was a baby). His Mother was what one might call a big bull dyke. She taught him baseball, football, soccer – the works. He was always chosen for games, and he fairly quickly forgot about being a girl.
3) Of course, if such a boy were subjected to the ministrations of malevolent castrating doctors, the liberty effectuated by puberty, or before then through his acclimation to boyish sports, would have never arrived.
4) Perhaps, you take issue with my post because you think it violated Science. Perhaps you think that science is a sacrosanct thing that should never be questioned. Perhaps you think that scientists universally agree that young boys, who someone thinks is a transexual, should lose their nuts
If you believe that science is something that we genuflect before, like a relic in a cathedral, you are mixing up science with religion.
Of course, certain scientific propositions are pretty much beyond question: We know that a disaccharide contains 12 carbon atom, 22 hydrogen atoms and 11 oxygen atoms. We know what ionic bonding is, and we know what a retrovirus is. But there are so many things that are debated forever:
a) Some people think that homosexuality is inborn. Some people think it has an environmental etiology. To satisfy the people who think it is inborn, should we censor all posts that say it is environmental. Or to satisfy people who think it is environmental, should we shove off of twitter everyone who thinks it is genetic.
b) Just how oncogenic is estrogen anyways. For decades, people said that estrogen therapy, for post-menopausal women, could increase the risk of cancer. Some years back, they said the risk was not that great. Consequently, more women got estrogen and more women got cancer. Now people are more inclined to believe that the cancer risk is pronounced, and the use of estrogen has waned. Why is the prevalence of estrogen therapy always changing ? Is it because the science is changing or because the relative strengths of the competing ideological factions is constantly changing?
c) In 19th century France, Pasteur argued that doctors should wash their hands because disease was often caused by germs one could not see. The established, rich surgeons of Paris considered him a nut. Since his view was the view of the so called ignorant, rural provinces, should the surgeons of Paris have been permitted to censor his ideas.
I must say to you, Mr. Dorsey, that since I did not advocate violence, and since ideas are often fluid and should be freely debated, my banishment from twitter should be renounced, cancelled and negated immediately.
My name: David Gottfried
I think on Twitter I might be known as DastardlyDavid.
The following portion of the letter will not be public:
(Redacted)
Sincerely
David Gottfried