"How Twitter's Ban On 'Deadnaming' Promotes Free Speech"

Translation: how suppressing free speech promotes free speech.
   At least Molloy is kinda sorta trying to engage with real issues. Not very well...but I appreciate the effort. I don't see anything in there really worth addressing in detail. There's the usual hyperbolic nonsense to the effect that any transgression of trans ideology is tantamount to threatening their "existence." And, of course, there's the central dispute about whether or not using their old names can reasonably be considered some horrible thing. I mean, all sorts of things can be done annoyingly, and/or with bad intent. Even just using a form of someone's name that they don't like can be assholish--consider some conservatives's insistence on referring to Obama as "Barry." I actually tend to agree that somebody who insists on calling Jenner 'Bruce' all the time is, well, kinda being an asshole. I do not in any way agree that there is something wrong with noting that Jenner's name was 'Bruce' for most of his life, nor with noting that Jenner is, in fact, a man. But writing either of those truths on Twitter--not that I would ever write anything on Twitter--would get me banned.

   I also agree that people who consider themselves "trans" should be able to have other conversations without the topic always turning to their sex-and-or-gender. On the other hand, when you're saying something obviously false about yourself and demanding that everyone else pretend that the falsehood is true--e.g. demanding that you be referred to as 'she,' when you're clearly male--well...you don't get to complain when people refuse to do so. You're the one making the unreasonable demand. Sorry/not-sorry that it bothers you that others fail to comply with your unreasonable demand. There's a difference between (a) someone standing up and irrelevantly announcing  that you're a dude, and (b) someone refusing to comply with your demand to refer to you as a woman (or a man) when you obviously aren't. It's like telling someone to speak of you as if you were 6'5" when you're obviously 5'2".
   I expect Twitter is not banning people for e.g. calling Obama 'Barry.' Furthermore, I'm not falling for the argument that actually banning speech because it might, hypothetically, make others feel comfy enough to speak more is a good trade-off. Needless to say, Twitter gets to do what it wants as it's a private company. But what it wants is--as can no longer be denied--to suppress conservative speech. And not even just conservative speech: but, rather, speech that fails to be in punctilious accordance with the latest made-up points of far left etiquette. I mean, I expect that the only reason I don't get banned is because blogs are now antiquated backwaters nobody pays attention to. If Google ever notices me and cares, they'll squash this blog like a bug.
   And you're next, bucko--or next after that--almost no matter who you are.