> Surely you can agree that, if the rule is no "misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals", a conservative who is arguing that personal pronouns are

> Surely you can agree that, if the rule is no "misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals", a conservative who is arguing that personal pronouns are silly is either compelled to bow to their opposition or violate the rules. The only thing they are not allowed to do is make direct targeted attacks against a specific person. You can say this is a dumb policy, you can rant about the concept in general, all you can’t do is say “@alice you’re really named Bob”. Similarly, you can rant about immigrants and they wouldn’t do a thing as long as you could resist specifically targeting people. Again, my point isn’t that Twitter was perfect or that they had solved every issue for balancing freedom of speech in an open forum but simply that rules against targeted attacks are not anti-conservative unless you have a very negative view of conservatism. It’s popular to try to score in-group points by whining about censorship but there’s a reason why nobody has been able to provide examples of actual conservative ideas being censored, because they know as soon as they do it’ll turn out to be something else which most people consider reasonable or, like the NYPost ban for hacked materials, a decision affecting one account which was reversed.