For Twitter, even a feminist is ban-worthy if she doesn't hew to the gender-fluidity line

I guess I'm not surprised to hear that there is terminology ("misgendering," "dead naming") for the act of stating what all normal people know to be immutable truth, but I'll confess I hadn't heard of it until yesterday:

With no fanfare, Twitter has changed its terms of service to make it a banning offense for anyone to not play along with men who claim they are women and women who claim they are men.

Repeated and/or non-consensual slurs, epithets, racist and sexist tropes, or other content that degrades someone
We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category. This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.

For those who aren’t immersed in the arcana of militant transgenderism, “misgendering” is the sin of calling a man, or woman, pretending to be a member of the other sex by the wrong pronoun. Calling Chelsea Manning and “he” would fall under this category. “Deadnaming” is calling a person who imagines themselves to be of another gender by the name on their birth certificate. For instance, referring to Bruce Jenner is “deadnaming.” Referring to Bradley Manning as a “he” would ring all the bells.

That makes it much easier to deal with in the LITD stylebook: "Transgender people will, with complete consistency, be deadnamed when referenced in posts."

But you can be a progressive feminist and get in trouble with Twitter for it:

At Feminist Current, Murphy writes about her ban:

What is insane to me, though, is that while Twitter knowingly permits graphic pornography and death threats on the platform (I have reported countless violent threats, the vast majority of which have gone unaddressed), they won’t allow me to state very basic facts, such as ‘men aren’t women.’ This is hardly an abhorrent thing to say, nor should it be considered ‘hateful’ to ask questions about the notion that people can change sex, or ask for explanations about transgender ideology. These are now, like it or not, public debates — debates that are impacting people’s lives, as legislation and policy are being imposed based on gender identity ideology…

On Twitter, Murphy regularly engaged in debates about sex, gender, and women’s studies. In fact, she holds a master’s degree in the field from Simon Fraser University. In other words: She isn’t stupid or a troll. She’s an educated, opinionated woman, seeking to use her Twitter platform to develop her understanding of the topics and to engage others in debate.

“In August, I was locked out of my Twitter account for the first time,” Murphy writes, explaining the timeline. “I was told that I had ‘violated [Twitter’s] rules against hateful conduct’ and that I had to delete four tweets in order to gain access to my account again. In this case, the tweets in question named Lisa Kreut, a trans-identified male.”

Her tweets called out Kreut for trying to boycott and defund Vancouver Rape Relief. Twitter didn’t care what the feud was about or that it was legitimate and fact-based. They only cared about the fact that Kreut was transgender and decided to define disputes about transgenderism as “hate speech.”

This move essentially immunizes transgender nutters from all consequences of their actions and makes any disagreement with them a banning offense.

Every day, Twitter and Facebook become more and more hostile to voices that will not hew to the politically correct line supported by executives in those organizations. Murphy isn’t a conservative she simply believes that men who may or may not have been surgically mutilated to resemble women can never be women (fact check: basic biology says this is true). Facebook and Twitter and Google need some serious attention from Congress and from the Justice Department. They need to be told in no uncertain terms that if they want to act like the publisher and make calls on content then they have to take the bad with the good. That means financial and penal liability for any copyright infringement or criminal act that is facilitated by their services. 

It's always an exquisite thing to see when the Left eats its own.