To avoid conflation of political and social issues, it might be useful to distinguish "free speech," as protected by the U.S. Constitution, from "unfettered debate," as one might advocate in the search for useful truths.

The constitutional notion of free speech is about doing the business of democratic politics. In a democratic system (whether or not representative), it is important for voters to know what their neighbors are thinking. It is especially important to know that our neighbors are thinking horrible thoughts or false thoughts. How are we to disabuse people of bad ideas if we don't let them voice them? How do we know how hard to push back if we don't see what kind of following those bad ideas attract? Thus, from a public policy perspective, the object of free speech is not to get at the truth but to know how to vote.

Meanwhile, out in the world, people are trying to figure our what's what, which means that private fora devoted to the exchange of ideas need to afford wide latitude to unpopular ideas. If "cisgender" is a slur, it should be allowed so that readers can say so and argue against its use. If the term can't be used, one gets the false impression that it is not being used. But it is. Maybe it's a slur, and maybe it isn't. Maybe it depends who is using it.

Sometimes people announce that something is a slur just do they can see who will believe them and obey them. It's like a negative shibboleth: you can identify the good people by the things they tie themselves up in knots not to say. People old enough to remember Phil Donahue are familiar with the process.

All of this semiotic signaling can go on only under a policy of laissez-faire communication. I think the AI algorithms have reached the point where they can distinguish between unpopular thought and provocation, between strong disagreement and anger. Conversations do sometimes turn into flame wars, and the Sysop may need to step in. But I would argue the censorship of private media should reserved for attitudes not beliefs. And censorship of public speech should be reserved for calls to violence and actionable defamation.