Meta's 'Free Speech' Push Will Make Real Conversations About Trans Issues Impossible

I wrote in 2018 that platforms need basic standards to enable actual debate. Now we're about to see what happens without them.

In November 2018, I wrote a piece for the New York Times about Twitter's then-new policy prohibiting "targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals." My argument was straightforward: By setting some basic guardrails around how trans people could be discussed on the platform, Twitter was actually enabling better, more substantive debates about trans issues.

---

---

Here's what I wrote at the time:

These are all debates that can, and should, be had in a reasonable, respectful, policy-oriented way. Instead, through misgendering and deadnaming, each conversation is handled as a referendum on our legitimacy and existence. The truth is that I’m unlikely to ever persuade people dead set on the idea that I am not who I know myself to be, and there’s virtually zero chance of someone else convincing me that I’m not.

Well, it's 2025, and both Twitter (now X) and Meta have completely rejected that approach. Meta's announcement last week that they're "getting rid of a number of restrictions on topics like immigration, gender identity and gender that are the subject of frequent political discourse and debate" is a direct reversal of the principles I argued for.

Zuckerberg photo: Com & O; Musk photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

The cruel irony here is that this move will accomplish exactly the opposite of what Meta claims to want. In 2018, I wrote:

I tend to be somewhat shy about media appearances, especially when it comes to TV. In the back of my mind, whenever I’m invited on, I wonder whether I’ll be able to discuss the day’s topic or whether I’m going to get roped into a debate over my own existence. I know many trans people who feel the same.

That's the reality Meta is now enshrining as policy. Every discussion involving trans people will inevitably devolve into a referendum on whether we should exist at all. They're not expanding the discourse; they're ensuring it stays stuck at its most basic and dehumanizing level.

Want to discuss the nuances of youth mental healthcare? Sorry, first you'll have to defend your right to be called by your own name. Interested in having a thoughtful conversation about athletics policy? Better be prepared to repeatedly explain basic biology. Hoping to contribute expertise about education or workplace discrimination? Well, you'll need to start by justifying your very presence in the conversation.