But we see that the Inquirer wants to be proactively censorious.
Why? Economic reasons? A religion-like desire to police what they suppose is morality? A desire to avoid giving their political opponents more power?
This is absurd, how are you supposed to slide past them without at least speed-reading the very content you're offended by? I fail to see why priority has to be given to the people who go out of their way to make others miserable.
“Women getting paid less in the workplace is because they purposely pick lower paying jobs, not because they’re discriminated against”
“The BLM protests from last year were more riots than protests and were not justified considering the events that sparked them”
“Transsexual people are experiencing a mental disorder and this shouldn’t be encouraged or accepted”
How are you not taking a position on these if the question is in regards to "true things that happen to be taboo to say"?
The second semi-factual ("not justified" is a maybe subjective distinction);
The last is purely subjective, both in the "shouldn't" and the somewhat vague definition of "mental disorder".
That said, the furore around TS seems to be as much about enforcing terminology that appears to muddy-the-waters wrt biology i.e. what "woman" means, or should mean.
As a counterpoint, by invoking the "bear trap" argument you are dismissing the only possible way to prove your point. Both sides sound like logical fallacies to me.