I agree with your parsing as technically sound, though I personally have a rule to give benefit of the doubt about nuance and specificity when reading posts on a platform which encourages an off-the-cuff style of writing and is famous for enforced brevity.

The benefit of the doubt I extend is that being "considered slurs on this platform" is a no-op when the platform doesn't have a policy regarding arbitrary use of slur words. So whether a platform considers a word a slur is only relevant when there's a context — in this case, the context of assessing for repeated, targeted harassment.

> The benefit of the doubt I extend is that being "considered slurs on this platform" is a no-op when the platform doesn't have a policy regarding arbitrary use of slur words. So whether a platform considers a word a slur is only relevant when there's a context — in this case, the context of assessing for repeated, targeted harassment.

I can understand this perspective from a non-affected person, but the signal sent to affected minority groups seems very clear to me, and this makes it relevant for any interaction of the minority group with the platform.

There is no such thing as a "non-affected" person. Everyone is the cumulation of a thousand traits; many of these traits make a person some kind of minority when considered from one perspective or another. What changes from year to year is which traits are enjoying attention, and how minority members of that trait are exploiting that attention.

No, there very clearly is such a thing. If I make it illegal to say the word "gay", non-gay people are much less affected than gay people are.

By that logic, if someone makes it illegal to say the word "cis", then non-cis people are much less affected than cis people are.

Why? Trans people have a reason to use the word cis, whereas cis people usually don't, since it's accepted as "normal".

Precisely. Your logic was flawed.