It is an article about censorship. If someone in the USSR were writing an article about censorship, it would be in line with the articles themes to criticize the government. To make explicit the things being censored. It's the same here.

How is it anti-censorship to deliberately refer to someone incorrectly?

If you call a pelican a seagull, I'm not censoring you if I tell you that it's actually a pelican. And if you continue to call it a pelican because you have a problem with seagulls and think they suck, I'm also not censoring you if I point out you're being a jerk. Free speech goes both ways!

This is more like a seagull that wants everyone to call it a pelican on the dubious basis that it claims to have a 'pelican identity', despite not actually being a pelican.

There's nothing wrong with rejecting that demand and continuing to refer to it as a seagull, is there?

Is there some great and noble reason to police people’s language?

Im impressed by your psychic ability to read a person’s chromosomes just by looking at their face, cause if I saw them out of context I’d assume they were female.

> if I saw them out of context I’d assume they were female

No need to be this much disingenuous, you can express support in other ways.

I went to the article and looked at the profile pic. I don’t care a ton; if she didn’t pass I’d have made a different argument.