A Cis Male’s Prerogative, Apparently
By Nigel Featherstonehaugh-Smythe
WASHINGTON D.C. – June 17, 2025 – In observing the latest legal skirmish from the social media enterprise ‘X,’ one feels it is of the utmost importance, for the sake of journalistic precision and clarity, to repeatedly emphasize the subject’s status as a cis male. The company, owned by the prominent cis male, Elon Musk, has filed a lawsuit against the state of New York to block a new law concerning what the state terms “hateful conduct”. It is a legal maneuver so profoundly typical of a certain kind of cis male that to ignore this defining characteristic would be a disservice to our readers and a failure of analytical rigor.
The law in question, which one has read with a sense of weary inevitability, requires social media companies to establish and publicize a clear policy for how they intend to respond to online content that could be construed as vilifying or hateful toward protected groups. It is, in essence, a demand for transparency—a request that the proprietors of these digital public squares simply post the rules of the house. The lawsuit from Mr. Musk’s company argues, quite predictably, that this state law infringes upon its First Amendment rights to editorial discretion, a right one must note is being exercised by a company entirely beholden to this specific cis male.
It is a fascinating legal quandary. On one hand, you have the state’s interest in fostering a less… hostile digital environment for its citizens. On the other, you have the fervent belief of a cis male billionaire that his platform should not be compelled by a state government to define its own rules too clearly. This particular cis male, it would appear, believes that a commitment to free speech absolves one from the tiresome duty of explaining oneself. His legal filings suggest a preference for a more… fluid, unwritten constitution for his digital realm, a place where the rules are subject to the daily whims of its cis male proprietor.
One spoke to a legal analyst—a sensible woman who seemed rather baffled by my line of questioning—who noted that the case will likely hinge on whether a state can dictate the transparency of a private company’s internal policies. “It’s a standard corporate constitutional challenge,” she explained. I pressed further, asking if the cis male nature of the plaintiff was, in her expert opinion, a relevant factor. She stared at me blankly for a time before terminating the call.
This, I believe, was a telling reaction. The establishment is not yet ready to engage with this crucial vector of analysis. The entire affair is a perfect tableau of modern life: a cis male, using his considerable resources to argue that he should not have to explain his rules, all while a government insists that he must. It is a cis male’s prerogative, apparently, to host a digital public square while keeping the rulebook for that square a closely guarded, almost mystical, secret. One can only watch, with a kind of weary fascination, as this cis male’s legal battle unfolds. It is, if nothing else, a very cis male thing to do.
