Edit 2: Regardless of Rule 2, YDI for the flagrant Rule 1 violation for titles.

I don't think this comm has an acronym for this, but:

• Erin in the Morning advertises itself as the personal blog of Erin. At a glance, there's zero indication this isn't a Rule 2 violation.
• ~~I saw this post just a few minutes before you posted this (and upvoted it? I forget). So the fact your post here is multiple paragraphs long tells me that as soon as it was pulled, you rushed here instead of trying to dispute it with the mods, immediately assuming transphobic bad faith was the reason your post (which at best toes the line of Rule 2) was removed.~~ Edit: I made a mistake here and confused this with the same article posted in another comm. Although it still doesn't seem like you tried to message the mods before this for clarification or to try and appeal, which is the main point – namely that you're assuming transphobic bad faith without at least trying to talk with them first given your post at best toes the line.

At worst, YDI because it's against a stated rule, and at best (assuming this is worked on by a broader editorial team), you're not giving them a chance to reconsider and instead assuming the absolute worst of them.

Edit: Scrolling back to the beginning of this year, I see two authors: "Erin Reed" and "S. Baum (They/Them)". I was able to find contributors before that, but it's pretty clear the Substack in the last year is just a couple of people writing without a broader editorial team or other entity behind them. And there's literally zero evidence EITM is incorporated; you just said surely it must be.

If I had to enforce Rule 2, I would've removed this for being a personal Substack blog – even though I don't agree with the rule. (And would instead predicate the rule on reliability.)

This isn't about "is this a good rule". I liked the article, found it informative, and wished it stayed up.

Edit 2: Also, OP, there definitely is a rule against what you did to the title:

If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive.

The original title is:

Iowa Dem Josh Turek Releases Anti-trans Ad Calling For A Federal Funding Ban On Trans Care

There's nothing ambiguous about this headline; nothing about it needs changing to "add context" or "be more descriptive" short of maybe clarifying that he's running for Senate.

Your title is:

Republican Josh Turek [this is false; Josh Turek is a member of the Democratic Party in the Iowa House of Representatives and was literally endorsed by Barack Obama], Successful Subverter of the Iowa Democratic Senate Primary [did I miss something? It literally just seems like Turek ran against Wahls normally and won], Continues Democratic Party's Degeneration Towards the Support for the Liquidation of Transgender Americans.

So you completely changed the original headline, increased its length by over 50%, and did so in order to fit in an outright lie and then editorialize to fuck and back. YDI for the Rule 1 violation alone.