If you try to speak for the Black community, and you aren't black, you don't have the "wrong color of skin", you are speaking for others without their permission, and they have the right to correct the record if they consider your take to be inaccurate.

If you try to speak for the trans community, and you aren't trans, you aren't being censored, you are being rebutted. Trans people have the right to correct the record when someone speaks on their behalf in a disagreeable way.

Anyone who sees disagreement as a form of censorship needs to take a step back and recognize that the right to disagree is an important facet of free speech, and attempting to defeat things like "cancel culture" and other vocal forms of public disagreement is a demonstrably larger threat to free speech than anything the social justice community could ever dish out.

Censorship is largely being redefined as experiencing consequences for what one says. This is an extraordinarily cowardly misrepresentation of censorship, that tries to redefine free speech as your speech, and tries to force the narrative that disagreement with your speech is actually stripping you of the right to speak.

Sure, public shaming and doxxing may have a chilling effect on many people's willingness to speak freely, but a lack individual willingness is not equivalent to a lack of permission.

Free speech requires bravery. If you are too much of a coward to speak freely, you aren't being censored, you're just a coward afraid of others' free speech.