And yet, is it just as offensive to force someone to say something they don't want to say? Why is offense only a one way street? I can't offend you but your cna offend me?
Actually, there are many things you can already do that may offend a subset of other people, but they're legal and protected. One of them is saying that certain people shouldn't be allowed to marry the person they love because of their sexual orientation or that they worship false gods. You can say that at church, on a TV channel that chooses to host you, or in a public gathering, and you won't be censored in any of those cases.
The difference with pronoun usage is that consistent and deliberate refusal to address a person with a pronoun matching their gender
in a professional or private venue is, to many people, just as disrespectful as it would be for someone to intentionally and repeatedly address you or me as "she" even though we're men and fully identify as such. If someone doesn't want to address a coworker or classmate respectfully—whether through usage of appropriate pronouns or otherwise—because they believe they would be "forced" to do so, their only option is either to avoid contact or be disrespectful.
Which workplace or school functions like that? How many of them allow employees or students and teachers to disrespect each other if they don't want to be "forced" to remain respectful? Tensions exist among coworkers in many different situations, and some people can't stand their coworkers or classmates. They're still required to treat them with respect and professionalism in the workplace or at school. Otherwise they risk getting fired or reprimanded, and for good reason. No functioning institution wants discord and strife within its premises just because a subset of the people in it refuse to uphold professionalism and respect toward others.
This is what hit me... here we have two different philosophies of life and yet can find a commonality.
I'm pretty sure almost any two people can find commonalities on at least a few issues. I believe charity is a noble endeavor. I think you do as well, based on previous posts. I believe respecting the elderly and being patient toward them is a positive quality. I suspect you agree. I believe that people should be free to practice their religions even if I don't share their beliefs. I suspect you also agree.
There. I just listed at least three highly consequential issues on which we probably agree, and I didn't need more than a few minutes to do so. I don't think it's rare or difficult to find other commonalities among people with generally diametrically opposed worldviews.
Wow... I'm not sure if we are trying to create a scenario to fit a narrative. BUT...
I created the hypothetical to illustrate my point that many establishments already have a myriad of rules, whether written or not, that guide conduct and interactions within their premises. I don't think that including trans people within the groups that deserve basic respect is radical, unique, or difficult. It's an extension of age-old etiquette to a group who are finally gaining more visibility in some countries that previously sidelined their basic rights and brushed aside their existence.
The more I think about this issue, the more convinced I become that there are basic rights that many cisgender people take for granted and therefore don't relate to having to obtain from scratch, as trans people now have to do in some countries. I don't have to worry about being called "she" even though I fully and unquestionably know I'm a man. I don't have to worry about being unable to complete a difficult and lengthy medical process because my access to it could be revoked or prohibited in the future, hinging on what some medically unqualified politicians think. I don't have to worry about being called slurs or possibly even getting physically assaulted if the wrong people find out that my body doesn't match my identity.
The list goes on, and I'm sure I'd never be able to cover everything. I just think that the least I could do is make things easier when I can, such as by not misgendering someone and shoving in their face that their body doesn't match their gender.
What I am not saying is that we have to create contention on purpose, that we shouldn't try to be civil or irritate someone on purpose (whenever possible). I remember a day I went to a home group where the leader got upset because I came with sandals and was offended. At some point... get offended.
Misgendering someone repeatedly and after being told that it disrespects them seems to me to create contention that could have been avoided with minimal effort. In these discussions, I've seen a lot of talk about how we shouldn't let feelings direct our actions. Does that include not letting the denial or invalidation of a trans person's identity dictate one's approach to them in a professional or educational setting? After all, it seems to me that maintaining respect and professionalism despite personal feelings is a sign of maturity and robust emotional control.
What is real is that thought and speech control is what has gone haywire:
Police arrested a teenage girl, who is autistic, for a
dailycaller.com
Should thought and speech control be so stringent?
The article you linked details an incident of gross misconduct by a British officer (so neither in the US nor in Canada, the respective countries of Bill Maher and Jordan Peterson), who is being investigated for what she did. It no more reflects on hate speech laws than police misconduct in the US reflects on laws against theft and driving under the influence. Just because a corrupt or unprofessional officer cites a charge pertaining to a specific law while or after acting abusively doesn't mean there's any problem with said law per se.
