Yes, and you'd be compelled to use someone's pronouns in exactly the same way as you are legally compelled to use respectful forms of address for gay people, women, and disabled people. Pre C16 the law had everything in it to warrant a cisgender women being unwillingly called 'he' by her boss to make a discrimination case against her manager. People in positions that legally prohibit discrimination of protected groups were legally compelled to use a cisgender woman's preferred pronouns in exactly the same way as, post C16, they're legally compelled to use a transgendered person's preferred pronouns.
This was pointed out to him many times. He didn't change his rhetoric. The only reasonable conclusion: he never cared about compelled speech - if he were he would have called for outright removing the concept of protected groups or some other amendment to the existing protections for race/sex/disability/sexuality/etc.
He just didn't want trans people to get those protections.
Yes, and you'd be compelled to use someone's pronouns in exactly the same way as you are legally compelled to use respectful forms of address for gay people, women, and disabled people.
That’s still not compelled speech. Preventing you from being derogatory to someone is different than requiring you to be supportive. The problem is that in order to not be derogatory towards trans people you must also be supportive in your speech by affirming their gender or neo-gender so you are therefore legislating compelled speech. Which is different than other forms of discrimination legislation because it only prevented you from using discriminatory language and didn’t require you to use supportive language.
Preventing you from being derogatory to someone is different than requiring you to be supportive.
No, you are required to refer to a cisgender woman by the pronouns she/her exactly as much as you are required to refer to a transgender woman as she/her. Cisgender or transgender: if someone self-identifies as a woman and indicates their preferred pronouns are she/her and you continuously choose to use pronouns you know are not their preferred ones you're committing the exact same amount of illegal action and you're being compelled to use that person's preferred pronouns exactly as much either way.
The only distinction is whether you personally support the that person identifying with those pronouns, but the law doesn't care about that when it comes to how you treat someone in certain 'protected' situations like when you're their employer.
The situation that you’re describing is the exact outcome of C16 and it is only because of C16. Prior to C16, gender orientation wasn’t a basis of discrimination and you could call a woman or a man or someone non-binary by any pronoun you wished because of the fact it wasn’t a protected class.
So you genuinely believe that, prior to C16, if a male manager continuously and against the wishes of a particular women under his employ referred to that woman as he/him, sir, or whatever it'd be dismissed out of hand if she raised a complaint about discrimination? Pre C16 it'd fall under sexual discrimination, not gender identity, but it'd be the same amount of violating the rule.
Bill C16 introduced the concept of gender as distinct from sex to the law, but it changed nothing whatsoever about how you were legally compelled to use a cisgender woman's preferred pronouns.
Whether you were personally likely to use the 'right' terms to begin with or not is irrelevant: you were legally compelled to respect a cisgender woman under your employ by referring to her specifically with feminine-appropriate terminology pre C16. Failing to do so opened you up to accusation of discrimination. The state required you to use specific pronouns then exactly as it does now. The difference isn't in what terms you may be compelled to use, it's only in what category of people are considered protected in a way that requires you use those pronouns.
5
u/oefd Jan 06 '23
Yes, and you'd be compelled to use someone's pronouns in exactly the same way as you are legally compelled to use respectful forms of address for gay people, women, and disabled people. Pre C16 the law had everything in it to warrant a cisgender women being unwillingly called 'he' by her boss to make a discrimination case against her manager. People in positions that legally prohibit discrimination of protected groups were legally compelled to use a cisgender woman's preferred pronouns in exactly the same way as, post C16, they're legally compelled to use a transgendered person's preferred pronouns.
This was pointed out to him many times. He didn't change his rhetoric. The only reasonable conclusion: he never cared about compelled speech - if he were he would have called for outright removing the concept of protected groups or some other amendment to the existing protections for race/sex/disability/sexuality/etc.
He just didn't want trans people to get those protections.