Pronouns are like Rohypnol

[JeanneDoe]

I’ve been a lurker on this board for a few months now and suffice to say that I’ve really had my eyes opened. I have gone from not really thinking about trans rights to realising that I, like most people, have no problem respecting the respecting the rights of trans people as long as they don’t attempt to erode those of women. Agree with sex based rights etc.

On that basis I assumed, without ever really thinking about it in any great depth, that I would do people the courtesy of using their preferred pronouns even if I personally do not subscribe to the TWAW/TMAM ideology.

However, having followed a link from another thread I came across the Pronouns are like Rohypnol article and I feel compelled to ask:

Do people legally have to use the preferred pronouns of trans people?
I don’t see or know many IRL but I’m wondering what the legal repercussions are if someone decided not to do so, especially given the current cancel culture that is currently gripping the UK.

After reading the article, I’m now conflicted because on one hand, most trans people just want to live their lives peacefully and I wouldn’t want to disrespect them by not using their preferred pronouns but the article is playing on my mind in relation to why the author refuses to do so and she makes some really compelling points.

Would love to hear any thoughts or indeed what the law is (rather than what Activist Groups would want it to be).

Do people legally have to use the preferred pronouns of trans people?

I'm not clear what the current situation is.

There was some suggestion in the new Forstater judgment that "misgendering" could be "harrassment".

Although only if done in person presumably? And then you're on to the compelled speech thing. Not using "he" out of politeness is one thing - but are you going to compel people to use "she" rather than just "they" or avoiding pronouns?

Personally I think this is the case of "give an inch, they'll take a mile". If they can object to "he", then they'll also object to "male".

There was a dreadful example of this the other week in the US. USA Today editing an article to remove all use of the word "male".

Edited version:

eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/05/22/transgender-athletes-girls-women-sports-track-connecticut-column/5149532001/

(“This column has been updated to reflect USA TODAY’s standards and style guidelines. We regret that hurtful language was used.”)

Original:

adflegal.org/blog/i-was-fastest-girl-connecticut-transgender-athletes-made-it-unfair-fight

Whole meaning and tone of piece destroyed by replacing "male" with "transgender".

I would say in cases where the sex is what you're talking about, correctly sexing, rather than missexing, is important. And if you're talking about someone male, use male pronouns.

Most of the time though, sex is irrelevant, and can just be ignored - avoid pronouns.

If there was a law insisting on compelled speech it would conflict with the rights of, for example, disabled people who are unable to lie.
You could end up with a situation in court where a disabled person has to prove they are 'disabled enough' to be exempt from compelled speech.
I really hope it never comes to this.

The ripples of this are very unclear.

I should think most workplaces have a mutual respect policy (as they should) and people would continue to use preferred pronouns as part of that.

However, I think some workplaces might need to start answering the Forstater Question about manels, amongst other items.