1 min readFeb 1, 2018
- I think he’s said a lot of contradictory things (or things that the average person might see as contradictory), for instance, here is he talking about the law or someone else asking him to address them a certain way? He’s an extremely imprecise communicator. https://torontolife.com/city/u-t-professor-sparked-vicious-battle-gender-neutral-pronouns/ “I don’t recognize another person’s right to determine what pronouns I use to address them,” he said grimly. “I think they’re connected to an underground apparatus of radical left political motivations. I think uttering those words makes me a tool of those motivations. And I’m going to try and be a tool of my own motivations as clearly as I can articulate them and not the mouthpiece of some murderous ideology.”
- You’re conflating some bullshit in Damore’s lawsuit into what LAWS actually say. Gender identity is a protected class. “Dragonkin” is not. If you think a legislative body is going to make “dragonkin” a protected class YOU are the one engaging in a slippery slope argument. It’s just like when gay marriage opponents said people who start marrying their pets or inanimate objects. It’s a nonsense argument and it’s super insulting to trans people to boot.
- I didn’t agree to that. I’m saying it should be understood in the context of how these laws are actually applied in context, in which misgendering is one of many types of discrimination that a judicial body can consider in determining whether or not someone has a case of discrimination. That point was cited routinely in the C-16 debate.
