Transphobia in Miami

[krypton iodine sulfur]

As for "misgendering", well your definition would indicate that that is to use a gender pronoun that is ethically and rationally incorrect

Not really. Misgendering was defined as using gendered terminology inconsistent with a person's expressed gender identity. I was pressed for explanation on the definition of 'incorrect'. If I am being honest, I didn't put much thought into it and would probably revert to not answering. The question was nonsense. Recognition of gender identity has scientific validity, but pronouns are not scientific classifications so why would it be scientifically incorrect? The basis for being incorrect varies depending on the source of the error. Misgendering is an identification error.

...so that the person using that pronoun is behaving immorally and irrationally.

Possibly unethically and irrationally.

I do not see why that would be so,

Ordinarily you get to assign gender or identities to people in the workplace? You get to ascribe religions and sexual orientations and ethnicities to them even when they tell you that isn't who they are and they don't appreciate it? That wouldn't be considered harassment?

...but whether is harassment or discrimination seems to depend on the motivation.

Not necessarily. Each case is different and a number of variables are involved. In a workplace situation, employers are tasked with providing workplaces free from harassment and discrimination; however, a number of things may be taken into consideration. Was something a mistake, or should it have been reasonably know? Did the employer take steps to address an issue or did they ignore it or leave it unresolved? Would addressing the issue have led to undue hardship? Was the complaint made in good faith or was it vexatious? Those sorts of things.

As far as I can tell, it may very well be someone just doesn't want to be forced to say something they do not believe, and had no intent on harassing or discriminating against anyone.

Intent has limitations. The impacts of one's behaviour will ultimately be what matters. Ordinarily, you can't just assign genders to people regardless of your beliefs and intentions. Let's say you had a cisgender woman who accidentally found out she actually had an XY karyotype. Word gets leaked and a colleague stars insisting she be referred to by male pronouns and keeps addressing her as 'Mr.' and 'Sir.' Is that or is that not a problem? Is that or is that issue an employer needs to resolve if the employees cannot come to a resolution?

Perhaps, in some situations, they are in a position in which it is difficult to avoid using a pronoun at all - a situation I'd rather avoid, but it may well happen -, and then they have to choose between saying something they do not believe (as they take the pronouns to imply that the person is actually a woman/man/etc.) or face social and perhaps legal punishment.

That happens with or without transgender rights. It happened with same-gender marriage. It just wasn't as widely applicable as few people need too refer to people's marriages as a function of their job, but it did happen. The same arguments were tried.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Not really. Misgendering was defined as using gendered terminology inconsistent with a person's expressed gender identity. I was pressed for explanation on the definition of 'incorrect'. If I am being honest, I didn't put much thought into it and would probably revert to not answering. The question was nonsense. Recognition of gender identity has scientific validity, but pronouns are not scientific classifications so why would it be scientifically incorrect? The basis for being incorrect varies depending on the source of the error. Misgendering is an identification error.

How is that an error?
Are they failing to identify a person? No, they know who the person is.
Are they attributing the person a property the person does not have? If so, which one?

Ordinarily you get to assign gender or identities to people in the workplace? You get to ascribe religions and sexual orientations and ethnicities to them even when they tell you that isn't who they are and they don't appreciate it? That wouldn't be considered harassment?

Ordinarily, humans do asses whether another person is a man, or a woman, whether another person is gay or not, whether it has some ethnicity or not, and so on. It's not about assigning, but making an assessment. Then there is the question of whether, in the workplace, one usually talks about what religion another person believes in, or what their sexual orientation is, etc. Usually, one does not do that, and usually, it would be out of place. On the other hand, usually one is not forced to say anything at all about those things.

On the other hand, ordinarily, one does choose what pronoun to use to refer to a person. That is not something one says to that person, but when talking of course to third parties. For example, if I'm talking to Tomás about Pablo, I use the pronoun 'el', without of course asking Pablo. It's immediate, intuitive, and usually people are not making odd demands that others use some kind of language when talking about them. Now if Pablo were to claim that Pablo is a woman, I...would not believe him. I have not seen any good evidence that such claims are true, quite the opposite. Evidence should be both linguistic, about the meaning of the words, and then about brains/minds etc. But what I've seen falls very short (i.e., I reckon he is almost certainly a man who believes that he is a woman).

However, in order to avoid trouble at work, I would probably call him whatever he wants if I can't help it (I would do my best not to ever talk about Pablo - or Paula, or whatever name he chooses - , and to use his name instead of any pronouns if I can; like most people, I do not like to be forced to affirm something I do not believe in).

Intent has limitations. The impacts of one's behaviour will ultimately be what matters. Ordinarily, you can't just assign genders to people regardless of your beliefs and intentions.

Ordinarily, that is actually the case. People assess whether the person they're talking to (or about) is a man or a woman. And ordinarily, it used to be the case that if a man claims to be a woman or vice versa, others were not forced to affirm that when it was an extremely improbable claim. Now it's different, in many places. But I feel for those forced to say what they properly reckon is false (it's not happened to me so far, but it will, it's only a matter of time).

Let's say you had a cisgender woman who accidentally found out she actually had an XY karyotype. Word gets leaked and a colleague stars insisting she be referred to by male pronouns and keeps addressing her as 'Mr.' and 'Sir.' Is that or is that not a problem?

I would need more information. Probably that is a mistake. Chromosomes determine sex in humans in the sense that they cause it under normal circumstances. If something malfunctions, that person may well actually be a female. Words have meaning, and that seems to be (probably, based on your description) a woman. So, the coworker seems to be making a mistake here.

 

[Bomb#20]

Transgender rights advance on the strength of arguments. What you wrote above simply diminishes the opposition to transgender rights. Believe it is some 'woke' ideology all you like.

How was what Bomb#20 wrote against transgender rights?
What rights are you talking about?

I mean, B20 won the argument hands down, but I do not see what rights he opposed.

He's advocating for the right to harass and discriminate in the workplace. Plain and simple.

In the words of the master, "based on your interpretation?" Show your work.

How is Taylor Mason being discriminated against when I decline to call t.a.p. "they"?

They aren't, necessarily. Ordinarily, people refer to others with pronouns, and pronouns may reflect gender. If you apply the wrong pronouns to a person, to are attaching a gender to them which is inconsistent with their identity.

If I call Taylor "xe" instead of "they", how on earth is that inconsistent with Taylor's gender identity? The whole point of the "xe" coinage was to be consistent with all genders. Likewise, if I call xem "dia", how on earth is that inconsistent with xyr gender identity? "Dia" is consistent with all genders -- Malay has the same third-person pronoun for everybody. So exactly what gender do you figure I'm attaching to Taylor if I call dia "dia" or "xe"?

<crickets>

It isn't about ideology. It is about gender identity. That is the sum total of it. You are not required to 'promote ideology' to recognize what another person uses for pronouns.

I was not required to promote ideology to recognize what my teachers used as a prayer -- I could have read my schoolbooks right through their prayer and still recognized that they were praying. No, I was required to recite what my teachers used as a prayer. Recitation promotes ideology. The pronoun police are not demanding recognition. They're demanding recitation.

Moreover, it isn't just about gender identity. It's about the theory that discrimination is whatever the Woke say it is. If you can define it as discriminatory to not call anyone "they" then you can define anything as discriminatory.

He's advocating for the right to harass and discriminate in the workplace. Plain and simple.

The prosecution rests.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

In the words of the master, "based on your interpretation?" Show your work.

No, not based on my interpretation. Misgendering can be harassment or discrimination and in all cases where it is, employers have a responsibility to ensure it doesn't happen. You have consistently opposed this on the basis that forcing you to say 'they' is unwarranted and that the New York HRL is wrong wrt pronouns, no?

If I call Taylor "xe" instead of "they", how on earth is that inconsistent with Taylor's gender identity? The whole point of the "xe" coinage was to be consistent with all genders. Likewise, if I call xem "dia", how on earth is that inconsistent with xyr gender identity? "Dia" is consistent with all genders -- Malay has the same third-person pronoun for everybody. So exactly what gender do you figure I'm attaching to Taylor if I call dia "dia" or "xe"?

This is so far off the course of what the law entails. I mean, it's endless tangents with you to a grossly impractical degree. The NYHRL addresses real world concerns, not brutal contrivances. When you call a non-binary person 'she', you are, in effect, describing them in female terms. Ordinarily, you would not be able to do that. You wouldn't get to keep calling a gay man straight if you didn't believe homosexuality was real.

That is what the law addresses. You can't simply label people at work according to your whim. The fixation seems to be around 'compelled speech,' but this only concerns matters of discrimination and harassment. It is only applicable in those cases where you must refer to people with or address them by gendered language, in which case, you cannot assign them a gender of your choosing. The specific challenge with regard to gender identity over other protected characteristics is that 'he' and 'she' are gendered and are used ubiquitously. But no new principle is introduced into law with this legislation.

The issue you presented as a challenge to this discrimination issue does not meet any reasonable definition of undue hardship. Ordinarily, your employer can compell you to say things to the extent it is required to fulfil the role of your job.

THIS IS NOT COMPLICATED, yet you constantly dance around what human rights legislation does in effect, spouting off nonsense about 'woke' this and 'woke' that. BULL SHIT. This is terminology which evolved from a need to have words which corresponds with their gender identity. What do you not understand about that? It is a genuine concern. 'They' is used most often because it was the most readily adopted by the general public--a general public struggling to incorporate new pronouns such as 'xe'

Everything you do and say fails to acknowledge very simple realities, instead opting for elaborate semantic nonsense about inessential properties of pronouns. That is why I don't want to 'argue' with you on this. You keep writing 'crickets' as if I'm dodging some challenge, but I just don't have the patience to indulge these silly tangents taking us further and further from the actual issue the law seeks to address.

 

[Jarhyn]

In the words of the master, "based on your interpretation?" Show your work.

No, not based on my interpretation. Misgendering can be harassment or discrimination and in all cases where it is, employers have a responsibility to ensure it doesn't happen. You have consistently opposed this on the basis that forcing you to say 'they' is unwarranted and that the New York HRL is wrong wrt pronouns, no?

If I call Taylor "xe" instead of "they", how on earth is that inconsistent with Taylor's gender identity? The whole point of the "xe" coinage was to be consistent with all genders. Likewise, if I call xem "dia", how on earth is that inconsistent with xyr gender identity? "Dia" is consistent with all genders -- Malay has the same third-person pronoun for everybody. So exactly what gender do you figure I'm attaching to Taylor if I call dia "dia" or "xe"?

This is so far off the course of what the law entails. I mean, it's endless tangents with you to a grossly impractical degree. The NYHRL addresses real world concerns, not brutal contrivances. When you call a non-binary person 'she', you are, in effect, describing them in female terms. Ordinarily, you would not be able to do that. You wouldn't get to keep calling a gay man straight if you didn't believe homosexuality was real.

That is what the law addresses. You can't simply label people at work according to your whim. The fixation seems to be around 'compelled speech,' but this only concerns matters of discrimination and harassment. It is only applicable in those cases where you must refer to people with or address them by gendered language, in which case, you cannot assign them a gender of your choosing. The specific challenge with regard to gender identity over other protected characteristics is that 'he' and 'she' are gendered and are used ubiquitously. But no new principle is introduced into law with this legislation.

The issue you presented as a challenge to this discrimination issue does not meet any reasonable definition of undue hardship. Ordinarily, your employer can compell you to say things to the extent it is required to fulfil the role of your job.

THIS IS NOT COMPLICATED, yet you constantly dance around what human rights legislation does in effect, spouting off nonsense about 'woke' this and 'woke' that. BULL SHIT. This is terminology which evolved from a need to have words which corresponds with their gender identity. What do you not understand about that? It is a genuine concern. 'They' is used most often because it was the most readily adopted by the general public--a general public struggling to incorporate new pronouns such as 'xe'

Everything you do and say fails to acknowledge very simple realities, instead opting for elaborate semantic nonsense about inessential properties of pronouns. That is why I don't want to 'argue' with you on this. You keep writing 'crickets' as if I'm dodging some challenge, but I just don't have the patience to indulge these silly tangents taking us further and further from the actual issue the law seeks to address.

It comes down to not being the instigator of a "hostile work environment". It's not that hard.

Calling someone by some bizarre pronoun, especially one clearly used as a slur against those who are gender atypical, is hostile. You SHOULD be fired for that.

The general public has problems adopting Xe because <REMOVED> like Bomb treat it as ridiculous, and use it to slur those who are atypical as ridiculous.

The employer CAN absolutely compel you to not bring hostility into the workplace. People have a right to "be", in ways you dislike. You do not have the right to be hostile to them for that. "Ways of doing" available to one must be available to all. These aren't hard concepts, and it makes me concerned for the mental wellbeing of people that can't understand them. But, we're talking about someone who can't understand or accept an English usage that has been around for almost as long as the word itself IS by it's very nature a part of the language.

 

[Metaphor]

That happens with or without transgender rights. It happened with same-gender marriage.

There is no such thing as same gender marriage. There is same sex marriage.

 

[Metaphor]

This is so far off the course of what the law entails. I mean, it's endless tangents with you to a grossly impractical degree. The NYHRL addresses real world concerns, not brutal contrivances. When you call a non-binary person 'she', you are, in effect, describing them in female terms. Ordinarily, you would not be able to do that. You wouldn't get to keep calling a gay man straight if you didn't believe homosexuality was real.

I've never come across any person who does not believe homosexuality was somehow 'not real'. There may be people who think homosexuality is a meaningful choice of some kind, but even those people don't call homosexual men 'straight'.

And you know what else? Homosexuals don't demand to be called 'straight' when they clearly are not.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

That happens with or without transgender rights. It happened with same-gender marriage.

There is no such thing as same gender marriage. There is same sex marriage.

'Same-gender' is a grammatical unit modifying 'marriage'. If I married a woman, it would be recorded as a woman marrying a woman. The marriage certificate specifies 'sex', which is fine with me, but what is actually recorded is my gender (and the state is well aware of that). Have you changed your argument on sex? Technically, it wouldn't be a same-sex or same-gender marriage. It would just be a marriage. The modifier was not technical in nature.

 

[Metaphor]

That happens with or without transgender rights. It happened with same-gender marriage.

There is no such thing as same gender marriage. There is same sex marriage.

'Same-gender' is a grammatical unit modifying 'marriage'. If I married a woman, it would be recorded as a woman marrying a woman. The marriage certificate specifies 'sex', which is fine with me, but what is actually recorded is my gender (and the state is well aware of that). Have you changed your argument on sex? Technically, it wouldn't be a same-sex or same-gender marriage. It would just be a marriage. The modifier was not technical in nature.

Your argument contradicts history. Same-gender marriage was never banned because no ecclesiastical or secular authority was interested in your 'gender', only your sex. If you were of the male sex, you were free to marry any person of any gender as long as that person was of the female sex (and in some cases had to be the same race as you).

In fact, the common-law words defining marriage (a union between a man and a woman entered into for life) were written in a case concerning a woman who wanted her marriage annulled on the grounds that she had not married a man (her husband was intersex). The marriage was, in fact, annulled. The gender identity of the husband (he identified as a man) made no difference.

Now, fortunately in most Western countries, "opposite sex" has been completely removed from the list of stipulations the State imposes on marrying couples. People of either sex or of intersex status can marry one another.

"Same gender" marriage is not a "thing" because nobody ever fought to marry the same gender.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

'Same-gender' is a grammatical unit modifying 'marriage'. If I married a woman, it would be recorded as a woman marrying a woman. The marriage certificate specifies 'sex', which is fine with me, but what is actually recorded is my gender (and the state is well aware of that). Have you changed your argument on sex? Technically, it wouldn't be a same-sex or same-gender marriage. It would just be a marriage. The modifier was not technical in nature.

Your argument contradicts history.

I am applying the descriptor to reflect an increasing trend of gender being recognized over sex. I am not making statements regarding history. But I did say 'it happened with...' so fine. My error. Amend it to 'same-sex'.

 

[Bomb#20]

He's advocating for the right to harass and discriminate in the workplace. Plain and simple.

In the words of the master, "based on your interpretation?" Show your work.

No, not based on my interpretation. Misgendering can be harassment or discrimination and in all cases where it is, employers have a responsibility to ensure it doesn't happen. You have consistently opposed this on the basis that forcing you to say 'they' is unwarranted and that the New York HRL is wrong wrt pronouns, no?

No. You might want to consider the merits of reading what people say without mangling it through your muddled mess of premises and expectations.

I am not advocating for the right to harass and discriminate in the workplace; I am disputing your premise that failing to say "they" on demand qualifies as harassment and discrimination. I keep challenging you to provide justification for that premise, and you just keep ducking the issue. You just take for granted that it's discrimination and harassment, and then you claim that that's what I'm advocating. That's reprehensible behavior on your part. It's libelous. You should be ashamed of yourself.

If I call Taylor "xe" instead of "they", how on earth is that inconsistent with Taylor's gender identity? The whole point of the "xe" coinage was to be consistent with all genders. Likewise, if I call xem "dia", how on earth is that inconsistent with xyr gender identity? "Dia" is consistent with all genders -- Malay has the same third-person pronoun for everybody. So exactly what gender do you figure I'm attaching to Taylor if I call dia "dia" or "xe"?

This is so far off the course of what the law entails.

Have I misstated the law?

"1. Failing To Use the Name or Pronouns with Which a Person Self-Identifies

The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use the name, pronouns, and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs./Mx.) with which a person self-identifies...
All people, including employees, tenants, customers, and participants in programs, have the right to use and have others use their name and pronouns..."

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page

Did NYC misstate its own law? Or do you just sense by inner vision that calling someone "xe" when xe asked to be called "they" actually satisfies the law's requirement: it uses the pronoun with which xe self-identifies and I've fulfilled xyr so-called "right" to have me use xyr pronoun. By what line of reasoning do you infer that this scenario is one inch off the course of what the law entails? What, does "entail" now have some novel meaning in your ideology's Newspeak too?

I mean, it's endless tangents with you to a grossly impractical degree.

By "endless tangents", you appear to be referring to the phenomenon of me focusing on considerations that matter to me rather than considerations that matter to you. Your point in calling them "tangents" appears to be to belittle them. I.e., you have no compunctions about pushing around people in your outgroup. What a surprise.

The NYHRL addresses real world concerns, not brutal contrivances. When you call a non-binary person 'she', you are, in effect, describing them in female terms.

And you accuse me of tangents. Where did I ever insist on calling a non-binary person 'she'? What the heck is your problem? Because you can't find any logical error in my actual arguments, you're instead going to make up some completely different argument, criticize that, and make believe you've refuted me?

Ordinarily, you would not be able to do that. You wouldn't get to keep calling a gay man straight if you didn't believe homosexuality was real.

That is what the law addresses. You can't simply label people at work according to your whim.

And you know that's what the law addresses, how? I'm going by what the law says; what are you going by? Inner vision, again? The law doesn't say I can't label people according to my whim; it says I have to label them according to their whims.

The fixation seems to be around 'compelled speech,' but this only concerns matters of discrimination and harassment. It is only applicable in those cases where you must refer to people with or address them by gendered language, in which case, you cannot assign them a gender of your choosing. The specific challenge with regard to gender identity over other protected characteristics is that 'he' and 'she' are gendered and are used ubiquitously. But no new principle is introduced into law with this legislation.

Analogies are tricky because of the special role of "he" and "she" in English; but imagine a job where people needed to talk about others' race all the time, let's say the office of the publisher of a journal of racial politics. And let's say New York passed a new law requiring employees to use whatever racial terms are preferred by those referred to. Normal anti-discrimination law would mean an employer can't let its staffers call people by ethnic slurs such as the N-word. The new law would require them to make staffers call half the black guys "Black" and call the other half "African-American", and remember which black guys preferred each term. Of course that's a new principle.

The issue you presented as a challenge to this discrimination issue does not meet any reasonable definition of undue hardship.

What amount of hardship is the due hardship that people should have to submit to in order to comply with their rights being violated? What makes you think you have the right to impose the use of "singular they" on people who don't like that construction?

Ordinarily, your employer can compell you to say things to the extent it is required to fulfil the role of your job.

And when LGBTQI+ people inevitably invent one pronoun for intersexed people and another for asexuals and half a dozen more for other distinctions, and if in the future it becomes fashionable for members of those communities to ask to be called by those pronouns, why will learning those distinctions and remembering which pronouns to use on whom be "the role of my job"? It won't be for any actual business reason related to making money, only for complying with the coercive impositions of governments. So suggesting that this is a matter of the employer-employee relationship rather than a First Amendment matter is absurd. The City of New York is trying to subvert rule-of-law by using employers as middlemen. It could as well fight the drug war by passing an ordinance requiring employers to require employees to authorize their employers to break into their homes without a warrant to look for drugs.

THIS IS NOT COMPLICATED, yet you constantly dance around what human rights legislation does in effect,

It's not human rights legislation. It's anti-human rights legislation. Free speech is a human right. Making others say what we want them to say is not a human right.

spouting off nonsense about 'woke' this and 'woke' that. <capitalized expletive deleted>. This is terminology which evolved from a need to have words which corresponds with their gender identity. What do you not understand about that? It is a genuine concern. 'They' is used most often because it was the most readily adopted by the general public--a general public struggling to incorporate new pronouns such as 'xe'

And the response of the Woke to the public's struggle is to make us struggle more: to make us not only use "xe", but use all of "xe" and "sie" and "they", depending on which is preferred by which referent. What would be so awful about letting the general public figure out for ourselves how to refer to people who reject both "he" and "she"? If I find "dia" more natural and you find "they" more English and somebody else finds "xe" more intuitive, what's the problem? How the heck does any of that "harass" and "discriminate against" a person who self-identifies as a "yo"?

Everything you do and say fails to acknowledge very simple realities, instead opting for elaborate semantic nonsense about inessential properties of pronouns. That is why I don't want to 'argue' with you on this. You keep writing 'crickets' as if I'm dodging some challenge,

But you are dodging a challenge. You keep rhetorically equating failing to use "they" on Taylor Mason with harassing xyr and discriminating against xyr. I keep challenging you on that point, and you keep declining to offer any reason to believe they're equivalent.

but I just don't have the patience to indulge these silly tangents taking us further and further from the actual issue the law seeks to address.

Yes, yes, you are pushing a position on who is oppressing whom, and the entire question of whether there's a logical basis for considering that position to be at all justifiable, you call a "silly tangent". Madam, what you are pushing is a religion.

 

[repoman]

Side banner from gendercritical subreddit

Gender Critical Feminism

Feminism is the movement to liberate women from patriarchy. We stand up for the rights of women to control our own bodies as individuals and to control women-only spaces as a class.

Women are adult human females. We do not believe that men can become women by 'feeling' like women. We do not condone the erasure of females and female-only spaces, the silencing of critical thinking, the denial of biological reality and of sex-based oppression. We oppose the 'cotton ceiling' and the pressure on lesbians to have sex with men. We resist efforts to limit women's reproductive autonomy. We condemn the men who exploit and abuse women in prostitution and pornography.

"Women do not decide at some point in adulthood that they would like other people to understand them to be women, because being a woman is not an ‘identity.’ Women’s experience does not resemble that of men who adopt the ‘gender identity’ of being female or being women in any respect. The idea of ‘gender identity’ disappears biology and all the experiences that those with female biology have of being reared in a caste system based on sex." - Sheila Jeffreys, Gender Hurts

This is a good war happening. Nice!

 

[Bomb#20]

It comes down to not being the instigator of a "hostile work environment". It's not that hard.

Yes. And if somebody makes a stink because a coworker says "xe is" instead of "they are", xe's creating a hostile work environment.

Calling someone by some bizarre pronoun, especially one clearly used as a slur against those who are gender atypical, is hostile. You SHOULD be fired for that.

I see from Wikipedia's list that the pronoun Kurdish uses for all genders is "ew". Consider it stipulated that Americans probably shouldn't solve our gendered pronoun problem by borrowing the pronoun from Kurdish. But that scenario isn't a reason for not using a word with no preexisting meaning in English -- either an invented word like "xe" or a borrowed word like "dia" -- where traditionally "he or she" would be used. (Or are you one of those folks who think they're the anointed Lord High Deciders of what's a slur, and "Negro" magically qualifies as a racial slur if they say it does, the United Negro College Fund notwithstanding?)

The general public has problems adopting Xe because <REMOVED> like Bomb treat it as ridiculous, and use it to slur those who are atypical as ridiculous.

After the insults you've shelled out against other members and not gotten edited, I wonder what you said about me -- must have been a doozy. Whatever it was, it can't have been as abusive as the above: where the heck did you see me treat "Xe" as ridiculous? Where the heck did you see me use it as a slur against atypical people? Why the heck do you feel entitled to just make up garbage and impute it to your opponent? Are moral considerations something you reserve for your ingroup?

Still, you do raise an interesting point...

The employer CAN absolutely compel you to not bring hostility into the workplace.

Using singular pronouns for individuals is not hostility. Making trumped-up accusations of hostility against your coworkers brings hostility into the workplace.

People have a right to "be", in ways you dislike.

...says the guy insisting his ingroup has the right to stop his outgroup from being the way they are in a way he dislikes. Has it escaped your attention that you're the one demanding conformity, not I?

Transgenderism is not a way to be that I dislike. I like it just fine. I wish the transgendered success and much happiness in their new way to be. The people being a certain way that I dislike are the theocrats. Don't be a theocrat. You may have a right to be a theocrat, but I have a right to defend myself and the freedom of my country from theocrats' assaults.

You do not have the right to be hostile to them for that.

If a Christian coworker wants to pray to her god at work because that's the way she is, I wouldn't be hostile to her for that. But if she demands that I pray to her god with her, and says if I won't pray with her then I'm discriminating against her, then I will be hostile to her for that. And if she responds to my hostility by claiming I'm hostile to her for being a Christian, then she is guilty of a strawman. See how it works?

"Ways of doing" available to one must be available to all. These aren't hard concepts, and it makes me concerned for the mental wellbeing of people that can't understand them.

Oh, I understand the concepts -- I've been familiar with how triumphalist totalitarians think ever since the government they elected made me pray with them in elementary school -- apparently my right to my nose ends where they swing their fists.

So tell me, in this moral universe of yours, who gets to pick the doctrines that people are authorized to force their colleagues to recite? You? Governing everyone's speech is a "way of doing" that's available to you? Well then, that's a way of doing that must be available to all. So that means I get to pick your speech too. If I pick some doctrine of mine and demand that you pledge allegiance to it, will you?

But, we're talking about someone who can't understand or accept an English usage that has been around for almost as long as the word itself IS by it's very nature a part of the language.

...which brings us back to that interesting point you raised earlier.

Are you familiar with the concept of the "euphemism treadmill"? People who police other people's language often seem to be under the impression a person in their ingroups is disrespected because of a disrespectful term their outgroups use. It's almost as if language police fail to grasp the direction of causality. The term in question typically has disrespectful connotations because it acquired them by association from the disrespected people it referred to, not the other way around. So replacing the old term inevitably simply transfers the disrespectful connotations to the new term. For example, we are lately being told not to say "retarded" because it's insulting. But "retarded" was originally a polite euphemism for the terms it replaced, such as "feeble-minded". "Retarded" means "delayed". Polite and compassionate people were supposed to politely go along with the compassionate fiction that feeble-minded people can think just as well as ordinary people if only we give them the extra time they need. And our society went along with that fiction, because we are polite and compassionate people. But the effect doesn't last, because the underlying feeble-mindedness becomes associated with "retarded", so "retarded" comes to be seen as an insult rather than as what it was: a kindness. So a new term is adopted and around goes the treadmill.

So you feel "xe" is treated as ridiculous and a slur against those who are atypical? And you think others calling atypical people "they" is a solution? Come to think of it, maybe knuckling under to your theocratic demand will be the best thing that ever happened to the English language. When atypical people are called "they" by general custom, being called "they" will come to have connotations of atypicality. When that happens, a typical person may feel aggrieved when others call her "they", and declare her pronoun to be "she", and declare that not having her pronoun used on her is discriminatory. Then ordinary apolitical people may shy away from calling a person of unknown gender "they", out of concern for the possibility of giving offense. Singular "they" may consequently fall out of use on typical people. We will only call a person "they" if we have reason to think xe wants it. Then the regrettable but interminably popular disrespect for atypical people will come to infect singular "they". Singular "they" will become widely perceived as insulting. Calling a person "they" will be thought ridiculous, and a slur against atypical sexuality. Then atypical people will then stop choosing it as their pronoun and stop demanding that others use it. They will coin some new pronoun to replace "they", the euphemism treadmill will roll on, and English will finally be rid of that barbarous construction once and for all.