I don't see required usage. Basically, it sounds like you can't refer to a group of trans women as "the men," not that you're required to refer to them as "the women." Meaning you could just as well refer to the group as "they" or by their names, no?

As a business owner, you don't get to call your Black employees by the n-word. Censorship?

If he can't denigrate trans people to their faces based on his incredibly myopic view of SCIENCE (which is not actually science) without consequence, that's basically slavery.

Who knew, "he" is a prejorative similar to the n-word. Wait...who decided this? Certainly not based on science.

Blah, blah, you keep pivoting to this. Again, it's entirely about choosing which words I want to use. I understand you think pronouns are similar to the n-word. You and your ideological buddies don't get to decide that for everyone, though, and you don't get to regulate that belief into society. (Unless it's Canada)

It's amazing how badly, and in how many ways, HIV can butcher an argument in such a small number of words.

- sentence 1: strawman argument, completely missing the point that HIV already accepts government "censorship" about what he can and can't say at work even if he's the one making the rules and policies (which he previously claimed to be an important distinction)

- rest of post: starting from the strawman and taking it even further, creating a super-strawman

LOL. There is almost no debate concerning the meaning of the n-word. There is no ambiguity. "He" on the other hand used to not be ambiguous, but since some believe gender is a perspective/concept that is determined by ones sense of self, of sorts, so much so that "he" is open to interpretation. The regulations in Canada decided who gets to pick and choose who and what a "he" is, and potentially penalizes those who don't conform.

As has been pointed out to you numerous times, by numerous people, using non-trans examples:

Wrong.

Well, thanks for conceding your whole argument. If the distinguishing characteristic between a business owner misgendering an employee or customer and using the n-word to address them is not that one is censorship and one is not, but rather that the n-word is much more offensive than misgendering someone, then it's clear that banning a business owner from misgendering a customer or employee is not censorship at all, you just feel sad about where the line is now being drawn. If the right of a business owner to address customers and employees in derogatory manners were sacrosanct protected speech, then using the n-word would likewise be protected speech, just as the use of the n-word in the public square or online is protected (at least protected from government consequences).

So, no, you don't get to scream "It's not a trans issue, it's a censorship issue!" in one breath and then concede that other analogous events that differ only in degree but not kind is acceptable. You've revealed that there is nothing more to your argument than think that you should be able to denigrate trans people, and you've tried to cover that up with an inapt veneer.

"He" has always been a social construct that has nothing to do with anatomy or genetics.

Also, yes, of course there is. Whether or not a given instance of the n-word is offensive is generally up to the determination of the person being addressed by it, or at least to 3rd parties who witness it.

I've seen threads on other sites where real scientists argue in detail to refute every ridiculous argument a young earth creationist throws at them, for page after page, month after month, year after year

I don't know what people get out of arguing with brick walls on the internet

wouldn't reading a book or learning to play an instrument or watching netflix or staring at your belly button be more fun and useful?

I enjoy dunking on ihiv for sport, not because I think he'll change his mind.

"Real Scientists" LOL

those scientists always said they did it for the audience, hoping that their arguments would help other people but I always suspected it was more along the lines of your answer

have fun

yeah, people with phds who get paid to science

Yes!

Like Astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle?

As a guy with a PhD who does science for a living, I think it's considerably more worthwhile to argue for the humanity of marginalized people for an imagined audience of lurkers, where the feelings and emotions of the ignorant can and do have substantial consequences, than it is to argue about science, which doesn't give a **** what lagtight thinks about how old the earth is. But I dunk on ihiv mainly for my own amusement.

Huh? So you're saying when we use a singular pronoun to refer to God that doesn't mean "he" has a penis?

But yeah, as far as I know gender has always and everywhere been considered a property of words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake