I have been inspired to present my response (below) to the premise that ‘denying’ a pronoun should have “legal ramifications” in cartoon form. It seems fitting somehow.
Like part 1 of this edition of Rebuttals of the Week! – the subject of debate was the reaction of the tolerant, non-judgemental, morally superior champions of diversity at the University of Toronto to psychology professor Jordan Peterson‘s public stance against political correctness… and his principled rejection of the premise that he is obligated to affirm the subjective self-conception of people who identify as transgendered by adopting their preferred use of pronouns.
OtD took issue with this statement of mine: “You can ask me to use whatever pronoun you wish. But I am not obliged to indulge that request.”
To which OtD replied: “Unless you are in a situation where you denying that pronoun is a denial of service or identity or harassment. In those cases, there are legal ramifications.
A situation where ‘denying’ a pronoun should have “legal ramifications”? Yes folks, we are living in a Monty Python sketch on a societal scale.
Comments