"The OHRC does not require any particular gender-neutral pronoun. If in doubt, ask the person how they wish to be addressed."
i think it's easy to see how this goes quite quickly into "hey, you HAVE to address me how I want" which will find a quite sympathetic ear amongst the human rights tribunals who will justify that "in spririt" if you don't use the one they want, then you're abstractly "misgendering" them.
i mean, the reason i'm not going to trust the lawyer with a stated agenda in this (cossman) is she's clearly ignoring precedence, and skirted all petersons concerns and his "lived experience" dealing with this...
so, let the codes go as far as they NEED to, but no further. there's enough ways to deal w any harrassment under the existing code which, if you add gender identity without any mention of "preferred pronouns".
like, does anyone here think petersons arguing for his "right" to treat someone who he disagrees with in a shitty way? has he given any indication he's going to start PURPOSELY calling people he or she to piss them off intentionally? he's never gone after anyone personally nor misgendered or harrassed anyone in his many debates and discussions on the topic...if he carried himself that way in any other situation--with a different subject--what's the problem here in how he's interacted with the trans/gend neutral people he's interacted with?
there isn't one. so why do we need that part of the law to all get along?