Is that really the case? He uses preferred male and female pronouns, just opposes legislation against the choice not to. As for neutral pronouns, nobody needed convincing not to use them
-
well I'm in favour of regulation that enables people to sue their employer for discrimination, but that's a whole different story than prosecuting ppl who misgender random folks in the street, which isn't happening
I don't know if this is directed at me, but it has nothing to do with people potentially abusing the legislation; it's about the legal precedent it sets for regulating speech in the future
-
-
which would be totally impossible otherwise, right? when the government (or, given a few years, google/amazon’s private police force) wants to get down to brass tacks and throw folks in jail for saying the word “unionize,” no one is like “hmm i wish we’d done that pronouns thing”
-
Not impossible, but less likely for the public to swallow. There's a great sense of resignation around this debate. "We've already damaged Western democracy a good deal so we might as well keep damaging it in a direction beneficial to us rather than try to conserve anything"
-
1) i still need an external reason to care about the fact that it might make trads slightly traddier 2) “destroying democracy is good as long as it collapses in the right direction” is a take id retweet with a straight face any day of the week
-
Collapse cult bollocks. Fashionable hot air
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.