How so? "I don't like it" doesn't mean it is being forced unless you consider all social interaction inherently the use of force.
I just listed three examples, of which you comment on later in your own response. This sets the tone for how in depth your arguments are.
Jordan Peterson to name a famous one. You might also want to look at the track record of Laurentian University. They have a habit of forcing out Profs who do not tote the leftist party line.
Ahh, you believe government itself to be illegitimate?
Or do you feel that everyone should be allowed to call anyone else what they want? If I want all legal documents addressing you to use female pronouns or other ones I make up, you have no right to stop me?
The Government has never regulated speech with such a fine degree of granularity before in history, especially in a forum of those articulating opinions for the purposes of Government. That is Orwellian. Literally. In fact, we have clauses in our Charter of rights supposedly to prevent that. But when has that ever stopped the radical Left.
Right. In a democracy, no one has the right to critique someone. I forgot.
Since when is going to someone's employer, and forcing that employer to fire someone, simply because you don't agree with their political beliefs considered Critiquing someone? By that logic, acts of terrorism must simply be examples of strong criticism to you then.
Right. Our society defined it one way, and now it is being redefined. I get that you prefer when you could force people to obey your version of it but the social consensus has shifted. Such is life.
No. Science defined it one way, and society went with that definition. Now a small segment of society is trying to ignore the science and redefine it, but society at large has not agreed to that yet, which is why that small segment of society is trying to strong arm everyone else to follow their lead. It's amazing how the left accuses the right of ignoring science, yet when it suits their own purposes, the left ignores science with the best of them.
And before hand, people who were on the other side were being forced out of jobs and careers.
And it wasn't acceptable when it was done then either. Are you saying that 2 wrongs make a right? It's amazing how often I hear the radical left use this justification, and believe in it. Which just goes to show their true nature. For them, It's not about improving the world, it is about revenge. Plain and simple. So what if people are still being oppressed, just as long as it's not your people right?
Yup. Lots of people are snowflakes and throwing shit fits over something that has no relevance in their lives but is HUGELY relevant to someone else's. Society has started to think that perhaps the people for whom it has a huge impact should be listened to, since people like you admit it has no relevance to them and don't have much skin in the game.
Yup. And nothing will happen to you, really. It is possible that if we had to interact constantly in a professional context, people would decide that your continual refusal to address me is a deliberate attempt at disrespect and think badly of you.
It is supremely selfish and self centred to expect that everyone in society at large has to completely ignore biological science, and reorient the very basic grammatical building blocks of the English language, which do not evolve that quickly by the way, ( Vocabulary evolves, grammar stays reliatively the same) simply because a minority of people want to live outside of that box. But given that the millennial generation were always told that the entire world revolved around them, this attitude isn't very surprising.
Of all the demands to be made from a society to accommodate inclusion that should be adhered to, that one goes too far. It may not seem like a big deal to you, but wars have been fought by societies to protect their language. Just ask Quebec. They were ready to leave Canada to ensure the sovereignty of their language.