Did you even see my previous posts deconstructing the claim? Or did you just ignore them?
Fine, an ultra-grumpy rant.
(We’re talking about JP, right?)
What “police investigation and high court action for misgendering”? That’s not what the article says.
What “legal punishment for misgendering through pronouns”?
That’s not even a punishment.
There’s nothing in there about taking action against someone for improper pronoun use. Of course she would raise the pronoun issue as evidence of malicious intent (and he hasn’t helped himself by admitting he did it because he doesn’t like her), but the pronouns themselves are not what the case is about (based on the information in the article).
The short answer is no, and I stand by my previous analysis.
To be clear though, when you say “preferred pronouns”, do you mean just legally accepted pronouns (i.e. those found in any English dictionary), or do you mean the infinte possibilities from zir to Zir Majesty that started this thread?
This thread is about pronouns and therefore gender (at least in the English language).
Ms Hayden said: “I don’t take kindly to a public figure tweeting about me referring to me as a man and putting my legal name in quotation marks to suggest it’s not valid.”
When I’m interested in a subject I read a lot about it. Obviously, the Guardian has an agenda and presents the facts that support this. It just happens that the Guardian was the first place I read about this issue.
I would consider myself a fool if I took the facts as selected by the Guardian to be the whole truth.
I’m on my phone, so it’s not easy. I can assure I’m not making any quotes up, although the media organisation could be I suppose. Give me a couple of minutes.
I would have learned mandarin, Korean and Taiwanese hokkien before I was exposed to English. They even made me take Spanish as a “second language” while I’m just learning English. Really stupid.