No, the widely accepted interpretation of that law is that, if I have a coworker who wants to be called xe/xem/xyr/xyrs/xemself, I have to comply or face punishment, since not be accommodating of this can be construed as harassment. Ideologues want to dismiss everyone who is against this law as transphobic, but this is demonstrably not true, one can be accepting of the human rights of trans people while simultaneously disagreeing with the extend of protections and privileges granted to them. I think what most people ultimately take issue with, is that this law was evidently ideologically motivated and it felt like no logical arguments could ever be discussed.

That's not what the bill says, and that's also not how harrassment works.

None of this is an imposition upon you, and I have a really hard time understanding why people are so vehement that it is. I keep seeing people complain that they're not allowed to debate about something, and then they follow that with no actual debate. People act as though they're silenced, but they're clearly not silenced! If people respond with counter-arguments, isn't that exactly what you wanted?

I would love to talk about why I think these protections are important. I don't think not believing that these protections are important is some sort of moral failing. I think that frank discussion about these things is important and debating animatedly with my trans friends is exactly how I came to understand their point of view and the challenges they face and ultimately came to empathize with their position.

The "it is illegal to use the wrong pronoun" interpretation is only widely accepted by those who have trouble with the definition of the word "discrimination". If I use the wrong pronoun when referring to someone it might rise to the level of harassment if I do it deliberately and repeatedly. It can't be a violation of an anti-discrimination law because it isn't discrimination.

I see. So If I insist that my pronoun is "his majesty" and others don't use it, that would be harassment?

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/29230/

For those of us who think that objective reality is more important than what someone's feelings may or may not be, this imposition of a speech code is clearly harassment.

No. That wouldn't be harassment. Here is the Canadian legal definition of harassment: https://www.crcvc.ca/docs/crimharass.pdf

Now, if I repeatedly followed you around, loudly mocking you and your use of "his majesty" and interfering with your life, then yes that would be harassment.

I'm confused. If someone requested a certain pronoun, and someone else politely but repeatedly refrained from using it, would that be harassment under the new bill?

The new bill is about discrimination, not harassment, so no.

Widely accepted by who? Not lawyers. Try actually reading the bill: http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-as...

His conflict started with the Ontario Human Rights Commission policy which clearly includes gender pronouns. That is often getting mixed up with when he also spoke out against C 16 later, with different arguments.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-be...

I think you are right that just in C 16 there is nothing about compelled speech. My understanding of his position is that it's part of a slippery slope, and the interpretation of discrimination or hate speech could easily extend to using the wrong gender pronouns.

C16 refers to the Ontario human rights commission for interpretation and policy which is a huge problem.

And then we'll start letting people get married to animals!

This video captures some of his thoughts regarding this. It's the first question he answers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F0A4rohauQ