2 ms·
>Sure. Not for originally misspeaking, but for intentionally harassing her afterwards. The point in this example is that the harasser-harassee relationship is
by omginternets 5y ago
>Sure. Not for originally misspeaking, but for intentionally harassing her afterwards.
The point in this example is that the harasser-harassee relationship is exactly reversed.
It's revealing that you find the act of using the wrong pronoun to be harassment, but public shaming at the workplace and on social media to be acceptable.
I see we fundamentally disagree, which is fine. I do hope, however, that you can see why many of us disagree with you, and don't want your sociological theories enshrined into law.
- CRConrad 5y agoNo, the point in this example is that the harasser-harassee relationship is not reversed. You're only, for some weird reason and without any logical support, claiming it is. And I'm sorry to disagree even on this, but no, it is not "fine": What you are disagreeing with aren't any "sociological theories" I am trying to get "enshrined into law", but with logic and reality.