> I would probably choose to no longer spend time with those people if they felt they could compell (or more accurately, coerce) me to speak a certain way.
This is the solution to your problem; and, if you were continually offensive to those people, one you may be forced to enact - by their rejection of your presence. However, if you do choose to interact with them, or choose to engage in activities where you will interact with them (during your work duties, for example) - that's the social contract you're going to have to adhere to if you want to continue doing so. You wouldn't argue that you should be able to go around verbally assaulting people without consequence because that would be an infringement to your right to free speech (which has always been limited, by the way; like it or not - you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre), would you?
Yup, precisely. In a nutshell, you're saying this goes both ways, and I think that's perfectly acceptable.
I will caveat that I believe people who are opposed to the gender pronoun salad should also have the right to share that publicly, and in the event a person who subscribes to that way of life stumbles upon those public comments would benefit most by live-and-let-live, and simply write off or ignore those individuals if they feel upset.
Unfortunately every single permutation within intersectionality, whether "normative" or not, are going to face mild disagreement or prejudice towards their own ideologies.
A humble response is one that lives beyond it, rather than consuming all of one's time fighting it in the name of justice, IMHO. Seeking perfect insulation from disagreement is unachievable in society without also severely marginalizing a few groups at any given moment.
That is, unless there is a clear sign that said prejudice is on track to grow rapidly in the direction of genocide or overt societal exclusion and/or the belief that reeducation is necessary. All of these are unacceptable.
Though we are witnessing this being done against normative groups en masse in companies and public institutions today, unfortunately. It appears that most are reaching a breaking point and pushing back, and those who do represent many different races, creeds, and backgrounds. It's encouraging to see.
> I will caveat that I believe people who are opposed to the gender pronoun salad should also have the right to share that publicly, and in the event a person who subscribes to that way of life stumbles upon those public comments would benefit most by live-and-let-live, and simply write off or ignore those individuals if they feel upset.
What do you mean by this? In what circumstances do you think it's acceptable to make these comments? What qualifies as "stumbling upon"? Do you mean to include group interactions in non-dedicated forums of discussion? Personal interactions? Should neither party be permitted to raise objection? Why should either party be expected to simply leave the discussion without contributing?
> That is, unless there is a clear sign that said prejudice is on track to grow rapidly in the direction of genocide or overt societal exclusion and/or the belief that reeducation is necessary. All of these are unacceptable.
> What do you mean by this? In what circumstances do you think it's acceptable to make these comments?
Excellent questions, and ones that are complicated to answer in any truly objective sense. The measuring stick I would maybe use to judge an appropriate context would be the same as how we would maybe treat a particular interest or political stance.
Does it feel appropriate to minimize someone else's political views to their face in a casual group setting? Probably not.
Does it feel appropriate to share a political rant in one's workplace chat that may have deeply personal implications? Maybe not. But if it did happen, could the offended party forgive the person who shared? That'd be favorable.
Does it feel appropriate to share the same political rant with a close friend? Sure, why not? Family? Definitely, if you're on good terms.
How about on Facebook? Twitter? Sure -- a point of disagreement is a few scroll wheel clicks away from passing over it, if a cool, measured response can't be mustered.
We are surrounded with opposition daily in various forms. The measure of our character is judged by how we choose to handle those moments. Sometimes walking away is a more mature response, because it acknowledges that the person is capable of thriving despite their opposition. It indicates that their ego is in their own control, not swayed by any insult that passively comes their way.
In the event you have a persistent harasser, it's time to either respond in kind, or get help from someone with the power to stop such harassment, but a single passive statement of belief or opinion shared is hardly even close to classifying as harassment.
> Who judges this and how are they chosen to do so?
Another tricky one, and very difficult to qualify.
If I had to choose, I might say the military if I've entrusted them to have intelligence data and a general pulse of potential threats within or outside a nation. Maybe that trust is misplaced? Who then would I turn to? The media? Would the media faithfully represent the issue in an unbiased manner? They've done very well to shatter that trust, as a collective institution.
Who then? Citizen journalists and average people recording and sharing video footage of evidence of mistreatment, but shared en masse? Reports of in the hundreds? Thousands? That'd be a good indicator that something's amiss.
Parents approaching their school boards en masse across the country to confront Critical Race Theory's damaging effects on school-aged children leading to fundamentally racist views against white people? That's a pretty good indicator something's wrong, especially if there hadn't been a past history of malicious / nefarious confrontations of the same sort, to where the recent recordings and reports of this happening are objectively novel situations within a larger period of time.
Despite those reports, there still would need to be a fairly unbiased judge of the broader situation, and one (or many) who could act decisively in enough time to prevent catastrophe should a threatening scenario for any given race or group arise.
It's the same sort of question as "did the Allies act soon enough against Nazi Germany's genocide?" or "did anyone act soon enough or... at all, against the Bolsheviks?"
Well, people finally acted, but was it enough? Or was the potential disaster they prevented grander than what had already been committed?
I couldn't confidently say there is anyone on Earth who is qualified to answer that question outside of God Himself.
This is the solution to your problem; and, if you were continually offensive to those people, one you may be forced to enact - by their rejection of your presence. However, if you do choose to interact with them, or choose to engage in activities where you will interact with them (during your work duties, for example) - that's the social contract you're going to have to adhere to if you want to continue doing so. You wouldn't argue that you should be able to go around verbally assaulting people without consequence because that would be an infringement to your right to free speech (which has always been limited, by the way; like it or not - you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre), would you?