It's not a matter of hate, it is a matter of your narcissism. You do not have the right to force people to change for you.

This has nothing to do with how I or anyone else treats another person. This has to do with someone imposing their beliefs on the rest of us.

I would not treat anyone bad but if someone came up to me telling me how I needed to act around them them then that is a narcissist. I prefer not to hang around narcissists. Narcissists are no good for anyone.

I mean, imagine if I came up to you and demanded that if you don't give me 10 dollars then you are a hater. It is the same thing. You just do not make demands of other people for anything. It is not your right. I am under no obligation to adhere to your demands. The rudeness does not come from me but from those who make demands.

As someone 15 years your senior, perhaps you are misunderstanding what I am saying.

You said, "I've been asked to call them". So have I. That is called normal human behavior. Everyone has a name and it is just common to ask what that name is and call them by that name. That's not a problem. And that is NOT what I am talking about.

What I am talking about is people who change reality and then demand, without my asking, that I refer to them by something that defies science, reason or even proper grammar. And if I do not read their minds to know whatever ever pronoun they invented I am a hater.

That is the definition of a narcissist. Narcissists live their lives trying to control and manipulate other people into doing things they don't want to and to do this they manipulate the situation to make them feel bad for not giving the narcissist what they demand.

Inventing some fantasy gender and pronouns for that gender; then demanding I comply is narcissistic. In uber leftist places, like NYC, there are laws against not using someone's preferred pronouns, despite this being in direct violation to one's free speech rights.

They and them are plural, not singular. It is improper grammar to refer to a single individual as they or them. Except in England when referring to royalty, but we're not in England and those who have invented new genders are not royalty, despite their demands that we refer to them as such.

There are only two genders. This is not some old fashioned idea, this is biology. Gender is not a societal construct it is definable by genitalia and chromosomes. Behavior is somewhat a societal construct but not entirely. If someone wants to behave in a manner that is different than what society more or less expects of them, then as long as that behavior does not harm, of any kind, to themselves or other people then that is their choice.

What no one is free to do is to demand that other people comply to their behavior. Another person can ask, just like you said in your comment, and then choose to honor their request.

If your name is Steve and you ask me to call you by Steve, I am within my rights to call you George instead. I wouldn't because that, in this scenario, would be your name. It is your name, even if it is a very bizarre and strange name or even a name that is very hard for me to pronounce. I make a concerted effort to try to pronounce someone's name correctly if it is hard for me to pronounce.

"The laws are against intentionally harassing people"

Is it harassment if you don't know what the preferred pronouns are and you use the correct pronouns based on their actual gender?

"You're 65 years old and you don't know that the words they and them can refer to a single person of unspecified gender? That's basic English."

Are you crazy? Since when did "they" or "them" become singular? How is it that, in my 65 years of age, that I could have missed that little detail of the English language? Oh I know. I didn't. They refers to two or more people. It always has referred to two or more people. The same with "them". If your English teacher told you otherwise then they should find another profession because "they" (in this instance it could be just one English teacher but because the quantity of English professors you may have studied English from is unknown) are wrong.

"'Somebody keeps stealing my mail'
'I hope THEY are caught because it's wrong of THEM to do that'"

Like I said above, if the quantity is unknown then it is proper to use "they". "Somebody" is also in reference to an unknown quantity. It is a quirk in the English language. It should be if you are going to say "Somebody" then when referring to them you would say "he", "she" or "he or she".

When referring directly to an individual you NEVER refer to them in the plural because you know the quantity. It's one.

"Gender is not determined by genitals or chromosomes. You're thinking of biological sex, and even that's not as clear-cut as conservatives think it is"

This is a new definition and has only been held by a very, very small part of the population. It was first suggested in 1947 by John Money. He was not taken seriously and when he suggested that pedophilia be normalized he was discredited.

In other words, in the real world Gender IS determined by genitalia and has been since day one. Chromosomes confirmed that when they were discovered. And now, all of the sudden, science, biology, common sense and everything is being thrown out the window so that some attention seeking narcissists can try to make you conform to their wishes.

"but if they tell you and you use different pronouns on purpose, that is deliberately being disrespectful."

But that's not what we are talking about, is it? We are talking about legality. We are talking about free speech. It is incomprehensible that we have gotten to the point were there are laws enforcing the use of someone's preferred pronouns. That's ridiculous.

Language does change all the time, but one thing that has remained constant until the last few years is pronouns.

"Then that usage of the word is outdated, because the people who actually study these things understand that sex refers to physical attributes, like genitals and gametes, and gender refers to societal expressions, such as the clothes people wear."

And we call those people"who study these things", crackpots, nutjobs, insane. Because the people "who study these things" aren't actually studying anything. They are reacting to a fad notion that there more than two genders and are trying to get some notoriety.

This isn't progress, this is childish make-believe just to get attention.

I am under no obligation to give respect to anyone, therefore, I do not need to respect someone's cry for attention and I certainly offer no respect to narcissist who demand I change to satisfy them. Respect is earned. It cannot be demanded. When has anyone on the left ever respected conservatives? You call us Nazi when we are the polar opposite of Nazis. You call us racists while you guys support and demand some of the most racist policies the government have ever participated in and all for the express purpose of political gain.

"If someone is deliberately harassing somebody over and over again, maybe they should get a fine or something. I'm not saying they should be put in jail."

If the harasser is threatening violence of any kind then maybe.

How it was handled in days long past was the harassed person would get family or friends together and beat the snot out of the harasser. That usually put an end to that. But we are so controlled and so litigious that we have to run to the police for everything.

"As a Democrat, I stand for equality and freedom, among other things. I hope that doesn't offend you."

You cannot have freedom and equality at the same time. It is an impossibly. Either through our freedom we accell or fail and end up with complete inequality or your life is controlled by the government, everyone is equally poor and a slave to the government. There is no happy medium between the two.

"Christianity isn't the solution to society's problems. If it was, predominantly Christian areas wouldn't have any of these problems."

What places are predominantly Christian? Christianity alleviates much of the problems but people are imperfect and some will never change.

I said Christianity is the better solution, and it maintains our individual liberty. Christianity is completely responsible for the creation of this nation, the freest nation to have ever existed.

"We don't. At least I don't, and neither do any liberals I know."

Someone is calling us Nazis, racist, fascists, bigots, etc and it certainly is other conservatives.

In fact what it looks like from the right is the left is the least tolerant, least compassionate, least forgiving, least understanding people in the world. And this is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of most conservatives.

With very few exceptions your side will not dialogue with us to know where we are coming from because that would destroy the narrative that is played out in the media, in movies and in TV.

Watch nearly any movie today and if it is mentioned, the protagonist is always an atheist and a religion person (non-Muslim and usually a Christian) is the bad guy. I'd say that about 99% of any movie that mentions religion or God.

You yourself made a disparaging remark about me getting false or biased information out of my "holy book".

I could go on for days showing you example after example of conservatives or Christians getting shut out of everything.

"We are talking about harassment. Not all speech is protected. And I'd have to see how the law is phrased as well."

You cannot call it harassment if you demand I alter my language for you. You are putting the imposition on those you make this demand of.

What you need to do is tell people the pronouns you would like them to use and have no expectations that they will use those pronouns. Otherwise you are creating a situation where you become a victim. Victimhood is not a virtue. You cannot assume that someone is a bigot for not using your pronouns.

Not getting offended even when someone goes out of their way to offend you is a sign of maturity and growth. You have control over your mind and emotions. It isn't necessary to get bend out of shape over some minutia.

What a much, much, much better world we would live in if people stopped finding things to get offended over. There is no better way to disarm an offender then not letting it bother you.

Years ago, I saw a news story where a group of black people were symbolically burying the "N" word in the ground to put an end to its usage. I really wish I had been then because that did nothing. It never stopped a single person from using the "N" word.

What would end the "N" word is to take any power away from the word. Do not let it offend you. Ignore it. If blacks refused to get offended over that word, that world would drop out of the language completely. Maybe not immediately but it would eventually disappear. And even if it doesn't disappear then all of the power that word has will be taken from it.

The same with the pronoun issue. If you get offended because someone doesn't use your pronouns then you have given them power over you. If you ignore it then they have no power over you. They cannot harass you by not using your pronouns.

"But where do we draw the line? Just because somebody tries to not let it bother them doesn't mean there shouldn't be any consequences."

What consequences would you administer to them? Do you want prison time for saying something you don't like? How is that free speech? Democrats constantly say things I don't like, should I have them all thrown in prison for that.

And, yes, everything the Democrats stands for offends me. They have destroyed much of the freedom we once had in this country and they aren't stopping until they have achieved total authoritarian control.

That is why Democrat politicians were eager to pass laws that fined people up to $25,000 for not using someone's preferred pronouns.

But instead of consequences the much better solution is Christianity. I don't care that the left hates Christians and Jews, the point is the Gospel of Jesus Christ asks it's adherents to love God and to love their neighbor as themselves. Those are the greatest of all of the commandments.

Were they referring to royalty? European royals referred to themselves and required others to refer to them in the plural.

"Scots is closer to English than it is to Scottish Gaelic"

We've been told that English is a Germanic language. Scots looks like the language that was stopped right at the midpoint of the transition between Old German and Modern English and then morphed like all languages morph.

In addition it could have been artistic styling of the books.

Not to mention the English language in 1,300 couldn't be understood by any English speakers today. So anything from that time frame had to have been translated into a more modern version of English so that readers today could understand. When that happens errors can be introduced just as when translating from any language to another.

Researchers say that the period were we would no longer be able to understand an English speaker from the past is somewhere in the 1,500 and 1,600's. And every time a change is added to the language the more recent that cut off period will be.

Schools no longer teach cursive writing and nearly everything that was handwritten, starting with my generation and going further back to previous generations was written in cursive. The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were both written in cursive.

The only thing that keeps some people in touch with the past are those who study Shakespeare and read his unmodernized texts and Christians who use the King James Version of the Bible. For reading anything written in English prior to the 1,500's takes scholar's to understand it.

I mean, really, what was that "hey nonny nonny" Shakespeare stuff all about anyway?

Yea, as for myself and thou, we,verily, speaketh in a tongue that is most unfamiliar with those who liveth is prior times. For, anon, our tongue, which we calleth English, is unknown to the fair gentles of those of a bygone time.

What I find interesting is in America we speak London English but in England the language changes depending on where you live. It is most pronounced in Scotland with Scots English which the Scots say is a different language than the English we speak. There are enough difference between the two where it is not a matter of just a dialect but it is a language that we, for the most part would not understand.

Read any of the Poems by Scottish Poet Laurate Robert Burns as written by Burns. Another example is the song that is sometimes sang on New Years Eve in America, "Auld Lang Syne" is attributed to being written by Burns and it is in Scots English. "Auld Lang Syne" in American English means "Old Long Time" and it is in reference to long time friends.

Anyway, I have blathered on way too long and have gone off on a tangent. Sorry about that.