Ranger from the North

Jazz Shaw:

Companies can and have banned political discussions in the workplace (probably for the best), but while the raging transgender policy debate is certainly a political matter in the public square, the actual pronouns people use when addressing their coworkers are not. (Or at least that's my reading of it.) Lyles is free to refer to herself however she wishes and dress in any style that doesn't violate company policies. But what about the free speech rights of her former coworkers who may hold different opinions?

If this lawsuit results in challenges and appeals it could be an interesting one to watch. The courts still haven't come to any final consensus on this entire idea of redefining the words sex and gender to suit a small but vocal minority in defiance of millennia of medical science. But in the meantime, I'm wondering if they will hold that you're actually causing "damage" to someone by refusing to warp the English language (or any other for that matter) with a plural "they" and all the rest of this. What form would such damage take?

People are allowed to say far more mean-spirited things than this in the public square. Yes, speech can be regulated in the workplace within reason, but beyond that, the courts have generally held that words aren't damaging unless you're yelling fire in a crowded theater. It looks like Nike will be the test case for this question.

But remember, if you oppose this madness, you're a fascist.