AOC is actually a trans man

There is no such thing as the court of public opinion.

Also, language and linguistics have been in a constant state of change since the first grunt was grunted. In modern English language I will "ask you" instead of the arcane, "prithee".

Nobody can just tell you they don't need a doctor for medical FMLA.

while mb1 has apparently made up his mind

i'll admit i haven't entirely made up my mind. that said, i don't have much use for people claiming to be "rational" and either being anything but, or starting their reasoning chains in falsehoods.

mb1 says repeatedly that what he states are facts and that no one is willing to directly address said facts...

this would be true if by calling a person he/man/male all we were referring to was that the particular person had a penis, or had xy chromosomes, or had the right range of testosterone [depending on what "biological fact" we chose to be associated with the particular words we were using]. but the reality has never been that simple. we as a western european derived society have built up a whole associative and connotative meaning that reaches directly towards an identity overlayed on top of the supposed "biological fact" [that in far more than a, dictionary defined, infinitesimal number of cases, is in fact not grounded in "biological fact"].

the trick is that when mb1 talks about "a mode of speech that smuggles in incorrect concepts" that is what the whole trans linguistic evolution is attempting to address: the assumptions that are "smuggled" and sometimes not just smuggled but also help to create the underpinning for violent control, for those whose physical bodies and identities are not in parallel with the majorities.

for mb1 there is nothing deeper to being male than either having a fully formed penis, or having xy chromosomes, or the right proportion of testosterone [i have to list all three, as i'm not sure which one of the currently known major objective attributes is the defining one according to mb1].

otoh, there are hundreds of cultures both historically and contemporarily across every continent

including tens of millions of folks in the u.s. of a. at this moment who all say the same thing: while part of being male/female is the physical form, part of it is also something more and in some ways deeper.

now what this more and deeper is termed, depends on who is doing the reporting and so while some refer to it as the "mind" they were born with, or the "heart" or the "spirit", the point is that those people report a deep schism between what identity others refer to them when using pronouns based in "biological fact" versus how they understand and experience themselves.

depending on the culture and point in time those folks have referred to themselves as trans, as two-spirit, as third sex, as etc, etc and etc.

now. let's assume that mb1 is correct and also being rational. let's assume that being a man referred to by "he" was as simple as only being a descriptor of what was between a person's legs, what chromosomes they had, or what hormones were coursing through their bodies.

if that were really true, mb1 should be railing against the whole concept of a binary set of pronouns. if all we are referring to is a physical marker and not coupling it with a whole conceptual understanding and identity that was both conscious and unconscious regarding who and what that person should and could be, then if he was truly about FREEDOM, as he so often claims, he should be calling for the abolishing of rigid binary based pronouns...

it would only be rational.

but he's not. rather, in the same ways that indians attached to the traditional class caste system tried to enforce the last name that a person was born into [it was in fact only a "biological fact" who that person's parents were] in order that they could define that person's potential, mb1 wants to ground a person's pronoun and everything that is consciously and unconsciously associated with that identity in "biological fact".

for me personally, i believe we as a collective are more able to reach our best and most when those individual's who experience those deep incongruencies are left to self define.

[i don't have time to address the mistakes he has repeatedly written regarding his so called "biological facts"... ultimately they aren't really important relative to the bigger issue that the concept of being male/man/he or female/woman/he or intersex/non-binary/they, as they are commonly and presently used, go far far beyond whatever so called "biological facts" we are subscribing to]

this is, as far as i can tell, jordan peterson and fringe u.s. right wing media repeated bull sh#t. i'm a canuck, heavily involved in queer culture, and have researched this for myself. while, imo, jordan peterson was correct that the university of toronto overstepped their bounds, he is also not a lawyer and i have not been able to find a single person with a legal background [including my own amateur one] who has actually looked at the ontario law in question and concluded that a person is going to be able to be sanctioned for not calling someone by a particular pronoun.

because this is the important part to understand. i nor anyone i know can force anyone else to call me or anyone else by the pronoun of my or their preference. that other person can always choose to use my first name or they can use "they/them/their" instead.

as far as i am aware, no tribunal can sanction someone for solely failing to use a preferred pronoun.

otoh, what it can do, in ontario at least, is stop people within certain environments, from repeatedly and intentionally misidentifying someone by calling them what that other person feels they are [as mb1, peterson and those of their argument aren't even doctors, so really aren't in a position to authoritatively speak of "biological fact"]

while this is a subtle difference, it is an important one.

i am, and as far as i know the law is, cool with mb1 not calling someone by their preferred pronoun, as long as they aren't also then enforcing their own preferred...

see the quid pro quo?

but that's not what peterson, or mb1 are ever complaining about. they want free speech!

they have a right to be in a working, professional environment and not only avoid calling someone by a pronoun of another person's preference, but they have the right! to call that person by the pronoun they themselves, despite having no professional capacity, deem correct.

but then they couch it as if people are trying to control them... when if that was true, they would recognize that no one can stop a person from just using first names, or from using gender neutral language.

who is really trying to control here?

now, to show i'm serious about this

the good thing about this, is that this will require zero research, as if it were to happen, the right wing u.s. media would have a collective orgasm as they brainstormed their headlines...

when mb1 looks at laverne cox, nong toom or sophie wilson he sees "men" and he believes that anyone who disagrees with him, including the individuals who live in their own skins, are DELUSIONAL.

otoh, what i see in mb1 is someone who is delusional that they themselves are the ones that have sorted this whole human condition out and so are intent on constraining and controlling the human potential of others through the use of language...

from my perspective the rigid binary system that is slowly sputtering on its last legs in the present moment, is just one more caste system that will ultimately be relegated to the dustbin of history.

all i ask is that if they are dealing with me professionally they avoid using what i am not and stick to either first names or neutral gendered language, if they want to be intellectually honest to themselves.

whether he would be willing to do that or not... i don't know.