The argument that won was not simply that people dislike pronouns, but that the state should distinguish belief from conduct. Yes won by more than three to one, and the floor’s most-respected case put the boundary plainly: “there must be a distinction between protecting people from harassment and compelling conformity of belief.”
The winning side repeatedly separated legal permission from personal courtesy. One Yes voter said, “I disagree with misgendering people and wouldn’t do it myself but it shouldn’t be illegal”; others framed the question as a defence against compelled speech, with “Freedom of belief and speech is not harassment” becoming the compact version of the case.
The No side argued less expansively and more cautiously. Its most-respected contribution called for “More education” about sex and gender, while another said referring to people as requested was “just basic good manners”; the sharpest reply warned that free speech “isn’t a blank cheque to weaponize those words for targeted abuse.” The two sides were often answering different questions: one about the law’s limit, the other about the human effect of deliberate misidentification.
Against the background of the Equality Act and recent court rulings, the vote places this chamber firmly in the wider argument over whether protection from harassment can coexist with protection for gender-critical expression. Yet the wording did not command universal enthusiasm even among Yes voters: one conceded, “I find the current wording of the proposition harder to support.”
For a self-selected online vote, the message was not subtle: legality was treated as a shield against compelled conformity, not as a verdict on good manners.
31 Opinions
Yes because freedom of speech is important no matter what; no because using a persons' chosen pronouns has no impact on you but a negative impact on that person.
I disagree with misgendering people and wouldn’t do it myself but it shouldn’t be illegal
Two human sexes- male with small gametes & female with large. The SRY gene, usually on the Y initiates male development & shuts down the female pathway. As with all complex systems, issues occur, but all people are male or female regardless. Evolution made females especially able to easily identify men -regardless of dress/ surgery etc. No-one should be forced to lie about what they see with their own eyes. Politeness may ask us to, but no one should be coerced.
I should caveat that the phrasing of the question I supported was "Should it be lawful to express disagreement with another person's stated gender identity?" and that I find the current wording of the proposition harder to support.
Free speech means possibility that someone will be offended. No brainer.
There have always been ambiguities in gender identity and logical assumptions made on initial appearance. This is inherent in all animals and the subtleties of an individual person's sexual identity at a particular point in time is known only to them.
Maybe whoever is upset by it should look around and realise it's not that important!!
I think if we walk away from the activists on both sides, refering to someone how they have asked to be identified is just basic good manners and doing it maliciously to harass people is wrong. Like with a lot of abuse it becomes hard to define exactly how the law should deal with someone who is bullying or harassing but they shouldn't have a free hand to do so.
There are only two genders Male, Female anything else is fantasy and I'm not playing !
Anything else is either a metal illness or evil political activism. There is not such a thing as ‘Trans’ - only deluded & often obsessed & violent people trying to impose this nonsense on the rest of us.