>>The highest court in the land thinks that this is a serious subject:
>>http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/10/supreme-court-will-rule-on-transgender-rights-case
>
>Because it is. Trans folks face tremendous discrimination and get beat up a lot. I may have asked this before, but I'm curious whether you personally know anyone trans.
>
>We, of course, have two trans-women (that I know of) in the VFP community, Janis Booth and Martina Jindrova. Closer to home, one of the young people who spent many, many hours in our home is a trans-women. If you met her, I don't think you'd know that she used to be a man, and in many settings, for her to walk into a men's room would likely endanger her.
>
>Tamar
>
>* Not directly related to this discussion, but I'm in a couple of private election-related groups. People there have been explaining why they're voting for Hillary. Some of the stories they have to tell about their lives and what they've faced because they're women or because they're gay (or both) are blood-curdling. I've had tears in my eyes more than once.

Don't see how pronoun enforcement would help their cause. On the contrary, I think it's a trick to bring the wrath of everybody to them, as if the pronouns were exactly what they were looking for and nothing else. We call it a "bear's service" (when a bear kills a fly on your shoulder). Instead of getting them some real equality and protection, the pronoun rule would just annoy everyone, get a few token cases fined or jailed, will further draw the division lines and perhaps get 1% of previously disinterested people to take sides on the issue (and there's no guessing which side this would be). I'm almost sure that pronoun enforcement was not what they were asking.