hmmm , i never loved a balanced patch not either cancer patch , but you know some thing like 6 . 87 would be good . <| sep |> My Favorite Murder ! It ' s two comediennes chatting about life and murder . And it ' s hilarious . <| sep |> You have to remember both what the enforcement law is , and how laws works , to understand why this is a major issue . The enforcement of law is the weight of the state most or all of the clout of its citizenry against an individual . It is not a precise instrument appropriate for delicate social negotiations . This is especially important in this case as 1 nonbinary individuals are a statistically insignificant portion of the population and 2 the very nature of their identity expression is convoluted . Is it appropriate to use the weight of everyone against an individual in a complicated and confusing interpersonal interaction ? That seems overblown . And less you think I am being hyperbolic , after the Agenda episode on this topic , I have heard that Nicolas Matte was exploring legal action against Steve Paikin for misgendering another guest . That guest was content to correct Steve and move on . That is a frivolous use of law , and demonstrates why this law is poorly constructed . The second issue is one of precedence . Since the inception of free speech , it ' s limitations have been found in what you must not say like yelling Fire in a crowded theater , as the classic example goes . This is a compulsion on what you MUST say . It crosses the boundary from protection of public safety to a form of thought policing . Once that precedent exists , even if it is well intended to protect although aside from hurt feelings , I fail to see what pronoun usage protects . Nonbinary protesters against Peterson have made claims that this is about labour market participation , but again , not connected the dots marginalized groups , subsequent governments can use the precedent in regressive , even totalitarian ways . The last part of your statement there is troubling if they ' re intending to do it , why does it matter if the law comes into play ? It ' ll have no impact on them . This is the very same rhetoric used by those interested in expanding the surveillance state . A bad law is bad for society , not just those who run against it .