my answer doesnt sit right with me. despite my constant fiddling, i cannot seem to get it close to anything i am happy with. i dont want to delete it -out of some deep-seated, probably pathological archiving fetish- so imma break down the issue again here;
first off, i dont think that you present two arguments in the way i understand the word. an argument to me is a set of reasons for believing a certain thing or for acting a certain way; neither of your arguments are set out as such, so its quite hard to treat them as arguments.
the first one comes the closest to being an argument in this sense. bear in mind i will take some liberties with the wording;
- people can choose their own name and pronoun
- anyone who does not respect another individuals wishes is authoritarian
- therefore anyone who doesnt use the pronouns chosen by a person is being authoritarian
thats the closest i can get it. lets start with 1; it is simply untrue. a name is whatever is used to refer to you. you can express a desire to be referred to in a certain way -i think that is probably closer to what you meant-, but that doesnt mean that is how you will be referred; think 'the artist formally known as prince'. the other way i could have interpreted that statement would have been 'people have a right to choose their own name', but since this is an anarchist forum with lots of egoist and nihilist influence, and my own personal opinion on 'rights', i thought that would actually be less charitable.
with 2 i dont agree. i dont think there is an objective category of 'authoritarian', an while not complying with the wishes of an individual would definitely play a part in the way i use the word, it certainly wouldnt be all of it.
whether or not i agree with the argument, it doesnt really tell me anything. my interpretation is based entirely on my own interpretation of 'authoritarian', as there exists no such actual criteria 'authoritarian' we can discover something meets, but that criteria is constructed by us. it also doesnt give me any inspiration of what i might like to do about any of this.
the second arguments most definitely isnt an argument, it is an observation. people can and do express a desire to be referred to in a certain way, and it is up to the other person whether or not they 'respect that'. that is consistent with my experiences.
i think the problems i have with the question -and subsequently my answer- are similar reasons i have to dislike the question 'Is the initiation of force preferable to the non initiation of force?'. its certainly better worded, but the idea of absolutes, of morality, of the good -singular- is still at its core, and it still uses words in a way i would shy away from myself, and as such answering the question in its own terms becomes difficult.