>That face when you close the wrong tab after writing a good 10 minute response...
I'll try this again...
Praise be the death of the first amendment.
This is, at it's core, painfully hyperbolic and is one of the fundamental flaws within the "anti-SJW" camp; their arguments come from a place of knee-jerk, reactionary and (yes, I dare say it) emotional responses without fully, or perhaps even partially, understanding what they are actually talking about. Using just the article you posted, but left out most of, it's honestly a very different picture then you want to paint. Likewise delving deeper into the second one (which should be noted is an opinion piece and not a journalist article) this knee-jerk reaction becomes. I will go into the history of CNS news afterwards, because it is relevant to understand their background and their Republican party backings.
The New York City Human Rights Commission has issued guidance saying that businesses may be fined for “harassment” if they do not use customers’ desired pronouns in relation to questions of gender, including preferred usages such as “ze” and “hir.”
This sounds "bad" at first, but that is because it leaves out key details.
The word "harassment" is used in quotes to express some sort of emotional triggering by the word, but it should be unparenthesized harassment. This is a situation where the reactionary aspect really shows it's face; when you start to think about the situations that would lead to a harassment charge you realise that it makes perfect sense and is something that is actually perfectly common within our existing law system. And it's not like you just call someone "sir" and they automatically sue you; it is a matter of you saying "sir", them correcting you, and then you intentionally and maliciously continuing to use the word because what YOU believe they are is what's important, and if they don't fit your expectations of what sex or gender they are then they are wrong. That is harassment, not "harassment". If you continued to call a black man, "my homie" when he asked to be call sir, a gay guy "princess" when he asked to be called "sir" or a tomboy "sir" when she tells you she is a she, then you are harassing them.
When digging deeper into this law you will read that (from your second link), "Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. " is what constitutes harassment. I fail to see what is so offensive about this, since we have laws regarding language protecting people from harassment of biological and personal states as it is. Protecting people's biological and sexuality identity should be a corner stone of a civilized society, not something we balk at.
And I honestly don't think you realize this, nor agree with it, but what you are saying when you make these knee-jerk reactions without thinking them through is that harassing people for their sexuality is acceptable, that shaming people for being different is right and that businesses should be allowed to harass people because "you" think they are stupid. You cant lecture people about the dangers of emotions when your own arguments are not only based on emotions (which I don't believe to be an inherently bad thing) but instead come from a malicious, fearful and hateful place. It is cliché, but it's a great example of how even mindless and unintentional "bad" emotions so often put out more "negativity" without it being intended; you don't mean to hurt these people, but the things you say while being hateful or afraid, before you think, have tangible consequences.
In Oregon, a school district has settled a transgender bias claim, paying $60,000 to a transgender employee who demanded to be called “they” rather than “he” or “she.” The district has agreed to “develop official guidance documents” for “pronoun usage,” and “[V]iolations of the guidance will be grounds for discipline.”
Again, I don't see how you view this as some type of break down of Western civilization and the death of the first amendment other than you have not actually thought your position through but just believe it "feels" good. I don't believe you actually believe harassment is okay, but you have been tricked by this idea that the "SJW" is out to get you that you are saying that we need to throw the laws that protect people from harassment out. It's just silly, and unfortunate, that this view point is ironically enough the mainstream narrative... and yet within the camp they view themselves as the oppressed ones. It's like Christians crying that atheists are destroying their country, when in truth it is run by a Christian government and society (even the atheists are heavily influenced by Christian doctrine due to our heritage) and they are heavily in the majority... but we have to pass extreme, hateful measures because the atheists dare to question our authority. That is exactly what the "anti-SJW" is doing, and is a large part of why Trump was elected ("He isn't politically correct").
...And they should be free not to use words that ‘set off grammar alarms’” that signal such an ideological message.....
Similarly, Professor Volokh notes, it is improper for the government to force people or businesses to use “ze,” a made-up word that carries an obvious political connotation (endorsement of the “non-binary” view of gender).
This is progressively getting worse and worse. That is not a political statement, that is a scientific "fact" (insofar as anthropology, sociology and psychology can be "fact"). The entire concept of gender (not sex, gender) is a social concept and for all intents and purposes any Western professor or scientist who studies the fields will tell you this. This isn't even a new concept, this has been around for decades. I really want to say something, but the next quote from your second link just hammers it home...
We have to call people “him” and “her” even if we believe that people’s genders are determined by their biological sex and not by their self-perceptions...
I'm sorry, but this article is what the first one linked to and agreed to... and this single quote should send red flags to anyone who has the slightest grasp of history. This is the EXACT same thing people said when the "Social Darwinist" & Morgan's "Savage, Barbarian, Civilization" view points began to die out; "Wow, these elitists say we have to say all humans are equal! How dare they!", "Wow, the law is saying we cant imply that it's our moral obligation to enslave Africans and Indians because they are civilizations themselves!". It is the exact same argument that is made when, "How dare the law say we cant call them black folk niggers" or "It's illegal to call gays fucking homos? THIS IS OPPRESSION!".
I don't think you should be afraid of anyone, but if you insist on fearing something then fear people who spread this ideology. Actually read your sources, and not just the headlines, the full articles, and take a minute or two to think about the ramifications of what is being said. This is the shit you need to be afraid of, not the boogiemen in the headline.
Edit: I really hope I get this in on time, it just slipped my mind...
Non-transgender employees have no right to force people to call them by an imaginary or ungrammatical pronoun, so as a matter of simple equity, transgender people should not be able to make such demands, either (and the vast majority of transgender people do not even want to be called “they” or “ze”).
The logical flaws of the first line are hopefully pretty obvious ("Men have no right to complain about 'imaginary' problems they don't have, so women have no right to complain about 'imaginary' problems they actually do have. Equality!"), but the second line... this entire argument boils down to, "How DARE I be forced to be a decent human being and not an asshole!".
If you have to be forced not to be an asshole, then yes... I think businesses and the state have a right to tell you not to be an asshole or face punishment. What is so damn inconvenient about saying, "Oh, I'm sorry x. How may I help you?". Why is the "inconvenience" there more important than the actual inconvenience when someone intentionally starts harassing you because you don't fit their ideal off what they should be? I hear it argued from time to time that we live in a generation of "cry-baby pussies"... is this not the very definition of a cry-baby, someone who whines about how unfair it is that he cant be a jackass?