"But
DON'T TELL ME I have to CALL a man by female pronoun.
Ignernt sumbitch is gonna be the first woman ever kicked in the nads."

 You don't have to, unless you choose to work for a company or agency that requires it.  Just like any company policy I imagine.  Or possibly try to get the policy changed, just like any other.

 Have you worked at places that allow you to kick people in the nads?

Eegore wrote on 05/03/18 at 12:25:21:

"What about a persons, ‘Mind’, makeup ? The above says clearly, that if the, “…biological makeup of a human body…” Is a Male, than, “…I don’t think we should stop assessment of a person…” OK, so given the choice: One person is, Given, a Free 18 hole round of Golf, with 3 other people that they enjoy company with, with Free golf cart, with Free (top of the line) Clubs. Another one is, Given a Free, 3 hours on a range, given free, use of a firearm, given free, ammo/targets, and has 3 other people that they enjoy company with."   This is too far off topic for me to re-connect.  All I am saying is that humans are onsistently assessed by both their mental capacity and their physical form.  Gun control isn't part of the assessment, nor is it part of the original topic - I did not mean to imply anything of the sort with my previous comments.  
 My intention has always been that I have not seen a requirement to pretend someone is an opposite gender, by my definition and perception of what a requirement and pretending is.

“… Gun control isn’t part of the assessment, …”

 No, “‘Gun Control”  was,  NOT  part of the, ‘original’  assessment.

            YET,  a, ‘Assessment’, of a person,  (in this last post)
Biased ONLY, on a  Persons,  CHOICE,  to go Golfing or Shooting.
                             Was  made.
              And because, a, ‘gun’ was involved,
      A, ‘Assessment’, was, Made.  
And that ‘assessment was,  ‘Control those Guns’.

“… My intention has always been that I have not seen a requirement to pretend someone is an opposite gender…”

And no one has, EVER, said that.

What Has been said,  is that, a  ‘Requirement’, to  ALLOW, a  ‘Pretender’,
                    should not be a, ‘Requirement’.
            And the Point, (which MANY others GOT),
Is that, a, ‘Pretender/s’, has always been among us, and always will be.
But NOW, their is a, ‘Requirement’, to  ALLOW,  ‘Pretending’.

“… My intention has always been that I have not seen a requirement to pretend someone is an opposite gender…”

And no one has, EVER, said that.


 First sentence in the thread:

"If a man can decide he's a woman and people are required to pretend it's true"

 I interpreted this line as one stating that there was a requirement that we pretend that a male is in fact a female, as in fact or "true".  

 I have not seen that, I have seen policy stating that we allow people to use any restroom they choose, but we may still accurately assess our perceived accurate gender of said person without consequence.

 Thankfully this doesn't happen everywhere as it seems assaulting people for gender dysphoria is the practical solution.