Here's an actual quote of his.
“These laws are the first laws that I’ve seen that require people under the threat of legal punishment to employ certain words, to speak a certain way,
instead of merely limiting what they’re allowed to say.” - emphasis is mine.
This is incorrect. He is wrong. He is mistaken, or he is lying for his own reasons and you can decide which is worse. You can read more about it here
which is an independent source that sites various other sources.
If you don't want to read through it, here's the meat and potatoes of why his claim that this would "require people under thread of legal punishment to employ certain words" is wrong.
The bill proposes adding gender identity and gender orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act. This means that it would become illegal under the Act to deny someone a job or discriminate against them in the workplace based on the gender they identify with or outwardly express.
If passed, the bill would also add gender identity and gender expression to the Criminal Code in two ways:
Section 718.2 is about what principles should be taken into consideration when a court imposes a sentence.
Section 718.2(a) is about how a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
Section 718.2(a)(i) speaks about offences where evidence shows that action was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on social groups. This list already includes race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, and sexual orientation.
2. Section 318 is about hate propaganda.
Subsection 318(4) adds gender identity and gender expression to the definition of an identifiable group for the purposes of “advocating genocide.” This legislation would protect transgender and gender non-binary peoples from being a targeted group in an act of genocide.
None of that makes it illegal to incorrectly call someone who identifies as "she" a "he".
It makes it so that
* to deny someone a job or discriminate against them in the workplace is illegal. This is already the case for religion, sex (we'll come back to this later), race etc.
* If you're found to have committed an actual crime, like say battery or assault, if there's evidence that you committed this act because of the targets gender, then that can be used against your character and can be used when determining what punishment is going to be handed down to you.
A cursory glance at YouTube where he speaks in depth about the issue and you would have saved yourself misspeaking.
Yet another tactic used by his fans. "Have you not watched his 127 hours of Youtube material to speak on the subject?". If you want to pull a direct quote from one of his videos, please do so. But otherwise no, I won't be trawling through his entire body of work to find where he maybe says something if you look at it through a specific lens.
With the exception of the tiny fraction of the population who are born with male and female genitalia, or elements of both, there are two biological genders. I'm not an authority on the subject of course,but feel free to enlighten me about other biological genders. Save yourself the non binary rhetoric, i have heard it a thousand times and haven't once been convinced.
Let's go back so sex. Sex is biological. It's based on chromosomes that we all have. X and Y for men and X and X for women. There are your two binary "genders", which are called sexes - not genders. Gender on the other hand is a social construct. It's mostly to do with masculine and feminine characteristics.
Your point about aspects of masculinity and femininity being, as you say, bullshit, I don't understand. Whatever point you are making I am not sure, but you only have to look at Californian kindergarten students being taught that masculinity is somehow toxic to see how alarming the current trend of normalizing extreme liberalism is. Masculinity is dictated primarily by naturally occurring hormones, not because of patriarchy, social constructs, misogyny or whatever tiresome buzzword de jour.
Little boys shouldn't cry is bullshit masculinity, or toxic masculinity to throw a buzzword at you. Little boys are told not to cry. Why? If they get hurt, they primarily feel like crying, but what systems are in place to stop them? Is it natural to stop, no, because then it wouldn't occur in the first place. Or is it in fact because of social constructs? Yes, it's entirely because of social constructs. Similarly little girls should be prim and proper is bullshit femininity.
Also why do I have to look at a very specific subsection of students in a state in the United States as some sort of global proof that this is a dangerous idea?