Also it’s harassment if you keep on calling someone the wrong pronoun just to provoke them

The issue is who gets to decide whether this threshold is met? I think Peterson on principle wanted to maintain the following:
1) The law can't tell you that you have to say something
2) People shouldn't have to say things they believe are false

In principle these seem like reasonable tenets to uphold. If I'm a person who doesn't believe in one of the X many genders that exist today, I shouldn't have to change my language to accommodate it, according to Peterson. Obviously the tendency is to pick the extreme examples, like if someone identifies as a pig and refers to "hamself" as a pig, I shouldn't have to accommodate that, but there's also stuff like "polygender" where someone claims to simultaneously be multiple genders. What do you do in this case? Call them whatever they want to be called? I would just to streamline conversation and get on with it, but I shouldn't have to, especially if I don't believe someone can be multiple genders simultaneously.

The main issue stemmed from the Human Rights Commission's published interpretation of Bill C-16, which basically said they were going to enforce it as Peterson suggested, before this was redacted. He posted this on his first video talking about the matter, before he launched into stardom.

Obviously we can look at the Bill and say "well it doesn't actually say that", but he had a pretty sensible reason to believe the two tenets above could be under threat.