A Question of Consent

[emanix]

The topic of consent has come up more than usual in several different areas of my life over the last few weeks, and it has brought up some interesting questions for me about exactly what consent *is* and where it is and isn't necessary.

Wikipedia currently defines consent as: 'Voluntary agreement or permission, not unlike assent consent can be achieved by passively not refusing; To express willingness, to give permission.'

So consent can be verbal, 'yes I give permission for you to do x', non-verbal, in the sense of a nod, a wink, a shrug, or tacit in that the person consenting simply does not act. There are situations in which all of these are perfectly appropriate, but lately I note that certain people find it hard to draw the line as to exactly which acts require consent and which do not, or they draw it in different places to me, or to each other.

To get a little metaphysical for a moment, there is no way in which we can act that does not affect other people - every air molecule we breathe out will reach someone else's lungs slightly altered by its contact with us. We drop skin cells as dust everywhere we walk, and the vibrations of our voices may well alter the paths of tsunamis just as much as the flap of a butterfly, they've been known to start landslides. It isn't possible to know the effect we are having on the entire world all of the time. We have to assume some level of tacit consent to our existence from the rest of the universe, or we simply couldn't live.

So what *does* require consent?

To me this is something that's always been relatively clear cut - Personal sovereignty means that I (and everyone else) have a right to give or refuse consent to anything that has a demonstrable direct physical effect on my person. Thus anything that involves my being touched, moved, enclosed, irradiated (by something under the control of a person), or chemically interacted with requires my consent.
So I support the smoking ban in public places because I don't consent to breathing in chemicals that have a direct effect on my lungs. I support the law prohibiting people from punching me in the face without my consent, because well, I don't like being punched in the face without my consent. On the other hand, I do not support laws which remove a persons ability to consent to such things, however well intentioned, because they remove a bit of my personal sovereignty, whether I intend to use it or not.
(Theoretically, of course, living in a democratic country means giving tacit consent to the government to make these laws, along with the active consent of voting for whatever party I prefer - though quite where that leaves everyone who voted for the parties not currently in power, I have never yet worked out. )

Where I would say consent does NOT come in, are the things I see and hear other people doing, and this is where I find I differ from some of the people around me.

Some recent situations in which I have seen differing views on consent:

An event in a fetish club, where one couples' intense scene gave a sense of unease to several other people in the club who weren't entirely sure that the scene was consensual. The general opinion seemed to be that the other people in the club had not consented to VIEW what this pair were doing, and that they were therefore in the wrong. Is consent necessary for merely appearing in front of somebody?

One half of a couple speaks for their partner on a mailing list, and several people insist that consent MUST be given by the other partner in front of the rest of the group in order for this to be okay. Is it really reasonable to demand that the silent partner gives written consent to this, considering that the state of their relationship is nobody else's business?

A comment was made in the same thread about this being equivalent to "being drawn into someone else's D/s play without my consent" - I can't quite understand this objection I have to admit - Objecting to the facts of someone else's relationship, as long as they are not expecting you to be physically involved, or demanding that they be called by their role names, is that not well... like requiring consent to be told that the sky is blue?*

A person was objecting to being referred to by an incorrect term (which had been accidental on the part of the person using it) It was stated that this was non-consensual, and equivalent to physical violence. Is a pronoun, an insult, or any other term used to refer to a person, really a matter of consent, as opposed to politeness?

A disagreement between a young lady at a party who had given written consent to everyone at the party for a particular action (kissing), and a certain chap who wanted to double-check that this was okay. Could it be said that she had not consented to having her original consent questioned?

What's your opinion on the above issues? Are there any situations you consider to be grey areas? How do you handle these?

What does consent mean to you?


--
*In this particular case, the issue has since been cleared up and seems to have been a misunderstanding, but it's not the first time I've heard similar views stated, so I'm letting the question stand.

Comments

[lord-don.livejournal.com]

I would tend to side with your definition for the most part: that "I (and everyone else) have a right to give of refuse consent to anything that has a demonstrable direct physical effect on my person".

In terms of the fetish club: there are rules as to what kinds of scenes are allowed at fetish clubs. If the scene is within those rules, then no one should be complaining. Where it gets tricky is this: BDSMers have long argued that the community is very effective at self policing. This argument has often been used to counter the argument that not being allowed to give consent to assault protects those who are emotionally vulnerable from giving consent without wishing to do so. So, one could say that those who questioned whether the scene was consensual were merely performing that same act of self policing that has been held in such high regard. However, it is important to note that once it was established that the scene WAS consensual (from the point of view of those directly involved) anyone else should quite frankly shut up, as they have come to a fetish club and therefore should be prepared to view anything within the rules of the club, or piss off.

As for online activity: If someone wishes to talk about their relationship online, they are (through the justification of freedom of speech) instantly opening that topic up to discussion. If they are called on to justify their relationship or their views by the request for their partner to contribute, it is their choice to do so or not. Equally, I do not believe that it is unreasonable for someone to question a statement that has been made online. Clearly if one makes a statement, one leaves it open to challenge and discussion. One can only hope that such challenge and discussion is executed in a polite manner, rather than rotting away to people calling each other Nazis. All of which is to say: if you say something online, you should expect that someone, somewhere (who may very possibly have either the IQ of an ant or Einstein) will challenge it. When they do so, it is entirely up to you whethr you respond to that challenge - it is for you to consent or not to that challenge. Of course, keeping silent after being challenged also has it's drawbacks, and I'm not forgetting that. Which is why I tend nowadays to say extremely little of any import online, because in most cases I do not really wish for a public discussion of my life.

As to whether a pronoun is a matter of politeness or consent, that is quite tricky in the fetish (and many other) communities. Calling someone a slave without their consent seems rather presumtuous and offensive. In many ways, I can imagine that the person might feel their consent (or lack of) had been ignored. However, if someone calls me a big fat tosshead, I am more likely to be offended, and less likely to feel my consent has been ignored. Of course, the fact is that for many people, particularly in gender-interested communities, are a matter of identity and can be incredibly upsetting to people if used incorrectly. If done on purpose, that is appalling. If done by mistake, well, mistakes happen. We try not to make them, but we do.

Part two of this to posted as a second comment, as it won't let me post a comment this long...

[emanix.livejournal.com]

1. they have come to a fetish club and therefore should be prepared to view anything within the rules of the club, or piss off. - that's the bit that answered my question. Ta. :)

2. The person concerned was not explicitly discussing their relationship online, but simply stating 'my partner says that...' I found the ensuing row and speculation over their relationship quite bizarre.

3. I guess my position on this is that people have the right to call me any darn thing they like, insults and untruths included. It may make them shitty people, but they don't need my consent to do so. Anything else is closing down free speech (and completely unenforcable). For me the line is drawn not at the point where words are used, but where actions follow on from them - i.e. someone calling me 'slave' without my permission clearly has issues (not least being blind), but if they then follow it up with a physical action, even just touching my hand without asking, that's the point at which my personal sovereignty is being violated, not the verbals.

[lord-don.livejournal.com]

Continued...

Regarding the young lady and chap at the party: my personal policy is that if one is not sure consent has been given, then it seems reasonable to check. I do not believe that to do so would be to question the consent, but merely to clarify whether the young lady had been in posession of the full facts when making her decision. For instance: (and I'm not saying this WAS the situation, this is just a hypothetical) if the young lady were to be unaware of the chap's presence at the party when she wrote the note, and actually happened to have something of a problem with the chap in question, I can imagine she would probably be quite grateful for the consent to be checked. In addition, in these days of litigation, I am all too aware that if you are unsure of consent (for whatever reason) it is unwise to assume it. As one of my friends found out, it's hard enough to prove consent even when there was no question at the time as to whether or not it was given, so if you are unsure, I can't really feel that checking is altogether unreasonable.

All of which says that for a topic which *should* be so black and white, i.e. there was or there was not consent, it's got a fuck load of grey areas...

That's just my tuppeny's worth.

DISCLAIMER: I am not suggesting that I am aware of what actually transpired in the above situations. My arguments are based on a purely hypothetical verion of those situations, as I was not present at any of them (to my knowledge) and therefore have absolutely no clue what happened. Far be it from me to judge the rights and / or wrongs of those events.

[janieluk.livejournal.com]

There are a number of cases out there where the courts have found that taking someone's assurance that 'yes she's consented' is no defence. I think friend_of_tofu knows the case references.

[emanix.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that is a good point - I actually don't have a clear standpoint on this one. I think she was somewhat rude to object to his checking, but on the other hand she had given written consent, the situation was a game in which the instruction was 'come up with something that anyone at the party could do with you', and she clearly felt patronised. Complex, these things!

[janieluk.livejournal.com]

Heh. I heard about one of these. I suspect there's a tension between the right of people to free speech and action on the one hand, and the right of people to not be offended on the other.

I tend to wander off in the direction of free speech, but that doesn't mean that speech should remain unchallenged. Specifically, I would abhor any moves to restrict what people can legally say (give or take slander, direct or implied threats of violence, shouting fire in crowded theatre), but social pressure is potentially acceptable, especially where the speech reinforces a power differential (i.e. racism, sexism etc.). I also don't think people realise that internet pile-ons can bring a power dynamic and privilege into play that are the opposite of those being railed against.

You'll note I didn't use the word consent above. Viewing other people being confused about or even deliberately refusing to use one's preferred terminology and identity as a breach of consent and equivalent to physical assault is utterly inimical to free speech, and may even hurt wider acceptance and understanding of the identity in question. Yes, it may cause upset and emotional hurt. But people don't get to dictate what everyone else thinks and says about them. That's not how it works.

Free action is more problematic, but it's late and I should be starting work.

[emanix.livejournal.com]

Thanks, I really like this response.

[tartful-dodger.livejournal.com]

I think that 'thinks' goes beyond consent, certainly. I don't believe in thought policing, but I do think that behaviour is entirely different.

What someone says *about* you, again is entirely different to what people says *to* you, and again I don't think that what someone says to consenting adults who choose to hear it is a matter for state intervention. I think a person should have some measure of control about they have to deal with in day to day life.

But people ultimately have the right to be left alone, and having things randomly shouted at them or about them in the street isn't something that they should have to put up with.

I don't think publications and media should be restricted, as those things are free for viewers to opt in or out of, but I think that in public, and particularly when it comes to public services then I think that people should have a right to protection from insult and discrimination.

I think a doctor's receptionist should be able to say whatever she likes at home (as long as she honours confidentiality agreements from work). But if she's outside, and particularly at work then hateful speech isn't acceptable and a matter of consent. If she wants to write a book entitled FAGGOTS ARE SICK PEVERTS then she can do it at home, but she shouldn't leave a copy on her desk at work, or use the medical records she has access to as case studies. And if they started selling it on amazon then yes, I probably would say to amazon that it is financing homophobia and ask them to withdraw it, and ask others to do likewise...but I think the big ethical consideration isn't regarding how it impacts me as a consumer, but how it effects amazon's gay employees, who also have a right to do their jobs without being expected to tolerate homophobia in their workplace.

[tartful-dodger.livejournal.com]

I love discussions about ethics, so this might be a bit rambly.

"An event in a fetish club, where one couples' intense scene gave a sense of unease to several other people in the club who weren't entirely sure that the scene was consensual... Is consent necessary for merely appearing in front of somebody?"

I think that the fact that somebody has purposefully entered a fetish club then they have given consent for others to commit bdsm acts around them.

A fetish venue is a designated space for violence and/or sexual acts to be done by consenting adults, which is what separates it from the pavement outside it.
If you're not comfortable with watching other people's scenes then you can either not attend at all, or alternatively if you see something you don't like then stop watching. Most fetish venues have chill out areas which you can retire to.

The rules at events vary obviously, so if you've been told that fucking and bloodplay are not allowed at a venue either in the advertising or on the door then you have not consented to watch fucking or bloodplay and people breaking the rules are violating the code of conduct that they've agreed to abide by.

It might be wise to inform a dungeon monitor if your play was going to look non consensual or dangerous, as its their responsibility to watch out for people in trouble... particularly if you don't want them to interrupt your play. But that isn't the same as having to get consent, its just a failsafe which means that they can do their job non intrusively.

"One half of a couple speaks for their partner on a mailing list, and several people insist that consent MUST be given by the other partner in front of the rest of the group in order for this to be okay. Is it really reasonable to demand that the silent partner gives written consent to this, considering that the state of their relationship is nobody else's business?

I think that the idea that you cannot neccessarily trust someone who says that they have another's permission to speak for them is quite a valid one, particularly if the consequences for accepting this could be very serious.

For example, if someone on the web gives you the address of somebody they claim is their partner and tells you that they have consent to get people to kidnap them and you agree to that without verifying that this person has actually bestowed that authority then you could be violating someone's rights and placing yourself in a position where you are vulnerable to legal action. That's an extreme example admittedly, but it demonstrates possible consequences of assuming that someone has the consent to act for another.

"A person was objecting to being referred to by an incorrect term (which had been accidental on the part of the person using it) It was stated that this was non-consensual, and equivalent to physical violence. Is a pronoun, an insult, or any other term used to refer to a person, really a matter of consent, as opposed to politeness? "

Hmm... this is more complicated. 'It was an accident' can be used when what someone actually means is 'I assumed wrongly'. If misgendering/otherwise insulting someone is equivilent to physical action then I would say that doing so unintentionally would be like doing something accidentally (like kicking someone without meaning to) whereas doing so maliciously is akin hurting people intentionally physically. Like physical contact people can being irresponsibly 'reckless' linguistically (i.e using a term that a very small minority of people would find acceptable), or linguistically 'clumsy' (through ignorance or lack of social skills).

If you accidentally kick someone, you generally say sorry, and I think that general rule should exist around causing offense.

A disagreement between a young lady at a party who had given written consent to everyone at the party for a particular action (kissing), and a certain chap who wanted to double-check that this was okay. Could it be said that she had not consented to having her original consent questioned?

If she had said that she wanted people to perform an action spontaneously then yes, he was breaking her consent, in my opinion. If he felt iffy then its easy enough for him to just not kiss her.

[emanix.livejournal.com]

If misgendering/otherwise insulting someone is equivilent to physical action then I would say that doing so unintentionally would be like doing something accidentally -- but do you also consider these things to be genuinely equivalent?

I mean, I think it's very rude to refer to people by names or terms they don't approve of, but I wouldn't personally equate it to physical violence (unless, possibly, there is an *explicit* threat of physical violence within the term used, and even then possibly not...).
There's more about my position on this in response to lord_don above, and i think [Unknown site tag] makes some really good points, too.

[emanix.livejournal.com]

Oops, for some reason my tag didn't work - the second person I was referring to was janieluk

[tartful-dodger.livejournal.com]

Hmm.... I don't think that calling someone a nasty name is directly equivilent to physical violence, but I don't thing that they're entirely different.

This first example is one based on personal experience as someone who has received street harrassment for looking visibly queer.

If you look at the effects of physical versus verbal harrassment... slapping someone has a fairly minor physical effect. Its quite a momentary physical pain with no lasting physical damage, and the fear of escalation and feeling of discomfort which come from having someone show that they they are willing and able to violate your rights are far more lasting than the initial sting.

Verbal intimidation in the context of shouting at someone in the street and being physical intimidating without actual physical contact can have a lot of the same consequences in terms of diminishing people's safety as physically hitting someone; the end result makes people afraid, upset, or angry.

Once someone has shown that they are willing to be verbally abusive to you in an unprovoked way (which in the UK is a criminal offense, particularly if its covered by hate crime legislation) then it is hard to separate that from an implied threat of violence... at the point where a stranger is in your face, spewing out a load of homophobic abuse like that, and asking you about what bits you have under your skirt you don't know whether they'll hit you or not, and what level of violence there'll be if they do.

If something is purposefully used to make someone miserable, afraid or un comfortable then it has many of the same effects as physical violence.

People start wanting to avoid work or school and their ability to concentrate and function as well as their attendence suffers, as well as their performance.

In a relationship verbal abusiveness (not neccessarily fairly 'meaningless' expletives but targetted attacks on people's self esteem) is used as efectively to take away someone's self worth to the extent that they can be controlled as physical abusiveness.

And from a doctor, police officer or other person of trust and/or authority who act as doormen for provision of services it can stop people from accessing services that they desparately need.

Sending someone a random internet message 'ur hair is stupid' is mean but unlikely to have long and profound consequences in and of itself, but if you perpetuate a sort of discrimination that society as a whole has inflicted on someone then racism, sexism, homophobia or transphobia is often part of a wholescale hate campaign which is delivered by droplets rather than barrels...but eventually droplets add up to barrels.

[emanix.livejournal.com]

Also some really great points! There is perhaps no clear line, but I am considering at this point how actually some words may have a measurable physical effect on a person - i.e. fear, self-loathing - although again, what I'm seeing is that a lot of these fears do seem to have a root in physical threats. Perhaps there is no clear line after all, though.

Thanks for the food for thought!

[tartful-dodger.livejournal.com]

One of the things that I find an interesting but controversial question of consent is around abusive relationships, and people who stay in them.

I can see clearly that threat of physical consequences 'if you leave me then I'll find you and kill you' for example is something that a person does not consent to, and is not so much about consenting to be in the relationship, but trying to stop something worse from happening.

But there are people who stay in abusive relationships where consequences of violent retribution has not been implied.

Is staying in a relationship for financial security and companionship and things that a person has no inherrent right to ask for from another person, rather than safety from violence, knowing that abuse is likely to occur equivilent to consenting to abuse? And is it still abusive if a person has consented? Is it possible to consider it as a fair exchange, if a partner is tolerating violence rather than enjoying it?

I'm speaking for people who go back to partners who have a long history of being abusive, even after they have moved out and achieved financial independence (even if that income is significantly less than what they would have had if they were sharing their abusive partners income). There seem to be people who persistently choose abusive partners and fail to leave when someone is violent towards them.

Various anti-abuse campaigners say that it is always unacceptable, and never right... but if a person (rightly or wrongly) believes that it is better to have an individual in their life on the whole, regardless of whether they're abusive than to be without them then is that in itself consent?

[cheshcat.livejournal.com]

Well said, boyo!

I disagree only on the last point... The young lady had given blanket permission for whomever picked up her piece of paper telling them to kiss her. I would have done what the certain chap had done, i.e., allow her the opportunity to revoke her consent once she saw who was going to do the kissing. (Otherwise, he might fear she felt coerced into participating, just because she had given that consent initially and would lose face by backing down.) If I had been the young lady, I would not have been offended at him checking in, but appreciative at what I saw to be respectful (and sexy) attitude towards my person. :D

[tartful-dodger.livejournal.com]

Oh, I was only applying the 'its wrong to ask' clause to a situation where she had very explicitly said that it was wrong to ask. So if she'd wrote down 'everybody is allowed to kiss me' then checking in previously is perfectly good ettiquete, but if she'd written 'as long as they don't speak to me' then it would be quite clear that asking her about it was not something she was happy with.

:)

[cheshcat.livejournal.com]

Ah, I see. I don't believe she was that explicit in the example cited. :)

[tartful-dodger.livejournal.com]

The grey areas of consent for me exist with things such as societal expectation and personal boundaries, and conflict of interest.

Does anybody have the right to ask anything of anybody else? For example does a man approaching a woman in an isolated area have the right to ask her for sex? Is that about consent or politeness?
She could argue that she felt intimidated, and as though her rights had been violated as a result, and that he didn't have the right to ask her, he could argue that he wasn't pressurising her in any way, he was simply making her an offer. W
hat if he had asked her the time at a crowded bus stop, and she'd felt intimidated and said that he had violated her right to be left in peace..would that be more or less reasonable?

Public displays of affection seem like quite a grey area. The general consensus in the UK is that holding hands in the street is okay, but having sex is not... but everything in between is a varying shade of grey.

If I complain about a colleague wearing a t-shirt with the word cunt on it at our workplace, can they in turn complain about my hideous tie?

[emanix.livejournal.com]

I can never quite get my head around why it isn't okay to have sex in the street, actually. I understand that it is deemed not, and since I like not being arrested I respect that, but why isn't it? I mean, there are people I'm really not interested in seeing going at it on the street, but is it really any more offensive than that ugly tie you mentioned?

[tartful-dodger.livejournal.com]

I feel quite similarly.

There's also the grey area of what people consider 'age appropriate'.

I find it particularly baffling that it is deemed more acceptable to show children violence than it is sex (and sexual violence apparently being more abhorrant than either of the two individually).

[cheshcat.livejournal.com]

Ditto. I want to believe the law is intended to protect children from being victimized by what they might witness (or be drawn into).

[awfulhorrid.livejournal.com]

I think you have a good working definition of 'consent' there. I don't think I can really improve on it, but I do have comments on some of the situations.

Fetish club: I've certainly been at events where I saw scenes that seriously disturbed me on an emotional level. I actually had to ask my Goddess to move us to a different spot in the dungeon because I was having entirely too many of my own emotional triggers activated by the nearby scene. (We moved to a different spot and had a great time.) Did they ask us before they started a very verbally abusive waterboarding scene? No, of course not, and I wouldn't expect them to do so! We signed an agreement coming into the event that we might see such things, they were apparently cleared with the DM, and they were well within the rules of the event.

"... being referred to by an incorrect term ... equivalent to physical violence." WTF? Seriously? It *might* be an insult if done deliberately. It might even be emotionally abusive if done repeatedly or in a certain manner, but to compare an accidental slip of the tongue to a physical assault is quite a stretch and one I'm simply not buying. I can only assume the person making this claim has never been the victim of assault nor been close to someone assaulted. Trust me a broken leg looks quite a bit different from a hurled invective, even a purposeful one. Of course on the question of consent, I don't see how that actually figures into the picture. As described it seems a bit of a null situation to me, but I may be simply missing part of the picture.

[cheshcat.livejournal.com]

Yes! What I thought! A broken leg is a far worse insult than calling a woman Mrs. or Miss when she's a hardcore feminist Ms., or tripping up on pronouns because you don't know better (or horror or horrors, have made a slip of the tongue).

[livinglibertine.livejournal.com]

There will always be a billion different answers to questions like this, as everyone has their own lines in the sand where consent is necessary and where it is not. Much like everyone has their own lines as to what is acceptable behaviour in any given situation. I'm not about to add my own voice to the noise that emerges out of everyone shouting 'this is what I think should be the case,' because quite frankly the majority of people have well-rationalised points that could not be decided between based purely on how reasonable/logical they are.

I, instead, choose always the road less travelled, and turn to why the question is even raised in the first place; why do we feel that consent is a significant enough concept to bring into reality? If we examine the intention behind the concept of consent, it is quite a simple matter, that boils down to what many ethical sticking points do. Consent is a measure taken to try to ensure nothing unpleasant happens to us - that we do not experience anything we do not wish to. So we look out into the world, judge what we would not like to experience, and do not give our consent to it.

The problem with consent is that when one sees someone consenting to something we would not consent to ourselves, most people object to this. This was easy enough to discover evidence for in my own experience when I took a submissive into a rock club on a chain & occasionally giving her a little spanking for misbehaving. So many people came over to ask about it, to accuse me of being cruel despite the smile on her face. When things were explained to them, many women then accused her of reneging against the principles of feminism (I let my sub explain that to the accusers, there were some very entertaining conversations).

The point I am making is that consent is always going to be viewed as required in different situations by different people. To try to discover a hard & fast rule to deal with it is never going to work simply because people believe such a wide variety of things about consent. Think of how many people believe sex workers cannot possibly willingly consent to their 'exploitative' roles, or how many people think a terminally ill patient still has no right to consent to death.

So I mostly stick to two simple statements, because I choose to keep life simple: "There is only what I can do, and what I can't do" and "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission (except in the most extreme cases, obviously)" And yes, that was Jack Sparrow I paraphrased there - I never said it made life easy, but it keeps it simple, for me. Let everyone else do, say & judge as they please. I will do the same, and if I feel I've done wrong then I'll ask forgiveness.

[haggis.livejournal.com]

I have been thinking about this.

Scene in a BDSM club - If people are involved in a scene, then they should be treated with respect. If you choose to do an intense scene in a club, rather than in privacy, you are choosing to involve the audience as part of the scene. That's an active decision (compared to the passive consent given by attending the club) and therefore you need to treat the people in the audience with respect.

For me, that would include doing the scene in a place people can escape from it/avoid it if they choose, accepting that people may be concerned for you or your partner later and accepting the instructions of the DMs graciously.

Regarding the young lady at the party - consent is not a one-time thing. You have the right to change your mind and withdraw consent so it makes sense to check consent a few times, if necessary. (Tartful_dodger has highlighted the problems with third parties giving consent.) Complaining about someone checking consent seems to me like complaining that putting a condom on spoils the romantic mood. It may spoil the fantasy briefly but it's the price of admission for these sort of games (assuming the other partner wants to use a condom.)

[cheshcat.livejournal.com]

An excellent discussion. Thanks for posting these!

A person was objecting to being referred to by an incorrect term (which had been accidental on the part of the person using it) It was stated that this was non-consensual, and equivalent to physical violence. Is a pronoun, an insult, or any other term used to refer to a person, really a matter of consent, as opposed to politeness?

Maybe I misread this -- I thought at first you were suggesting that if I called someone by the wrong (gendered) pronoun, I would be behaving in a non-consensual and physically violent manner. Then I re-read and guessed you meant calling someone a highly charged label ("slave", "slut", "bitch", etc.) as invasive and inappropriate?

If so, I do agree with the latter. Although for the sake of argument, I would be highly defiant against construing the former as a violation of such magnitude, especially if it were done by accident.