(a) Ethical considerations in this dilemma include whether to give precedence to dignity of gender preference over freedom of expression, a balance between personal identity and expression vis-à-vis the right to disagree. One has the right to affirm his gender by using the appropriate names and pronouns that will redound to the benefit and his dignity. The speaker, on the other hand, has a right to express his opposing position. In a quest for a compromise between the two mutual but conflicting values, the university has to find its way to uphold the rights of sexual minorities in their recognition and respect, on one hand, at the same time protecting academic freedom and open discourse.

(b) Being a Chairperson, my attitude toward this conflict would be one of dialogue and understanding. I shall call for a mediated discussion between the two parties, ensuring it is respectful and secure. Noting that the use of correct pronouns and names should be a basic respect, I shall kindly ask the speaker to learn how the words he speaks are impacting the sexual minority community. At the same time, I would try to highlight the commitment of the university to free speech, calling attention to the fact that everyone has the right to express his opinions but at the same time, it is necessary to have in mind the consequences of the expressions one makes. Publicly, the university would issue a statement that supports both rights of the sexual minorities and principles of free speech in a balancing act to foster respectful and inclusive dialogue.