Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of languages have very arbitrary and complex rules for pronouns or other signifiers. You wanting these to be, in English, very closely tied to specific characteristics of expressed gender similar to traditional usage doesn't make it have to be so. Plenty of humans live in a language where you can't figure out what's in people's pants or whether they're likely to wear a skirt without someone explicitly telling…
> You wanting these to be, in English, very closely tied to specific characteristics of expressed gender similar to traditional usage doesn't make it have to be so. Right back at you - it's your side that's trying to impose changes to the meaning of these pronouns by fiat. You can start using then differently if you want, but it's incredibly entitled to demand others conform to your novel definitions. > Plenty of hum…
It's not really "my side". Lots of people are asking me to call them differently, and I'm complying. I think people who don't listen to polite requests about how to address others are rude. I think language is moving, and that people who insist to keep older conventions at all costs are A) generally on the wrong side of history, and B) rude.
Someone may have learned growing up that calling a black person a "Negro" was a polite form of address, and that "moron" is an accurate, impartial label. But it stopped being so. Trying to pedantically cling to something that now many people consider insensitive or rude is not great.
And, language moves on. We can assume a bit less from certain pronouns about what's in someone's pants or what they might wear. Of course, we could already assume a lot less about those things than a hundred years before.