But that doesn’t answer what I said above.
Why aren’t they asking people to use a single gender neutral pronoun for everyone?
A single pronoun makes sense and I could genuinely get behind that as an idea.
Having a fluid series of changable n plus 1 pronouns, just looks like a pointless, virtue signalling bun fight.
Unless virtue signalling is the entire point of the whole enterprise?
If you go down the road of adding more and more for every subdivision you have no argument against the people who want to identify as apache attack helicopters, tampons (Hey Charlie!) or plants.
You might think other peoples proclivities are silly or trivial or not deserving of the respect you demand for yourself. But giving legal force to your own demands for recognition might just come back at you in unexpected ways.
Neutrality in language (and before the law) should be the aim, not subdivision and singling out.