I have always tried to respect peoples choice on pronouns. I never really had any objections to it as long as it was one of the standard language pronouns (he, she, they).

But as I sit here reflecting I keep coming to the conclusion that it shouldnt exactly work that way. We should of course have the right to pick whatever gender we want (including non-binary). Likewise we have the right to demand of people they use the language that matches our gender (which may be different from our sex). What we dont have a right to do is dictate to them what language they use, or what pronouns for that matter.

If a woman is addressed by a person it is my right as the speaker addressing them to decide if i want to use "She, ma'am, lady, hey you" whatever I want to express what i want to express. ma'am showing more respect than she, etc. No one has a right to dictate to me how I address anyone, but you do have a right to demand I treat you like the person you are, and the gender you are.

For the most part that wont be a problem. I think most people who are not CIS-gender would be ok so long as they are addressed according to their gender. I think the times this might get offensive to some are 1) when people want to use exotic pronouns like Xir, they wont get what they want and probably be mad about it 2) when addressing non-binary people there are two gender-neutral pronouns considered acceptable in english "they" and "he" (yes he is gender-neutral in some contexts, and masculin in others)... the non-binary case could be problematic when a gender-neutral "he" is used because some people dont know its gender neutral and may erroneously assume it was used to represent male gendering. That said, thats a matter of education.

@freemo gendered language was a mistake. There's apparently a language that has "ö" as all the pronouns, avoids all problems on all sides of that topic. Shame that trying to shoehorn this type of gender neutrality into gendered languages usually ends up incredibly cursed and nobody bar radical activists wants to actually use it.

@Amikke I disagree, genered language has far more utility in the arts than non-gendered language as it has the ability to be more expressive in more ways.

@freemo sure, every overcomplication of a language has the ability to be more expressive, one of the reasons why adapting an artificial language as common isn't a well liked idea. This particular case causes more problems than it's worth though. It's kinda like with languages where every noun is gendered, for native speakers it's natural and positive due to more expression, for everyone else it's pointless and stupid even if it has some charm. And I say that as a native speaker of one of them.

@Amikke

sure, every overcomplication of a language has the ability to be more expressive.

If it serves a function in expressing certain ideas more accurately then it has utility. Therefore it wouldnt be an overcomplication (that is when something is complicated without benefit)… what you meant to say is an increase in complication.

@freemo overcomplication often has some benefit or reason, it’s overcomplication when that benefit is overshadowed by downsides.

Gendered language helps in expressing one idea: gender. It has charm, especially with things like calling a ship or other vessel “she”, but with being a mandatory inherent part of the language it causes disproportionally more problems.