Because no body actually cares, no body will use your made up pronouns.
> use of the words "normal people" and infiltrating a group only to neg them to be more problematic than anything.
Isn't it obvious that the people in this group are clearly not normal?, they even admit themselves!
This is why some transgender and nonbinary people have stopped trying to reason with their friends and family about their gender identity, and have resorted to clicker-training them like dogs to use the appropriate pronouns and pay them basic human respect and dignity.
> have resorted to clicker-training them like dogs...
I doubt thats going to help with the human dignity of your family either.
In my experience, this “clicker-training” consists of childishly threatening to kill themselves if others don’t give them what they want.
It's a video of a girl who demands to be referred to as "they" for whatever fashionable reason, and has decided to use a dog-training clicker to remind her family members of this imposition whenever they use "she" as they normally would.
There are probably more genderqueer people out there whose families wish them dead, than there are ones who try to manipulate their families by "childishly threatening to kill themselves".
I'm reminded of the fragilely masculine fulminating about false rape accusations when so many actual rapists never even get reported.
If one decides to change their first name, they have every right for their friends and family to respect that. If I wanted to be called, for instance, Vladimir instead of Richard, it would be really bloody rich if my mom insisted on the name _she_ thinks fits me better. Same with sex/gender transition (I am not up to date on terminology here, but you know what I mean) - there is nothing more than showing basic respect for choices an individual does for themselves.
I get why people don't want to misgendered. But making up a new pronoun comes across as aggressive attention seeking.
A journalist writing about someone they've interviewed ... as part of doing the best they can for the people they serve, the readers, perhaps in some cases it's reasonable for them to ignore the preferences of the interviewee?
Through the article, this happens in various forms.
If the point of the article is to criticise someone's behaviour for being an "internet cool person"; opening by your opinion piece by stating you were too cool to bother to do something; and later stating that you as the writer are a normal person, and that you feel sick after infilitrating a group, there is a level of hypocrisy there.
I agree with you there are legitimate cases for ignoring someone's preferences to improve the quality of information imparted. However, the author doesnt state any apart from "didnt bother".