@jpmc26 In this case, it's the right to be referred to by the correct pronouns when people know them. Pretty simple and not at all authoritarian. Remember, you're not a resident in a state here, you're a guest on someone else's property who has welcomed you but subjected that welcome to certain conditions, as is the case for every such welcome.
@jpmc26 Rights necessarily must come to an end at some point when they impinge on other people. Drawing the boundary between one person's rights and someone else's is not always easy, but often it must be done. In this circumstance such a line has been drawn that requires basic respect of peoples' pronouns. If you cannot manage this, then you are not welcome.
@jpmc26 There is no moral wrong in extending a modest offer of protection and respect to people that are under constant threat just for being who they are. It's no more restricting your speech to require a particular pronoun than it is restricting your speech to require you not refer to people with racial, ethnic, or religious slurs. No one is taking away your broader right to speech the way a government would, they are outlining the bounds of the privilege you have to speak here on this platform. Don't abuse Orwell to make yourself a victim for failing to respect someone else.
@jpmc26 As has been repeated here ad nauseum, the restriction is on questioning whether it is necessary to use correct pronouns. The answer to that question is yes, it is necessary, and no, it is not negotiable. It is no more negotiable than it is negotiable whether people of different skin colors or religions are less human. We don't have those debates here and we won't have this one either. That's it.
@jpmc26 It's way less confusing than you are making it sound. When someone says "actually I go by 'she'", stop calling them "he" or "they" and use "she". Same thing for any other pronoun. If you encounter a word you think is not used in good faith, you can flag for a moderator to help you out. You can believe whatever you want religiously. You can't behave in a way that questions the validity of someone elses' gender. Just like other rights, religious rights end when they intersect with the other rights people have.
@jpmc26 Bigotry is not protected, and basic respect is not negotiable. It's rude and offensive to imply that it is. "I don't want to treat you respectfully, so can we come to an agreement where I disrespect you but only, like, a little bit?" is not an appropriate question to ask. There is no room for an alternative.
@jpmc26 I bet there are lots of words you've used before waiting some X number of years to get comfortable with. It's practically impossible to get through schooling without doing so, that's part of learning. It kind of doesn't matter if you don't "accept the idea that motivated" the creation of those words, there is no longer tolerance for that position here, nor is there tolerance for any number of other positions like the inferiority or superiority of certain races no matter what motivates those positions (religion included).
@jpmc26 That is exactly why there is this policy, because we can go around in circles arguing about language and coerced speech and tyranny and Orwell and ultimately it's all a cover for the core issue: you see a social movement that you disagree with, and that's why you're opposed. That view, however, is not allowed here and nor are numerous others. We're in SE's house, SE would like to protect some of their guests, and they have the right to do so.
@jpmc26 The problem is that for this particular issue, the people most affected end up having to answer all the time. They are constantly questioned for who they are. They are sick and tired of explaining themselves, of providing evidence, of having to coach and educate every single person they meet when all they are asking for is basic respect. Demanding that they put up with this and continue to fight this same fight is not nice, not welcoming, and now, not allowed.
@jpmc26 "Lots of people are (transphobic/sexist/racist)" does not seem to me to be a good argument in support of those positions; it's precisely an argument for why there are specific rules against behavior that supports those positions. Does it make any sense that SO would want to shove a bunch of people out? Or does it make more sense that they want to protect a segment of the population that deserves respectful treatment that they don't always receive?
@jpmc26 I don't need them to be shared with me, pretty sure I've heard them all, so has SO, and especially so has every Trans person. They also aren't particularly new arguments, and some version of many of the same arguments have been used in the past to defend racism, antisemitism, and homophobia. Denying the existence or validity of Trans people's gender and misgendering them is transphobic, I don't think there's much argument to be had there.
@jpmc26 There is no argument to be made about whether respectful treatment of other people includes using the correct pronouns, that's correct. Arguments against that have many spaces to propagate in, they don't need to propagate here when people ask to be referred to correctly.
@jpmc26 Religious arguments have long been used to justify racism, slavery, and homophobia as well, including by framing those views as somehow necessary to "save" others. You don't choose for someone else whether their gender represents a failing or weakness.