That's a really disingenuous interpretation. Everyone's existence is unique and subjectively experienced and thus any self professed identity has to be evaluated against the terms of its own logic, not a universal one. A person who has decided to reject gender boundaries is pursuing an act of personal liberation by stepping outside of the constraints of the gender role that has been determined for them by society's acknowledgement of their sex. A person who has decided to participate in the gender role opposite theirs is also pursuing a personal act of liberation by examining the range of roles that society offers them and then choosing one, diametrically opposed to the traditional role that was paired with their sex. In a free society both of these choices are perfectly valid and should be acknowledged and respected just like any other choice. In the same way that the state imposes itself to control a person's entire life through violence, the sum total of cultural interactions between the individual and society can seek to reinforce or discourage the individual's personal choices, thus the act of refusing to acknowledge a person's preference of identity is the cultural analogue to state violence. This act of refusal and counter-reinforcement is a sustained act of warfare on human liberation per se.
I could have explained this to you if you had just asked. Next time be better.
Sophistry at its finest. This seemingly logical appeal to freedom exposes its foundational fraud in its very argument, the whole edifice collapsing by simple definitional examination. In true dialectical fashion, the terminology actually brings forth its own negation, annihilating itself at the very moment it is uttered. Allow me to explain.
Structurally speaking the terminology deployed can only point to our own ideations of reality, not reality itself. This is the contradiction between signifier and signified. Specifically: in our head, there used to be the term man and woman. These symbols encompassed not only categorical definitions of sexually differentiated humans but also contained the appropriate societal roles for them. Then, in the last few decades, a positive development from our linguistic bondage: a branch of gender theory finally distinguished the (fluid) roles that gendered individuals were given, from the truth of their biology, and then unearthed and cherished the people who had reversed these roles or challenged them in history. This pivotal moment was radical, in its separation of the biological from the cultural, but was still in essence a form of societal bondage. Rather than do away with the cruel semiotics imposed on humanity, the transgender movement sought to move humans between the two freely. This is no more liberating than telling someone that, instead of having one master, they may now choose from two. Rather than perceive the historical movement as a whole, the transgender movement invested itself in oscillation between less and less significant roles in society, roles which are steadily colliding into total equivalence by the year.
There is an even worse tragedy. Transgenderism, as ideology, is not only useless, unliberating, or irrelevant; it is actually a reactionary ideology. When a man declares himself a woman, she is seeking to embrace the language of the oppressive culture, the very language which reproduces the society she declares too restrictive. We think in terms of our semiotics, and our thoughts produce our society, and so we must throw out the one if we are to change the other.
Thus, the only proper thing to do is to reject everyone's gender. Let people act as they please; but inform them you will not be party in using their oppressive language, or acknowledging their self enslavement. Just as I might refuse to bow to a king or pray to a god, I will not use anyone's pronouns, transgender or not. Only the nonbinary movement has the clarity of thought and the revolutionary character to be ethically correct.
