> So is your assertion that trans people don't exist? Or it isn't a real thing?

No; and it makes so little sense to hypothesize that on the basis of what I actually wrote, that I cannot take seriously the possibility that you want to discuss this in good faith.

I'm just trying to figure out what the last paragraph of your previous comment means. So asked bluntly, what did you mean?

Edit: Ah, I see what you mean. My bad. I thought you meant "normalizing" the trans issue in general, not the request. I see why you got annoyed.

What's your objection to the request?

First, gender is an identity marker, and I broadly agree with https://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html . The entire point of the feminism I was steeped in from early childhood is that sex is supposed to be one of the least interesting things about me. As I grew up and became educated about the existence of transgender people (starting in the 90s, BTW), naturally I figured that the same applies to gender as considered separately from sex.

Second: as a matter of ideology, I consider that people, on an individual level, should not be compelled to see others as those others see themselves, and certainly should not be compelled to express a particular view of others. That violates my conception of freedom of speech philosophically (and many have made the legal argument as well).

Those two points tie together: the social contract in play here is that you don't have to care about things that we agreed are a priori uninteresting about me, and therefore I should have the same freedom. The "pronoun culture" violates that contract. (N.B.: this culture is not just about asking people for third-person pronouns; it's about normalizing the act of proactively stating them in an introduction.)

This is not the same as the expectation of various social courtesies, because those concern face-to-face interaction. That is: if you tell me "my pronouns are...", my thought process is that this has no bearing on how I interact with you. When I speak with you, I will refer to you as "you", just as you would to me. The pronouns described are third-person; if you expect me to use them, you are inherently placing an expectation on conversations that do not involve you. (I am unaware of any world language with gendered second-person pronouns, and am happy not to speak any.)

I have had many activists try to tell me that they don't know me but they're sure I use third-person pronouns all the time in group conversations, to refer to members of the group who are present but who I'm not speaking to directly. I have tested this and they are wrong. It does happen rarely in groups of close friends where there is absolutely no question of gender. But even then, I disagree that "I discovered that someone in my group sees me as having a gender other than what I personally identify with" can be considered a form of oppression, or even an objective matter. The activists cannot have it both ways: if "gender" is something that people are free to "identify with", which leaves no identifiable or externally verifiable signs, then it cannot also be a natural fact about the world. Gender identity and gender expression are separate, and the latter is not fully under our control.

If you say that I should prioritize what others tell me over what I can directly observe, you are trying to control me (or enable others to control me). It is exactly the same as if you demanded that I agree that others are physically attractive if they believe themselves to be so.