> It's less about one term being "privileged" (I must confess that word seems slightly unclear to me in this context) over another and more about the ease of tr

> It's less about one term being "privileged" (I must confess that word seems slightly unclear to me in this context) over another and more about the ease of treating people the way they would like, with no real downsides that I can see. Sorry for any confusion. By privileged, I simply mean that one's gender identity instead of biological sex should govern pronoun usage. > 2. Is definitely the counter argument I would use - if people have preferred pronouns then what is the ethical argument for ignoring those and using words that would cause them harm? If nothing else it seems to me to come down to basic decency and respect for others. I mean I guess that is part of the reason that pronoun usage is a controversial topic, right? Why are people uncomfortable with using others' desired pronouns? It may be deeply rooted beliefs or other identitarian characteristics (religious or political convictions for example) that could cause someone psychological harm if they use preferred pronouns instead of biological sex. In areas where legal agency is at issue—in children, for example—use of pronouns could potentially elide complex challenges and lead to irreversible physical changes that don't correspond with later preference (i.e., sex reassignment surgery or puberty blockers may have permanent effects even if the child decides later that it was a bad idea). Now I don't know that these are particularly good arguments, but they are two ideas that I've seen online or that arise from applying a subjective-experience argument to other identity characteristics.