Is the problem with SJWs, whoever they are exactly, that they attempt to turn social manners into law, with a combination of aggression and condescension?
The problem is, that a lot of SJWs function like a religion. They believe things even if they are not based on facts. This is dangerous 1 in 3 women in college is raped (not true [1]), almost all young trans people will stay trans after becoming adults (not true [2]), women are paid 77 cents to 100 cents for a men for the exactly same job (not true[3]). If religious people get to make laws, it gets very dangerous. Intelligent design in schools and no sex education are problems in christian religious area. In SJW religious areas people are teaching that there is no biological difference in men and women in character traits. I know people from the psychological faculty and we talked about this. This is as wrong as denying climate change from a scientific point of view.
I don't want to give climate change deniers, anti vaxxers, biology deniers and religious ideologues the power to make laws. It is sad enough that a member one group is already president
.
[1][2][3]Sources will be included later, sorry
Almost every social group will form a system of etiquette. Ways to greet people, ways to show sympathy, ways to show or demand respect, etc. Over that, most real social groups, certainly the better ones, show genuine consideration for their members, which will spread to newcomers, provided the uptake rate is slow enough.
This is true and fine. There is no problem if a bunch of soccer fans acts rudely and loudly and a book club act silently and politely. Everyone can join the club everyone likes. And if there is no polite soccer club, just create one. But this is how SJW operates. They ideology demands to infiltrate groups of people with other values.
This is from an actual gender studies paper I had to read in university. They complained that in soccer fan culture people are rude, which is a manly trait. And women have "to become men" to join this group (means you have to like rude language, drink beer and not cry instantly). They demanded to change the group behaviour not to create polite, sensitive soccer fan groups. This is anti pluralistic and totalitarian.
You don't use non-standard pronouns because the CoC demands it on pain of expulsion, or because you'll bring down an angry mob of people calling you a whatever-ist if you don't. You use non-standard pronouns out of human respect for the person in question. A real person, with feelings, who would prefer not to be 'he' or 'she', and who's presence in the group you value.
Maybe it is a cultural thing but in Germany I never heard about non standard pronouns. It seems strange to address a person depending on which group the person things it belongs or what ideology it has. You don't use different pronouns for muslims, christians, jews and atheists. But the use of choosen sex pronouns (he/she) or a neutral pronoun (it/per) is okay. Everything else seems silly. To be honest, I don't care if you have XX, XY or chromosome mutation. And I don't care which group you like most. It would be best to call just everyone with a gender neutral pronoun (per from person) and solve all problems, since your chromosomes do not matter.
***edit***
Of course, that requires social pressure to work both ways. Just as you show consideration by using appropriate language, the individual in question should refrain from demanding ridiculously unwieldy pronouns with two-dozen syllables. If that can't be achieved, then clearly the social relationship is not going to work out.
The problem is not the complexity of the word. The problem is that people can demand respect and acceptance for a self choosen identity. This seems to be wrong. Respect is earned, acceptance is earned only tolerance is free. You have tolerate the religion of someone, but you don't have to think it is good (acceptance) or to think it is a honorable deed to have the religion (respect it). I am fine with choosen pronouns. He/she/it/per, however you feel. But I don't want an extra pronoun for every ideology. No extra pronoun for christians, muslims, jews, otherkin (people who believe that they are not humans) or homosexuals. In fact we should all use only per (short form of person) for everyone. Believe what you want, it won't change the word I will use for you in third person, there is only one word for everyone.
Supporting the rights of minority groups is good. Undiscerningly labelling anyone outside that group as evil is a grossly unreasonable simplification, and will make the world at large hate or despise you.
I agree completly. Every human has the rights, needs the possibility to live how it wants and each human life has the same value. I can't see how having other people have to call me by a chosen word is a right.