So there's a species of obnoxious going around where the very idea that there's choice about what pronouns you should prefer to be addressed by is a calamity and obvious error and ill intent and so on, and nigh-all of the pushback to that position is structured around politeness and self-determination and rights and so on.
This is a mistake.
So at one time, there was a religious dispute over protestantism; you can find a lot of economics and moral philosophy and history of religion and so on about this. That to some extent misses the point; it was a dispute about who gets to say what's normal, the prescriptive, enforced, social norm that decides who must be obeyed and who can complain and so on. (Hence the focus on who gets to claim the status of priest and speak for God; there is no arguing with God, so you must. It's a claim of authority when constructing social definitions.)
The material basis of the dispute is completely irrelevant; the point about the "only two pronouns" position is that people are defending their perceived position as someone who is an arbiter of the prescriptive social norm. They're quite willing to go completely Thirty Years War about it if they have to, because all their status rests on it -- their construction of status requires that prescriptive norm to exist, so without it, there is no status -- and band-forming primates don't put anything ahead of relative band status.
(I think it's entirely possible to decide that gender has no business in the public sphere; legitimately treating someone differently on the basis of gender involves negotiating sexual attraction, an inherently personal and private subject. Everybody is they outside that specific intimate context, and certainly in any public context. This is the Egalitarian Party working document part of this post.)
If you construct status differently, say on the basis of not being the problem, you can conclude that it's a problem of bounds, rather than norms. We don't know, and don't care, what normal is; figuring out what constitutes normal takes a carefully designed study and peer review and you can't get real-time results. You can much more readily say "these are the borders of polite society" and not worry about the internal distribution.
If you can avoid constructing your status as someone who decides what's normal; where you're placed in your local authoritarian hierarchy. If you can't, this whole thing is intolerable, and no matter how silly it looks from a perspective of facts, remember that the "only two genders" position is also a position that there shouldn't be facts, facts give incorrect answers. Then remember that the full failure mode isn't extra legislative paperwork or increased political activity, it's Thirty Years War. It's best to avoid presenting authoritarians with a prospect of success.