One thing I realized after reading an extremely Catholic essay by Anthony Esolen was that, in the fight over gender pronouns and nearly everything else, naming yourself is generally a bad idea.
Christendom was the first casualty when the Catholics were named the Catholics; and we can say it was a casualty because naming yourself the entirety of the Christians has obviously left out the rest of the Christians. The Evangelicals are next, and they're next because (almost imitating the error of the Catholics) they named themselves as though Evangelicals were the only people who evangelize. And anyone "orthodox" follows exactly in line, claiming for themselves to be the originals, when in fact they're neither the originals nor original in naming themselves the originals*. If you want to be the original Christians, the first thing you need is a state of borderline anarchy -- which resulted in the world being given the Catholics.
Christianity isn't the only organization to have suffered from self-naming, though; and the second instance which proves this is anyone who submits his personal theory of government known as a bill. We know, after all, that modern bills aren't actually what they say they are; and we know this because the people who voted against the Patriot Act weren't unpatriotic, the people who hated No Child Left Behind weren't for abandoning children, and nobody who voted against the Violence Against Women Act was for having our women beaten. The whole of our rottenly-named bills, from the things labeled one thing that are actually for a hundred others, to the names which imply the opposition are criminals and scoundrels, can be said to prove one thing, and that is even the people who represent us are liars. There's only one thing we're more likely to lie about than ourselves, in fact, and that is our enemies**.
One thing we've been living with for centuries is that even our personal names are given to us by others, even if you happen to be named something as embarrassing as Francis. Even despite the fact that everyone (excepting Johnny Cash) believes a strong name helps make a strong man, and people name their children things like Jefferson and Madison, hoping for a patriot and a genius, we still let parents make or break their kids with random names; and children, incapable of changing these names for themselves, get stuck not with a name based on their physical, mental, or spiritual qualities, but with the whims of their parents for better or for worse. In short, aside from religious conversions and marriage and going on the lam or becoming a rapper, our names are generally left the way they were given; and if the name doesn't fit us, over a given amount of time we're eventually thought to fit the name.
Gender pronouns take this a step further. With "xes" and theirs" you aren't naming yourself or your bill or your religion, but your personal characteristics. No longer content with being male or female, what the person against gender roles really wants is to define the way he feels and have everyone accept it. Nobody is allowed to question genitalia or the dozen other universally recognized traits that the gender benders try to blur and almost always fail to erase. The power of definition resides entirely with the individual, and he denies, with the power of law and shaming, the ability for anyone else to question or reject it.
It's worth noting that many intelligent but ignorant people make fun of Americans for accepting a 35% corporate tax when their ancestors started a rebellion over a tax for their tea. But the truth is that the American Revolution was never a war about tax sizes. It was a war over a principle: that someone out there was able to give one set of laws to another and that the person who was getting the laws didn't have a say in it. It was that one kind of British citizen was given constitutional rights and another one wasn't. And I believe that when we examine the war over gender pronouns we're experiencing the same thing. One set of us is being given the legal power to tell another set how to think and speak of him -- even though we have an Amendment specifically for our freedom of speech. And the other man, realizing that what's being changed is not "Larry" to "Jerry," but something obvious and factual and central to our existence and insulting to our intelligence, would very much prefer to think what he thinks. Simply put, we've given the sole power of defining his own characteristics to the one kind of person who's historically been responsible for abusing it. And that person is the individual.
*Any Christian sectarian who has any brains is interested not in promoting the newer doctrines of the sect as newer, but in insisting that the newer doctrines are actually the oldest. Any Christian sect which deviates from this pattern, insisting that they're doing something different from what Jesus wanted, has shed any pretenses of Christianity, and may be safely qualified as a new religion.
**Macaulay has an interesting passage about naming your enemies in his History of England, relating to the origins of the terms Tories and Whigs.
It is a curious circumstance that one of these nicknames was of Scotch, and the other of Irish, origin. Both in Scotland and in Ireland, misgovernment had called into existence bands of desperate men whose ferocity was heightened by religious enthusiasm. In Scotland some of the persecuted Covenanters, driven mad by oppression, had lately murdered the Primate, had taken arms against the government, had obtained some advantages against the King's forces, and had not been put down till Monmouth, at the head of some troops from England, had routed them at Bothwell Bridge. These zealots were most numerous among the rustics of the western lowlands, who were vulgarly called Whigs. Thus the appellation of Whig was fastened on the Presbyterian zealots of Scotland, and was transferred to those English politicians who showed a disposition to oppose the court, and to treat Protestant Nonconformists with indulgence. The bogs of Ireland, at the same time, afforded a refuge to Popish outlaws, much resembling those who were afterwards known as Whiteboys. These men were then called Tories. The name of Tory was therefore given to Englishmen who refused to concur in excluding a Roman Catholic prince from the throne.