Some people go by pronouns which do not necessarily reflect their physical sex or obvious appearance.
Well, yes, this is exactly the point, barley.
This practice - of asking someone else’s pronouns (as well as declaring your own) - is reflective of an ideology that says some clearly male people are in fact and should be seen/treated as women.
As Ajl46 put it, I don't subscribe to the ideology which necessitates a response to that question.
If someone is clearly male then I’m not going to pretend he’s a woman or girl or call him “she”. And you know exactly what the reasoning is of those of us who refuse to go along with this. If we agree that Dave is now Danielle and call him “she”, then suddenly he’s entitled to use the women’s/girls’ changing room, access women/girls only services, take part in women’s/girls’ sport, and we are now the mean ones for “excluding” him because after all, he’s a woman/girl/she/her just like we are.
Which nicely obscures and indeed turns on its head the fact that actually Dave is the mean one for using his male privilege to impose himself on the more vulnerable, less powerful of the two sexes, to override our boundaries, to carry out an act of male oppression and call it “progress” and make it taboo for women and girls to even resist this oppression.
That’s where going along with pronouns that don’t accord with biological sex gets you. No thank you. Stop being so mean to women and girls, barley. Misogyny is not a virtue.