The effect of using preferred pronouns is that it also then removes cues for others to have full information for their decision making. If someone is using preferred pronouns for a male who demands access to the female single sex facilities, it doesn’t alert a woman in that conversation that this male might be in a single sex space sometime.
If a woman hears the preferred pronouns being used for a carer or health professional, she is being given cues that the person they are seeing in front of them is female.
You can be assured that Mridul Wadhwa’s female counselling clients would be led to believe that they were wrong in thinking Wadwha is male because everyone around them uses preferred pronouns. How many of them never asked or felt they could ask?
Why does anyone think this is kind? The ramifications of this act of supposed ‘kindness’ is much wider than impacting just the one person being spoken about.
The end result is the same still. Using the wrong sex pronouns for someone when you know that the person is the opposite sex, allows male people to access female single sex provisions, ie sport, spaces, short lists, and so on. Not necessarily that particular person at that particular time, but the impact is the same. It may build up over time, or it can have an immediate effect. Or it can be used collectively such as McKinnon/Ivy successfully argued.
It really is a falsehood that it is ‘harmless’, just as it is false to say it is ‘a kindness.’ Because that kindness is just to one person and it is unkind to those who needed that knowledge, that verbal cue, to make a decision that was significant and important to them.
No one should be shamed for using correct sex pronouns. No one should be emotionally manipulated to do so.