When we say that people can't change sex, we call that scientific fact. You call it ideological dogma.
You're unable to recognise your dogma because you don't understand what social constructions are. You falsely believe the concept of 'woman' is some sort of never changing set in stone 'fact' when all it is is a socially constructed word based on cultural associations.
Words come in to being by social associations not by a particular phenomena. Phenomena might be related to the concept via cultural association but they are not what determine it. It's cultural associations or agreed cultural meaning. That's why word meaning evolves over time because culture does. Hence 'chair' once only meant a 'seat' but has now evolved to mean a 'position' in a meeting. That they are both phenomena that exist in the world isn't what determines the word its agreed social associative meaning that does.
'Woman', theoretically for most people has biological associations however in practice socially we usually don't know the reproductive traits of a person but determine whether they are a woman or man based on stereotypical associations hence a 'woman' factually can be a person with either biological or stereotypical associations. Now you might say as I'm sure you will 'but stereotypes are wrong' but that's irrelevant to the fact that stereotypes are overwhelmingly used to determine gender.
"Does this apply to everyone, however they want to be referred to? Should I respect Rachel Dolezal's identity as a black woman? Should I respect Stephonknee Wolscht's identity as a 6-year-old girl? What about that bloke who stands in the shopping centre declaring that he's Jesus?
The context here is pronouns & its not as if preferred pronouns don't have any basis in facts as in cultural associations because they do as I just mentioned.
"What about criminals like Isla Bryson and Sarah Jane Baker?
If a male person assaults me and it ends up in court, can he still decide that I should refer to him as he chooses? Whose rights should be more important here? The criminal or his victim?"
If you've ever been in court you might notice alleged criminals are still afforded basic civilities. That they might of committed a crime does not mean they forfeit their rights to be treated humanely.
"But once again, you seem to have forgotten that respect should go both ways. How is it showing respect to me to expect me to lie? That's not respect, it's coercion."
This is silly. You aren't lying. Respecting someones wishes isn't the same as endorsing them.
"It's not about preferences. If I demanded that it was my preference to be referred to as Her Supreme Majesty the Wonderful and Amazing Old Crone, you might (quite reasonably) say no. Would it change your mind if I said I'd kill myself if you didn't (and it would be your fault)? Is it discrimination to say no to my declared preference?"
Firstly, preferred pronouns are based in reality as discussed unlike your examples. Secondly I'm not suggesting suicidality is a justification rather consistency in maintaining social conventions.
If gender identification is a fact, perhaps you could give a definition. Your second sentence seems to be anti-feminist bollocks.
It's interesting that those who claim to be aligned with reality are often those who can't accept it. Something about ideological dogma? Gendered identification with gendered social roles are adhering to societal expectations dictating how individuals should act, feel, and behave based on their gender. That society has certain gendered expectations right or wrong is a fact.