It's not uncommon for sites and organizations to actively prompt for pronouns, which are labels. It's generally accepted that minority groups can change their labels by group consensus - Redskins, to Indians, to American Indians, to Native Americans. Labels change, and this is accepted as a good thing, because identity is important to mental health.

Where do you draw the line? At what point do you think it's justified to deny someone the right to decide their own labels?

Personally, I think it falls broadly under the paradox is tolerance, and there's a point where someone is clearly just being contrarian. They resent self-labeling. But if someone consistently insists they're vegan, at some point I have to ask: what gives me the right to insist they aren't? If you go down the rabbit hole is insisting on dictionary definitions, you quickly get into a quagmire with things most of us agree on: many laws and dictionaries are wrong about their definitions of marriage, male, and female.

I think it's an interesting topic, although I suppose almost everybody has already made up their minds one way out the other on the topic, and are frankly tired; most people automatically see anyone debating it as pushing some agenda.

But the paradox is tolerance is something I think progressives (liberals, the Left... that's a whole different fight, on Lemmy) are still struggling with, and I'm interested in how we collectively resolve it. So when it comes up, I'm always interested in how people are thinking about this.

Dogmatic? Morally superior? Angry that people are changing the meanings of words that clearly already have a meaning?

Where does a person's right to choose their labels (e.g., their pronouns, their identity) stop?