You might think dragon is a gender, or you might not, it is fine, but refusing to agree that dragon is a gender ...

Well, I'm gonna chime in again, because it's a nice jumping off point.

That argument, that anyone is actually saying dragon is a gender, is simply misrepresenting all of the subject.

Regardless of one's view on xenopronouns in specific, or neopronouns one general, the claim hasn't been that dragon is a gender.

The rule, and the argument behind it, is about pronouns. And it isn't really about the pronouns themselves, as much as it is about who gets to decide when someone is deserving of being respected as an individual.

We're not biking being asked to share a belief that a person is a dragon, or fucks dragons, or that humans can be part dragon.

What we're being asked to do is to respect pronouns or just not talk to someone. That's it. That's what it's about.

The rule simply lays out what will happen if people don't do one of those two things.

You don't have to agree with the word being used as a pronoun meaning anything other than that it replaces traditional pronouns and makes them happy. Does it matter if they think they're a dragon, or a tiger? No. It doesn't matter. If the cognitive dissonance of using a word in an unconventional way is so high that you simply can't do it, that's okay. You have multiple options at that point.

One, you can ignore the request, and accept the consequences as they come. Fair or not, those consequences are known.

Two, you can use them anyway, and roll your eyes while you do it. Nobody will know you're rolling your eyes.

Three, you can use them anyway, and complain about it, which may also have consequences, depending on how you complain.

Four, you can block the individual and never interact with them again, thus preventing cognitive dissonance entirely.

Five, you can choose to just not interact with them at all.

Six, you choose to not interact, but complain about it elsewhere, with possible consequences (as these posts have shown).

There's even other options, but they're absurdist stuff like juggling oranges while singing "I'm a little teapot". So, you know, only entertaining to me.

Now, that's separate from anything else, I'm only talking about the idea that one has to share a belief to be able to use someone's pronouns. Like, my pronouns are he/him, they/them, and I'll accept any gender neutral neopronouns as well. But I'll accept she/her in a pinch, though I may correct those if it's relevant. It's why I never list my pronouns, I'm cool with almost anything, up to and including "that asshole". That's not even a joke, I'm fine being referred to that way as a replacement for a pronoun, or in general.

You don't have to agree with my belief that I'm not obligated to behave in the way a pronoun implies to use any of those. You don't have to agree with my belief that by accepting almost any pronoun that I improve myself by challenging my own concepts of gender in order to use he/him, or any of the rest.

So, why would you have to believe in anything at all to use any pronoun? You aren't expected to log off and tell your roommate or whatever, "jeez, this cat I was talking to was a real weirdo, he's just nuts" and you aren't expected to log off and tell the same person "I was talking to this cat from blahaj and drag sure did annoy me" you can use any pronoun you want when you aren't in the presence of the person requesting an individual pronoun, or any neopronouns, or a xenopronoun.

You don't need to believe anything except that the person, the human being with their own life and needs and pains, is made a little happier by the use of it. That's it. That's all you have to believe.