There appear to be some logical leaps and conclusion-shopping going on here, so I'm going to try to identify them systematically.

Capitalization of pronouns in the English language is used to denote divinity or royalty. If I refer to Jehovah with a small-h "he," I haven't misgendered him, I have blasphemed. I don't intentionally misgender people (even fictional ones), but I regularly blaspheme gods. I'm an atheist, it's what we do.

Being a man doesn't make one part of the patriarchy and doesn't confer superiority. Being divine ipso-facto makes you superior -- both socially and inherently. As I reject the notion that some people are inherently superior to all others, I blaspheme cult leaders who claim to be gods, demigods, or incarnations thereof, and I refuse to give reverence to prophets and monarchs who claim proximity to the divine. I believe this makes the world a better, less exploitative place.

I also see capitalized pronouns used (infrequently) in BDSM. Specifically, it is how some subs refer to their doms when in some extreme forms of 24/7 power exchange relationship. That's okay, but as with other BDSM activities, power exchange never includes people who didn't consent to be part of it, and consent is never obligatory. Doms who attempt to extend their authority beyond the confines of a scene are swiftly ridiculed or ostracized for consent violation.

So for anyone to make the claim that capitalized pronouns should be respected by everyone, they must first make the case that divinity is a gender. Second, they must make the case that associating with the divine does not denote inherent superiority. Third, they must make the case that compulsory use of capitalized pronouns is not compulsory submission that would violate consent.

Your delusion doesn’t get to influence what part of a sentence I capitalize. This 100% feels like a narcissist co-opting LGBT issues to force a power dynamic in conversations that lets them play the victim at the slightest mistake.

Judging by your comment history-which I don’t even have to check because you’ve been posting about this for days-that’s exactly what I see happening.

Hmm... this makes me uncomfortable, and although I don't think it's internalized phobia or anything like that, I want to interrogate that discomfort to see if I can nail it down.

I do think it's difficult or maybe impossible to decouple this practice from indications of power for most people. The only instances of capitalized pronouns in common use that I've seen are the God and Jesus usage, and in some circles, capitalizing pronouns for a dominant in a role play context. "I" getting capitalized is also there, kind of, but that's not a power thing because it's not special, everyone is expected to use it as a language rule. I've also seen things like "oh, sure, that's what They want you to think" or, not quite a pronoun, something like "they want you to fear The Other," maybe less of a power thing but definitely a signal of additional weight and meaning above and beyond the word's usual sense.

I think this is the main source of my discomfort, that this practice is currently used almost exclusively at least as "this word is being used in a special and important context, pay extra attention" and going as far as "I am explicitly signaling that the person being referred to is superior." I don't use He/Him pronouns for God or Jesus because I don't belong to those religions and don't see those entities that way, and I have a fundamental belief in the equality of all humans that makes me uncomfortable putting a person on a pedestal like that.

I feel uncomfortable about it/its pronouns as well for the same reason, I don't like the idea of dehumanizing or objectifying a person, but in that case I actually have some friends who use them. It's easier to take a "well, if it makes you happy, it's no harm to me" attitude if it's asking for a "demotion" so to speak, I think. The personal connection probably does help too, I don't know anyone who wants capitalized pronouns myself.

I've seen Dan Savage use capital pronouns to refer to dominants when answering letters, but that seems to me like Dan stepping into the letter writer's scene space and choosing to go along with the "rule" while he's there giving advice, kind of a "good houseguest" thing. I don't think that's something that the rest of us are obligated to do as a rule. I'd push back on a friend insisting that I refer to their dominant with capitalized pronouns, because whatever their relationship is with each other, their dom isn't my dom, and I didn't agree to that hierarchy, they did.

I think the other discomfort is more of a language and grammar thing, which obviously is less important than an actual person's comfort (see also, the old "they is always plural" chestnut) so I'm not going to assert that this is a reason to disregard a person's wishes, and language rules are subject to change. But in general capitalization is not all that significant in English, which we know because something written in all caps or in all lower case usually has no meaning removed. Words at the start of sentences, proper nouns, and "I" get capitalized, and that's mostly it. It's mostly about readability, because ALL CAPS DOESN'T HAVE AS MUCH CONTRAST but when used sparingly as we usually do, important words stand out with a capital letter. "Demanding" that a particular word be used to refer to yourself in the form of pronouns is in the same ballpark as choosing your own name, obviously completely reasonable and acceptable, but "demanding" that special language rules be used about yourself feels a step beyond that. I don't want to cross into "oh so could you identify as an attack helicopter too" territory, but I do wonder about some of the boundaries on this. Lots of people habitually write in all lowercase, would it be disrespectful to say "oh yeah i saw larry at the empire state building and had a conversation with him" if Larry uses He/Him pronouns? Would Larry be upset about both the name and pronouns, or just the pronouns? I don't think most people would get up in arms about their proper name getting de-capitalized in that context which seems like further evidence that capitalization isn't normally a meaningful aspect of the writing, it's a more mechanical and practical rule, so insisting that for certain people it does need to be made significant feels like more of an imposition to me, and comes right back to the "you need to treat Me as special and more important" feeling that I have.

Good luck with that. I've come around on using whatever standard gender pronouns (he/she/they) but with what to me seems insulting (it) and capitalizing... I'll just still to using the proper noun.

It doesn’t matter what you think

You've already lost the battle if you think this way. You show disregard for what other people care for and then expect them to care about your thoughts? Walls instantly go up and no dialog will be had.

Likewise, a trans person you meet on the street isn’t benefiting from the might of the Roman church. So you’re not supporting hierarchy by using a trans person’s preferred pronouns. By affirming trans men, generally you are dismantling patriarchy, and by affirming trans capitalised pronoun users, generally you are dismantling monotheistic oppression.

So, I want to start by pointing out that this article is directly making a link between capitalization of pronouns, and the specific practice of capitalization as a Christian show of religious reverence.

Worse, if you refused to use a trans man’s preferred pronouns because of this, you’d be guilty of pretty blatant transphobia. I believe refusing to use capitalised pronouns for a trans person who requests them is exactly the same bigotry.

Is the assertion here specifically that capitalization is tied to gender expression, or simply that it is another aspect of a personal identity that should be respected? Obviously neopronouns can be non gender-related, but the article isn't really making clear if that is the case here or not. If anything, it is quite muddled on this point.

By affirming trans men, generally you are dismantling patriarchy, and by affirming trans capitalised pronoun users, generally you are dismantling monotheistic oppression.

Wooph... The first part of that is by no means a safe assumption. While I would certainly hope that trans men would not seek to enforce a male-dominant gender power dynamic, it is by no means beyond their ability to do so as an intrinsic matter. Now, whether they can benefit from that dynamic in a given time and place is a different discussion, but even in places that do not afford them the systemic backing of the patriarchal system, they can still support and reify it themselves. Any person who attempts to enforce a male-dominant systemic power dynamic can be supporting patriarchy.

The end of that sentence seems to confirm that this is about a show of religious reverence? Or is the assertion that by capitalizing the pronouns of not-the-christian-diety one is inherently attacking Christianity?

I think that if these are simply the neo pronouns that make someone comfortable, it is for the most part fine to request this, but the article is directly drawing the link between capitalized pronouns and religious reverence, and that is not something anyone can demand someone else extend, and not one that is inherently inappropriate not to.

There are plenty of arguments over the limits of neopronoun usage within the neopronoun-using community, but generally neopronouns like "master", that confer or denote a power dynamic, are considered inappropriate.

This feels like this is skirting that line to me.

There is something very uncomfortable to me about demanding the use of a deferential title, while also insisting that not to do so is a moral wrong, while also claiming not to support hierarchy of peoples... which the creation of distinct and deferential titles would seem to contradict.