Self-definition has limits, and the disagreement is about where those limits are. Trying to assimilate said disagreement with violating rights is precisely the thing I point.
I don't consider "PC" the concerns that actually affects a person's life, but PC stems from the abuse of the idea that everyone should adapt to one's sensitivities - taking them into account is the basis of civility, but "taking into account" doesn't mean "agreeing".
Sometimes it's warranted, sometimes not, and PC is when it's not legitimate but still required, hence the irritation (notice that I don't see either "don't use deadname" or "don't misgender me" as being PC, just for the record).
And sometimes there is situations where there is irreconcilable differences and I see the validity in everyone's viewpoints without either considering some are jerks or the others are in PC madness. This is the essence of dilemma.
I don't see how facts can be insulting. As you say, the delivery can, but that's not the fact itself. Using a fact to insult is certainly possible, but that's, again, about intent, not fact. I see no reason to ignore, dismiss or badmouth facts here.
I don't argue otherwise.
But here you go again, "being forced to treat someone with respect", conflating agreement with a specific viewpoint with moral judgement. Those aren't the same, and that's (yet again) my point. Respect is in the intent, and as I said above, while it should obviously take into account the sensitivities of a person, it doesn't imply you have to agree with them.
Your objection to my statement was about being made to feel bad for not respecting someone's pronouns. I'm not conflating anything, there was a specific scenario which I was elaborating on to another poster, and you chimed in with a reference to your previous post. Your previous post was basically this:
The problem with such reasoning is that it tries to merge the very idea of not sharing your opinion on what is gender with an insult and an intent to harm and basically being a jerk.
To which I said there are no opinions on gender (with caveats, and a bunch of other stuff). You're trying very hard to frame this as a difference in opinion when deciding on how much to respect other peoples' livelihoods. You do not have to agree personally with the concept, to respect someone's pronouns. If you're respecting somebody's pronouns, you're at least doing that, and you won't see people complaining about it. Similar to what Cloud_Strife was saying about how the reasoning is actually inconsequential, it's the fact of doing someone harm by not respecting their pronouns is what's important.
If you accept these consequences, then whatever moral choices you make are on you. As are other peoples' judgement. If you do something and get judged for it, that's on you. Not necessarily on anyone else, as much as opponents of "political correctness" like to imagine. The whole thing about political correctness is that the only examples people can muster are either
incredibly isolated real-world examples, or mostly theoretical "well I don't want to be forced at gunpoint to respect someone's silly pronouns".
As for your bit about facts, maybe there's a language barrier here. I have no idea where you're from. But people can also find facts insulting
as per the literal example I used. They can also be used as insults, or in support of insults. To open another can of worms, calling someone fat can be a factual descriptor. But in of itself it could be demoralising and not very supportive, depending on your relationship with the person in question. Facts are not inviolate. They are not sacred. If "facts" are used primarily to badmouth people (for example, "there are only two genders, fact", which is wrong, but aside from the point for a moment), then yes, people can criticise the use of those facts. Which is no different from criticising the fact itself (especially if the fact is relying on outdated or misinformed data, which anti-LGBTQ evangelists often rely on for their assumptions around gender).
To finish, I would say there are no limits on self-definition. Unless you can prove they're trolling you for a reaction (see: attack helicopter memes, generally used as an anti-trans or self-IDing slur), the sky is literally the limit. I could legally change my name tomorrow and people would have to respect that. If your assumption is that people are being silly or otherwise not serious about their own identity, that's
your assumption. They could be being completely serious, and your presumption of them being beyond your "limit" is also entirely on you.
