Pronouns

"Willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns."

they encourage feminine males and masculine females to not deny their biology.

It's one-way respect. Society mocks furries and wouldn't call a person who thrives and enjoys roleplaying as a dog or chimpanzee as being identified that way, nor would they ever allow a person to engage in a lot of plastic surgery and use face paint to transition race and ethnicity. They would never allow a 78 year old who wants to feel like a young woman or man to identify as that age in any official capacity... In constrast, we are the devil to hold people to the same standard with their gender (which was always meant to be 'sex' it was male vs female, you didn't list 'man' or 'woman' and still don't list that next to this slot called 'gender' on official forms).

Gender is simply related to people's identity in a fundamentally different way from any of those other facets.

No, that is logically fallacious in both ends of the double standard. 

We cannot simply compare across them and apply the same rules.

We can.

For example, ethnicity is inherently tied to both heritage (family lineage) and biology

Actually, that is a biological-normative social construct. Research the actual definition of ethnicity and contrast it to race, we as a society do to ethnicity what conservatives do to gender.

, as well as one's entire cultural surrounding,

Eminem grew up with predominantly african american cultural surroundings. Is he that ethnicity under your understanding?

while species and age have important ethical connections to one's level of agency.

Not the one you like other people to call you, just the one you really are, like a male person roleplaying as a woman 24/7 and vice versa telling us to respect that roleplay as if it were real.

Gender, on the other hand is linked to one's self-expression,

Furries blatantly want to self express their fantasy to be a species they are not. Same with the age thing.

to their sexual life,

There are kinks linked to furry and/or age regressive play. There are all sorts of parallels here actually.

and the interplay between the genders is a dynamic which is internal to the particular culture - it is a category which you can't simply compare to any others which apply cross-culturally to an extent. The difference is in being different - they aren't the same thing.

Are males the same as females? I am curious where you draw this difference focus from if you are saying we should ignore differences when people get offended.

Ideally everyone can agree on basic reality.

ideally everyone can agree on epistemological limits

I'll say what I said before, and that is oughtn't it be the priority of society to first  what is most accurate and then act in accordance with it? 

It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.

some things are PROVABLY TRUE

some things are PROVABLY FALSE

these two categories cover less than 1% of human knowledge

Sure they might 'like to have a new uterus', but in reality almolst no one would actually go through with the transplant because of the other factors. It would be far easier to just adopt a child rather than risking your life.

I think that asking people to agree on epistemological limits is quite different than basic reality.

I don't get what the point is. Do you think it is an epistemic limit to differentiate between men and women? 

you don't know what someone looks like naked.

I don't need to look at genitals to distinguish between men and women - they have very different facial constructions e.g   

Yes but you cannot contend that 99.9 percent of people can identify with 99.9 percent accuracy the populations sex without genitals.  

When you ask people to agree on basic reality

And no, I don't see why we can't keep men out of the woman's bathroom and vice versa, we have done it for as long as we have had bathrooms. 

FREEDOM to talk about walking-out

does NOT violate any "freemarketprinciples"

the exception to this "rule of whim" would be labor union negotiations

that unions have neither historically, nor currently practiced free association. And your statement is an allusion to this.

apparently we need to figure out what specifically you mean by "free association"

because i thought you meant it as "freedom to fire anyone at any time and for any (non)reason"

In the context of this discussion, yes. And you responded that this was exempted by "labor union negotiations." What did you mean by this?

iff a labor union negotiates to support its individual members (with a credible threat of a walk-out), specifically to protect individual members from being fired "without cause"

then the labor union members' "right to free association" interferes with the business owner's ability to "fire employees on a whim" ("right to free association")

Walking-out is a response, not an interference. The employer can still incur the costs of hiring replacements.

the cost of hiring replacements is unlikely to be unconsidered (aka "on a whim")

some corporations will fire you for posting pictures of yourself using a competitor's product

this is not a joke

One only has "free speech" on one's own property.

The dissolution of an association, even unilateral and particularly absent of duress, doesn't qualify the prerogative of which I spoke.

I am saying that, on balance, in almost every single case, men carry the characteristics of men and women carry the characteristics of women,