I’ve been called by the wrong pronouns on the forum a bunch of times (I guess Jophiel sounds feminine to some folks) and cared zero. I usually don’t even bother correcting it because it makes little difference to me. Maybe if I was trans or otherwise not vanilla cisgender it would be more impactful to me but, as stands, I probably wouldn’t bother setting my gender pronoun preferences even if it were an option. I wouldn’t be mad about the option but I wouldn’t use it either.
And this is one of the major things that distinguishes this from the “Ms.” case. The proposed beneficiaries of removing gender from pronouns do not want the change.
The other major differences:
- There was no existing alternative.
- Ms. had not been tried before, while the E pronoun was tried and failed to catch on.
- Ms. itself was reusing an existing term. The words “Mrs.” and “Miss” had long been changed to “mizz” in more casual speech, which is what “Ms.” intended to capture as an abbreviation.
(I also have my doubts about “Mx.” catching on. It does not seem to have a predecessor or clear pronunciation, and merely omitting the terms it would replace (Mr. and Ms.) has been standard for quite a while.)
The path of least resistance with an additional singular pronoun which is non-gendered is for the preexisting “they” to take on that role. And then, where ambiguity becomes a problem, some extra word will be added. I know I already use “all of them”, which which is pretty close to the “you all” which became “y’all.” I’ve also even used “them guys” or, more formally, “those people” (or another noun that fits).
It’s just rare that a new word takes over unless there are no widely used alternatives. I find it unlikely that @Acsenray’s neo-pronoun will take over. It already has failed to catch on.
Myself I would not be averse to just taking the “th” out of they/them/their/themselves and turn it into ey/em/eir/emself . (You just know someone would start going on about the “male m” vs. the “female r” because some people just live for the argument.)
Still – the evolution in that direction will have to happen “naturally” by public acceptance. And on one aspect mentioned earlier, you’ll be keeping around the gender-specific version so you can use it in cases where you need to specify (and for the purpose of being able to continue to read everything written until this day).
(Native Spanish-speaker here) Well, it is a touchy subject because people do get to feel “judged”, very often self-“judged”, about where they are coming down in the debate… or even about still being on the fence one way or the other.
And FWIW I must agree English has it relatively easy with it being mostly just the third person pronouns that are an issue, and not having to deal with declinations of common nouns/articles/adjectives/etc. across multiple persons and numbers.
Aside about other languages
From my environment, most of the attempts at gender-inclusiveness or gender-neutrality in Spanish so far are, um… not exactly brilliant. Then again I am 60 so yeah, I’m beginning to experience old-fart-typical tendencies to look at more and more things as solutions looking for a problem.
Now, Spanish of course has the nominative personal pronoun issue for third person (él/ella/ellos/ellas) and first person plural (nosotros/nosotras)(*), also applied to some objectives (le, la, nos); but at least the reflective and possessive (se, si, su, nos, sus) are nongendered. But our bigger issue is that most actual common nouns are grammatically fixed-gendered and those grammatically “bi” require you to commit one way or the other when making specific reference (mar, estudiante, artista) when using definite articles or depictive adjectives. Our definite articles are hard either/or gendered, so even words known to apply indistinctly to either gender (e.g. representante, astronauta) must have an el/la/los/las in front if referring to someone/thing that is either personally or grammatically gendered. And a lot of attributive adectives are gender-declined with the noun based on word structure – so for example, if you have blue or green or big or strong or intelligent, it’s azul or verde or grande or fuerte or inteligente regardless of the noun’s grammatical gender, but if it’s red or white or small or fat, then it’s rojo/roja, blanco/blanca, pequeño/pequeña, gordo/gorda.
(* vosotros/vosotras, who the heck uses any more as the plural familiar, stop torturing your students)
The Spanish version of l33t-text for a while went along with using the @ as a signaler for “change the vowel here to make it the applicable gendered term”. It seems to be losing ground fast. From the Hispanosphere there is a drive to modify the “o/a” gendered term with “e”, which does end up with phrasings such as “todes nuestres amigues” and outright mistakes such as turning the reflective “nos” into “nes”, not realizing that the “nos” IS removing the gendered ending already. One side debate on this is whether our 3rd person singular becomes “ele” or “elle” (i.e. if we use the masculine or feminine as the root of the inclusive version).
That said I do find that vastly superior to sticking “x” wherever you want to indicate neutrality. Sorry, but, no. Latinx, schmatinx.
[/aside]
Comrade 
Or “citizen ___________” Of course that one has a set of issues of its own, but not grammatical… 
I don’t know what you mean by so what?
If you want to champion some neopronoun, feel free. Ominous dominus, go forth and proselytize.
I think you’re wasting your time, though.
Well, I’d be delighted not be gendered every time anyone speaks about me. I think it would help a lot of women professionally, honestly.
Some women were (are) proud of being married and wanted to keep the “Mrs”, and others didn’t.
You don’t need gendered pronouns or other gendered grammar to have an identity. The point is that no one should have to refer to your gender unless it’s relevant.
My other navigate is Bengali, which has no gendered grammar. That doesn’t stop people from identifying as men or women (or whatever), but no one has to know your gender just to talk to or about you and there’s no need for anyone to declare es gender in order for language to happen.
So the idea that people should use other people’s preferred pronouns is no longer in vogue?
I’m talking about a situation in which there is nothing to prefer, because pronouns aren’t gendered. Nothing else is gendered in English.
Actually, it’s now largely obligatory. I spent most of my 30 years of marriage trying to get people to use MRS for me, because it was my preference, but I was largely ignored, and more and more so as time went on.
On the subject of honorifics: I don’t know if this has been mentioned before, so I’ll drop it in as a suggestion. I was reading a science fiction short story a couple of weeks ago, and everyone in it was referred to as M. so-and-so, regardless of gender (in situations that called for that formality). They weren’t, apparently, supposed to be French, so I guess this was the author’s idea about how this issue would evolve in English – or Galactic Standard.
Personally, I like M. as an honorific (in English). It is easy to say, it is an obvious abbreviation and it can be the abbreviation for any of the more traditional honorifics.
Maybe it could be used as an all-inclusive singular pronoun too, although that is less intuitive. Unfortunately, it sounds like a sloppy pronunciation of “him” so that probably wouldn’t work for pronouns.
I would be very happy to not be gendered, nor to be known as married, by default. I have spent most of my marriage being known as Frau xxx, not Mrs., because I am in a German speaking country, who has mostly eliminated the Miss equivalent (Fraulein), as it is considered old-fashioned. Of course there’s the other side, in that in German speaking countries, the honorific is used in many situation where first names would be used in the U.S.
I like the idea of M. Works also for French, I think (Monsieur/Madame), but not German (Herr/Frau). Maybe German should split the difference and use G (the letter between H and F).
Hah! English is the least gendered language I’ve encountered.
Acsenray, I have long thought that if I had to guess your operational gender I’d go with male, but if I’m supposed to use people’s avatar to work that out, yours suggests you either fancy yourself a super heroine or, if male, you like sexy super heroes.
As if it matters, you a dude or a chick?
You ask that like it’s gotta be one or the other! These things aren’t binary anymore. “Dude” and “chick” are only two of the dozens of genders available to choose from. In Slaughterhouse Five, Kurt Vonnegut mentions many genders (I think he cited five or six), ALL of which are necessary participants in the procreation process.
(ETA: If I had to guess Acsenray’s operational gender, I’d say Amazon.)
Oh, my - English is one of the least gendered of the Indo-European languages.
I take it that you don’t want to be referred to as Ms. Legal!?
So if I were neither dude nor chick I’d be a duck?
Or a chude.
…I’ll see myself out…
Yeah, “it” will never work for people. I still remember being extremely annoyed at a guy who stopped by my apartment twelve years ago and kept referring to my roommate’s cat as an “it.” (Kitty was a “she,” damnit! Spayed and totally unconcerned with any words that came out of these dumb humans’ mouths, but still.)
I’m getting over my grammatical vapors over the singular “they.” I don’t love it, but whatever. I could get on board with “e” etc., but we have to come to a consensus on these things. I’ve heard some advocate for the ability to choose their own unique pronouns that everyone is expected to remember and use, and I can’t help thinking they missed the lesson on pronouns vs. proper nouns.
Regarding honorifics, I’m a married woman who prefers Ms., and would be fine with Mx. I understand it’s supposed to be pronounced “mix.” “M.” would be fine too.
My gender or sex or both have been introduced to conversations here when it’s relevant to the context. Other than that I don’t really care what a bunch of strangers on the Internet think 
I’m happy to be thought of as an Amazon. There’s a lot to admire there.