I do not think this is the argument most people are making against the provision. If it was a simple process of people having a right to be called male, female or an accepted neutral pronoun, it is fine. And that is, I presume, what would be acceptable to the majority of transgender people that do not identify as either male of female. The problem is, does the bill prevent endless demands for an every growing list of "neo-pronouns" or those that demand they always be referred to in a specific unique way? If it actually, legally does that, fine, if not, it fails in my view. Anything beyond the one additionally acceptable pronoun in law is for people to work out among themselves, not to be a legal requirement based, essentially, on whim. And if the authors think there will not be all sorts of problems and wasted legal resources if the limitation is not in place, they are living in a world that does not exist.