What should we use as gender-neutral pronouns for non-binary people?

Individuals may not agree with any current pronoun options

Question: What should we use as gender-neutral pronouns for non-binary people?
Position‹3 of 3: It should be up to the individual to decide what their pronouns should be
Argument: Individuals may not agree with any current pronoun options

If a specific set of pronouns is made official, there is no guarantee that everyone will feel that it is natural or relevant to them. It would only end up being another pronoun set forced upon unwilling persons who feel they identify as something else entirely.

The argument

The argument is directed against a specific proposal: that an official set of gender-neutral pronouns be adopted for non-binary people. Its objection is that doing so would reproduce the problem the proposal is meant to solve. The reason is that non-binary people do not in fact share a single preference. Some prefer singular they and them. Others prefer ze and hir, or fae and faer, or ve and ver, or xe and xem, or something else entirely. That variety is not indecision awaiting resolution; it reflects genuinely different senses of what fits, and any official set would necessarily choose among them. Whichever set were adopted, the people whose preference lay elsewhere would find themselves addressed by terms they had not chosen — pigeonholed into yet another set of forced pronouns, differing from the old arrangement in content but not in the fact of being imposed. The alternative the argument recommends is procedural rather than substantive. Rather than settling the question in advance for everyone, it should be left to each individual to decide, and others should simply ask what a person's pronouns are and then use them. This has the advantage of being correct in every case by construction: a rule that defers to the person concerned cannot misassign, whereas any fixed rule will misassign for some. Proponents present this as both the more respectful option and the more politically correct one in the accurate sense of that phrase — treating the person as the authority on how they are referred to, rather than applying a standard formulated on their behalf. The effort involved is small, amounting to a question, and it replaces a guess with knowledge. So the position is not opposition to gender-neutral pronouns but opposition to standardising them. What non-binary people need, on this reading, is not a better official set but the absence of one.

Premises

[P1]Non-binary individuals do not share a consensus on which gender-neutral pronouns best fit them, with preferences ranging across they/them, ze/hir, fae/faer, xe/xem, and others. [P2] Imposing an official set of gender-neutral pronouns would force non-binary people into a category that may not match their identity. [P3] Asking each person which pronouns they use respects individual identity and avoids this imposition. [C] Therefore, each individual should decide what their own pronouns are rather than having a standard set assigned to them.

Counter-arguments

It would be too difficult to keep up with so many variations. Imagine knowing ten people who identify as non-binary; now imagine that each of them have a different set of pronouns they would like for you to use. What if you accidentally call one of them by another person's pronoun? It would be mind-boggling to try to keep them all straight. On the other hand is the option of picking a universal set of gender-neutral pronouns for all non-binary persons. This doesn't lump every non-binary person into the same category. It is simply one word being used to refer to individuals in a gender-neutral way.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] A universal set of gender-neutral pronouns would be more effective and less confusing for people to learn and adapt to.