(Semi-off-topic point raised by my previous post, but you don’t need to read it first)
So then what should society do about fundamentally bigoted identities? The usual answer is “you can believe whatever you want, so long as you don’t act in ways which harm others” (with an implied “overtly” and/or “purposefully” as people aren’t all-knowing when it comes to the consequences of their actions). That’s certainly good in a general sense, not just when it comes to identity-related issues, but there are a couple of caveats.
The first, and most obvious, is that “harm” is somewhat subjective and has no universal definition. In addition, most people are willing to tolerate certain harms so long as they’re for the greater good, but “greater good” is even more subjective. [To head off any debate, there may be an objective concept of “harm” and “good”, but if so humans don’t know what they are, so it’s still subjective for all practical purposes. And no, you can’t claim it’s known due to guidance from a higher power either, since people still disagree on whether such beings exist, and also on what said higher power(s) are saying.]
The second is that by focusing entirely on harm to others, it neglects the issue of involuntary self-harm. As an example, it’s common to say that “it costs you nothing to use people’s chosen pronouns”, but I’ve also seen the counter that they don’t believe that this is how pronouns should be used, and/or that doing so gives the appearance of respecting an identity which they don’t actually respect, so they’re facing the situation of “lie or face negative social consequences”. Lying is a form of mild self-harm (unless you’re a sociopath) and facing negative social consequences for doing what you believe is right is, at minimum, a cost. Avoiding dealing with other people all the time so that it rarely comes up is also a cost if you’re not an extreme introvert who would do that anyway.
The common response to that is “then just don’t be a bigot”. Aside from being patronizing (and occasionally, flippant), most people don’t consciously choose their identities. It’s based on a mix of their innate nature, their life experiences, and their worldview (and the latter two may have been partially forced on them by others). You can’t really purposefully claim a new one, at least not honestly, without willingly changing who you are. Occasionally broadening your experiences might be enough to claim a specific label, but most of the time it’s a lot harder than that, and we shouldn’t expect anyone to do that just to better conform to society or sacrifice themselves to a greater good which they don’t believe in, as that doesn’t always lead to good places.
Ultimately I believe we should work towards a future where everyone is empowered to find the right place for themselves and to cut off the influence of individuals in their life where dealing with them comes with too high of a social or psychological cost. Those are just not realistic options for most people, or at least not in all areas of their life. But until then, the best possible approach is probably Karl Popper’s solution to the paradox of tolerance; reframed to this particular subject, we don’t have to validate bigotry or fundamentally bigoted identities. That’s still a bit imperfect because it essentially privileges non-bigoted identities, and we should probably be doing away with privilege altogether (excepting within subcultures where intra-culture privilege is part of the appeal), but most people today would consider that a good thing, or at least a lesser evil.