Beware: if you are someone not of compassion, not of equality–someone who's just a general twatwaffle–then please read no further. Otherwise, please continue to the next paragraph.
Hey! How you doin'? You made it! You passed that first important litmus test. Good job, friend.
Now, let's get on with it.
Okay, I don't know about you, but I'm your pretty standard flag carrying "twenty-something-year-old" "millennial" who would be categorized as "liberal."
I'm anti-capitalist (yay, money for EVERYONE).
I went to an "art school." (RIP Bob Ross)
I ride a "fixie" as my sole mode of transportation (In Chicago... In winter...)
Big fan of Supreme Court Justice RBG! (And love her in GIF form more)
and lastly,
#FeelTheBern
Maybe you don't align with all these–which is okay. You're still not twatwaffles.
Being your cookie-cutter "liberal" I tend to get my news from more "liberal" sources (AKA not Fox News).
I usually would align journalists and articles written by The New York Times as a Canon or usually of the highest standard (along with many other reputable counterparts i.e. The Washington Post, etc).
Which is why it baffles me that these exemplars of word-smithery, these grandeurs of journalistic style--the foremost agents of 1st amendment rights afforded to us by a bunch of old dudes in white wigs...
...cannot figure out how to use proper pronouns for individuals of the transgender/gender-queer/agender communities!
Back in January 2013 a high profile court-martial of an Army Sergeant was underway for leaking classified documents to Wikileaks that among the three-quarters of a million leaked documents were videos of a controversial airstrike as well as diplomatic cables that biographer, Denver Nicks, attributed to "as a catalyst for the Arab-Spring that began in December 2010." You may be familiar with the case, it was of former army Sergeant Bradley Manning, who is a trans woman now known as Chelsea Manning.
This piece is not here to comment on that case, or the disclosure of "classified" documents, or of the debate between "whistleblower" status in relation to government occupations. (Though maybe a discussion for a later day.)
But this story was one of the first BIG questions for newspapers, journalists, and media outlets across the country on how to write articles using pronouns other than those of a the biological sex of an individual.
Chelsea Manning announced her preference of female pronouns after the sentencing of the court marital and many various news outlets, including the NYT were continuing to use male pronouns and referring to her as her former "Bradley" first name. Uproar came about for the complete disrespect by journalists not honoring pronouns requests. Since there was no "standard" to adhere to, many saw it as the individual journalists's decision on a case-by-case situation.
The New York Times originally defended using "Bradley Manning" so as not to "confuse readers" which is weak at best, to assume readers are not of sound mind to differentiate between a different first name of someone who still uses the same surname. They then later issued a statement saying henceforth they would use female pronouns.
Today, many different papers have taken "stances" on it and have clear[er] defined style guidelines for the use. We've evolved to some degree. But still anytime a story dealing with transgender/gender-queer/agendered individuals there is a bit of a "stutter step" approach even among the more traditionally "liberal" news sources. Just in February of this year the Times had another long debate dealing with a story of someone preferring the "xe" agendered pronoun.
Earlier today I saw a Facebook page share by The New York Times where the article description had a quote of someone using the incorrect pronoun. The article itself used the proper pronouns, but whomever runs the social media should have either "bracketed" and corrected the wrong pronoun or omitted it and used a different quote altogether.
This continues to be made a bigger issue than it needs to be. When someone tells you what pronouns to use, you use them. Done. Guideline complete. 
