Language is an agreed-upon made-up thing. I'm willing to learn and use a new set of largely agreed-upon pronouns. From among these, I'll call people whatever they want. I'm also willing to use gender neutral pronouns and if he/him/his isn't good enough, I'm willing to use whatever becomes standard.
I'm not willing to learn, remember, and use uniquely-identifying pronouns. Such a request is unreasonable (and rare in my personal experience). Instead, I'll just forgo pronouns entirely: "Snake's book is on Snake's desk" is fine by me.
Which of these Stuart Reges is talking about, I don't know, so I'm willing to reserve judgment. I don't agree with calling him a bully because to me, 'bully' is a pattern of behavior, but the only evidence offered is this single statement and Reges doesn't really give us the context; and also because 'bully' is a label that's often used to discount the opinions of those with whom we disagree and doesn't really open the floor up for much discussion on the topic.
This actually illustrates quite well why the whole pronoun fluff is terminally broken.
We call people 'he or she' in many, many cases in which we don't know their names, so obviously we wouldn't know a pronoun either.
You don't have to _remember_ whether someone is male or female because you look at them and it's obvious in 99% of cases. If a pronoun has to be _remembered_ then it becomes something else entirely and you may as well just use the full name as you state.
My pronoun is "His Majesty ;)" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/10/07/...
Compelling speech is a very dangerous road, no matter how harmless it starts or how good the intentions.
This is actually an argument that people shouldn't be requesting custom, non-standard pronouns.