Non-binary and Genderfluidity a Sign of Rising Consiousness?

[Diana]

"They" is not only plural, "they" can also be used in the singular and be grammatically proper.

No, that's not true unless grammar has changed. We all default to that sometimes, and I do as well for ease of writing and not sounding too didactic or cumbersome in conversation (but I would not use "they" as singular in any formal writing). The mixing of plural and singular can create confusion. Example: Should you say...

1. We all have challenges in our life.

2. We all have challenges in our lives.

#1 sounds like we all have the same life; and #2 sounds like each person may have more than one life. So you may see how confusion can arise, especially with less obvious examples. We make assumptions based on what is most likely or sensible, so using "they" as singular will usually be fine, and it is less cumbersome than "his or her," and less sexist than resorting to one gender such as the generally accepted masculine (what I do when stuck is use the feminine, because I won't resort to the confusing plural in a singular context). Another device for nonfiction writers is to speak to the reader, so "you" instead of he or she, and "your" instead of hers or his. Wayne Dyer is an example of that.

I have absolutely no problem using it this way and find myself referring to people as "they" in the third person singular more often. I know there are people who do prefer he/she, but I don't think they would be hurt or offended by being referred to as "they" in third person - and if I found out they were, I would gladly oblige.

Absolutely. I'm not attached to any of it so whatever a person wants is fine by me.

I just won't professionally write mixing plural with singular.

Something that the activist groups I've participated in do often is have people introduce themselves and share their preferred pronouns, since it's pretty common to be ambiguous. It's a way to be intentionally inclusive, which I find helps create what I suppose is considered a "safe space", which is often used derisively but I think it is an important thing to have.

Is it ever difficult to remember who wants what? I'm terrible at remembering names (great at faces and voices though). I would oblige of course, but I'd probably mess up.

But maybe the idea is to simply allow that safe space, and so just honoring the preference is the main point.  

As we develop a social memory complex, we have to learn how to create "safe spaces" - when we all have access to each other's thoughts, we'll learn very quickly which things hurt and are best left unthought/unsaid and how people prefer to be approached and treated, etc. And when there is no barrier between us, the pain of another belongs to us as well. It's definitely a balance between self expression and taking responsibility with our words and not hurting others.

It is also the responsibility of the person who reacts. I don't mean to sound cold. We can't always know what would hurt another being. Being respectful, kind, and compassionate for everyone is as much as one can do. Beyond that, we are not our "brother's keepers." We can't control their lives or take away their wounds. They have their free will and we cannot steer that boat for someone else, or even know where it is going or why. Kindness, and detached, compassionate support is, in my mind, the best way to deal with our fellow humans, who are are here making choices and finding out what that means.