So then you admit your characterisation of the history of pronoun usage for humans is false.Key word here is "was".That is why pronoun usage in English was based solely on sex.
I am talking about historical usage.Key word here is "we're".pronouns for humans were based on sex.
We haven't had the conversation about whether we should or could jettison historical usage for a top-down, prescribed approach.
Of course they did.Key word here is "decided".Humans decided that those that society agreed were males get 'he', and females get 'she'.
Whether pronoun usage for humans should be changed to refer to gender identity is a matter of debate. It is not a given.Key word here is "should have".your moral sensibility that it should have referred to gender identity all along is an expression of your moral opinion, not a fact about historical usage.
My "moral sensibility" here is based on people in the here and now getting along with each other. Historical usage doesn't matter to my moral sensibility any more than historical science concerning race or geography.
It just doesn't.
Tom
For example, progressive white people and academic Latinos have been trying to shove 'Latinx' down the throats of Latino people for years. They do it because upholding gender ideology is a more important value to them than avoiding imposing an obscene and open case of language imperialism. An elite cabal can tray and decide how language evolves, and they might even succeed, but that isn't usually how language evolves.