I don't get discussion around it/it's pronouns

The thing people say the most who disagree with them "well I don't like it because it's clearly a fetish" or "I don't like it because it's dehumanizing." Is there seriously no other options people can imagine? Even just one?

Most of the time when people say it's a fetish it's genuinely on the same grounds that trans people are said to be fetishistic. I understand most people don't want it/it's pronouns and find if placed on themselves it would be degrading. That is totally understandable but to go from that to "well because I do not want to be treated x way then x way must clearly be a fetish" doesn't follow. Most cis people wouldn't want to transition does that make transitioning a fetish? I hope none of you would say yes.

The second point it's "dehumanizing" what's wrong with not being a human? "Heh well if you like being a nonhuman (not an inhuman!) so much well how about you enjoy not having rights." You really think this is a homerun argument? All this is an argument for is a greater protection of nonhumans. And don't forget nonhumans have rights too!!! Bees are becoming subjects political subjects in Peru. Forests for decades now have already undergone this. And yet most of the people who talk about it/it's pronouns is only stuff like this. I care about my world and the only kind of people who could think being a nonhuman is so horrible are people who hate it.

If you have any better arguments please post them. The arguments most of the time though are insufficient. I'm not saying you have to consider them trans but just what's the problems with the pronouns to begin with? To end off with a quote:

It is this sort of moralizing that is so irritating for technologists because the automatic groom is already anthropomorphic through and through. "Anthropos" and "morphos" together mean either what has human shape or what gives shape to humans. Well the groom is indeed anthropomorphic, and in three senses: first, it has been made by men, it is a construction; second it substitutes for the actions of people, and is a delegate that permanently occupies the position of a human; and third, it shapes human action by prescribing back what sort of people should pass through the door. And yet some would forbid us to ascribe feelings to this thoroughly anthropomorphic creature, to delegate labor relations, to "project" -that is to say, to translate-- other human properties to the groom. What of those many other innovations that have endowed much more sophisticated doors with the ability to see you arrive in advance (electronic eyes), or to ask for your identity (electronic passes), or to slam shut--or open-in case of danger? But anyway, who are you, you the sociologists, to decide forever the real and final shape of humans, to trace with confidence the boundary between what is a "real" delegation and what is a "mere" projection, to sort out forever and without due inquiry the three different kinds of anthropomorphis I listed above? Are we not shaped by nonhuman grooms, although, I admit, only a very little bit? Are they not our brethren? Do they not deserve consideration? With your self-serving and self-righteous social problems, you always plead against machines and for deskilled workers; are you aware of your discriminatory biases? You discriminate between the human and the inhuman. I do not hold this bias but see only actors-some human, some nonhuman, some skilled, some unskilled-that exchange their properties.

'Mixing Humans with Non-Humans: Sociology of a Door-Closer' Bruno Latour.