While I know a lot of people who use newer pronouns, I also know a lot of people who got /so much hate/ for them/being nb in general (even/especially from those in community) that being called something other than "they" can literally send them into a panic attack. I know it may be clunky, but it's easier to get other people to use and I know that myself and most of my friends would be in serious straights, mentally, if someone used ve/etc instead of 'they' at the first.
Parsed strictly, there's one argument here: that anon knows some nb people who are triggered by other people using nongendered pronouns other than singular "they" when referring to the aforesaid nb people. This argument seems a bit odd, but it's not so different from others I have heard (for instance, I know a trans woman who is triggered by junk mail sent to her deadname). I can respect it.
I make an effort to refer to each person by the pronouns that person prefers (assuming I know which pronouns that person prefers), though my memory is imperfect and sometimes I forget which pronoun to use. (I do not include -kin "pronouns" such as faeself here; in English, pronouns encode gender identity, not species identity.)
However, to my reading, this intends to imply another argument: that, it being so vital to respect the triggers of the nb people to which anon refers, members of the general public should adopt a policy of using the singular they pronoun by default, when they (the public) do not know which pronouns a particular person prefers. I am not persuaded by this argument.
It is very easy to argue that one should respect a trigger which one knows exists. It is far harder to argue that one should assume a trigger exists, and adapt one's day to day behavior to compensate for that. I think in evaluating such an argument, one must consider the prevalence of the trigger as well as the degree of inconvenience presented by respecting the trigger. For instance, I try to remember to warn for content discussing abuse, because that is a fairly common trigger. (In some cases, it may only be possible to respect one person's trigger by disrespecting another person's, but this isn't common.)
First: a disclaimer. A lot of dialogue about singular "they" concerns whether or not it is correct. This is stupid, because linguistic prescriptivism is stupid. Besides, if it was good enough for Chaucer and Shakespeare, it ought to be good enough for anyone else. I am absolutely not saying singular "they" is incorrect; I'm just saying it sounds really wrong to me.
I greatly dislike people using singular "they" to refer to me. I would not call it a trigger, but it's enough of a dislike that I go to the effort to correct others when I notice someone has used singular "they" to refer to me. (I do not care a lot about which other pronoun people use, other than to note that using "she" would cause a lot of confusion.) If some people's dislike of "ve" must be respected, so too must be my dislike of singular "they".
I also dislike using singular "they" to refer to other people; it feels wrong, particularly in the reflexive form (is it "themself"? "themselve"?). I will of course use it for a person when I know it is their preferred pronoun. But in the absence of any information about how prevalent it is, I will reject anon's implied argument that I must assume the existence of this trigger.
I'm sure as a society we will keep moving towards nongendered pronouns. Perhaps we'll figure out the reflexive form and use singular "they"; perhaps we'll use "ve" or "sie" or "xe"; perhaps eventually we'll follow Marain and have a single pronoun for all people, or follow Karhidish and have three. But for now, I'm going to continue using "ve" when I don't know which pronouns a person prefers.
In my view, "ve" is pretty simple by neo-pronoun standards. Unlike "xe", most English speakers know how to say it and can easily follow the derivations:
verself, herself, himself
