Personally, I think we shouldn't give the gender-benders even one tiny inch. The examples you cited really worry me, even though it appears they are much less extreme than force-feeding us new gender pronouns and the like.
A good example of these "wolfs in sheep's clothing" in English is the use of "she" as a general pronoun, as in "if an athlete falls down, she might break her legs". Looks innocent enough, no? All about fairness and recognition of women? I don't think so.
What happens with such rules is that authors often censor themselves and simply avoid using such constructions. Big red flag! Also, are we still allowed to use "he" in such sentences sometimes? If so, how often? It just muddles our brains.
Also, such "inventions" remove our language from reality. For example, it would make perfect sense to say "if a firefighter enters a building, he must be careful", because firefighters are mostly men. It's reality. Also, it would make sense to say "if a nurse works long hours, she should be paid more", because most nurses are women. So these sorts of rules rob us of common sense.
Most importantly though, we need to recognize that these new language rules have nothing to do with "fairness to women" or anything like that. The underlying theory is this: "the evil patriarchy perpetuates itself using evil patriarchal language. But this is unconscious (the overwhelming majority of women doesn't care at all!). So in order to re-engineer society, we must force people to use a new language, so that we re-program them to break the evil spell of the patriarchy." That's what it's all about. "And since people won't like it, because they are still under the spell of the evil patriarchy, we must reprogram them in stages - beginning with seemingly innocent new rules." It's plain evil.
Now, there are cases where it's not about this underlying theory and where these things are aligned with reality that I'm willing to concede. For example, in German we have a male and female form for job-titles and "people words" such as "colleagues". So in a letter to your colleagues, you would write "Dear colleagues [f] and colleagues [m], ..." - this is fine with me because it's a fact that there are female colleagues now, as opposed to the past where you had only male colleagues. It's like saying "Dear ladies and gentlemen" in a speech where you address both men and women. Putting women first is also gentleman-like (is that patriarchal!?).
So no: use real, reality-based language everywhere where you can get away with it! Everything that feeds the "we need to subvert the patriarchy" approach and muddies your brain should be rejected, 100%. If you concede even an inch, the ideologically possessed will use this to go one inch further. That's how I see it at least.
