By the same token, I can understand the conceptual resistance to changing language to fit individual desire if that language has a purpose. It's very likely Holkins is thinking of this in terms of "sex." He's saying in effect, "no, just because you want to identity as a woman doesn't make you biologically a woman," when the situation being reacted to is more in terms of gender.
Look at it this way: many labels do exist for a reason. If a person were born with green eyes, but deeply believed that they were "meant" to have brown eyes, I don't think their California license should say "brown eyes." I think this is how Holkins is thinking about it. Not to deliberately dismiss the individual, but to think of it in terms of the words having particular meaning. The way he's looking at it, he's not mistreating or disrespecting any individual, he's insisting that a meaning be applied consistently. I'm inclined to comply with a person's desire to be identified as they wish, but I'd be lying if I said I can't understand why he made the comment he did.