Rather than talking about it in terms of 'pronoun culture', which makes any discussion susceptible to being bounded by the poles of the left/right political 'culture wars' that unfortunately characterize so much of modern Christianity in western countries, I would recommend that all Christians who feel themselves able to do so stick to discussing these things in terms of traditional Christian anthropology and theology.
In the reality, we've been here before in the very early days of Christianity, albeit in a different guise. We can know what to do by looking at how the early Church herself responded to the Gnostics, as the current situation with regard to transgender topics reveals a very gnostic understanding of humanity -- namely, that there is some intrinsic 'other' you that is necessarily divorced from your fleshly body (this is what separates it from traditional Christianity as found in the Fathers, where it is certainly permissible to talk about the soul and the body, but it is never in such a way that treats the body as something to be abhorred on account of its physicality). It was as far back as at least the early Latin Christian writer Tertullian (I think in his work The Crown, though I cannot remember exactly at the moment, as I try to avail myself of his work as rarely as possible, given his eventual embrace of Montanism) that it has been observed that the Gnostics within a given congregation would always make themselves known by abstaining from partaking in the Eucharist, as their theologies balked at participation with physical matter in worship.
Extending this worldview to today, we do not have to look far to see how some people involved in the current societal fashions of thought regarding transgender issues definitely abhor physical matter. The surgeries and puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and so on do so for us. So the question of how a pastor or priest or any Christian should respond to this is already settled, as it has been since the beginning. Remember that the great and controversial theologian Origen was condemned for supposedly mutilating his body by self-castration. Nothing was said in the process about 'his pronouns' (I personally think this type of semantic discussion obscures the deeper theological and anthropological issues at play, but if I were to say anything about it, I'd say it as a linguist rather than as a churchman: find me any time before very recently when people had pronouns they possessed as some things that were 'theirs' in an idiosyncratic sense, as that phrase is meant today, and I'll buy a hat just to eat it). It was what he actually did that led to his condemnation. (At least within the western/Greco-Roman imperial/Chalcedonian Church; the Alexandrian Church had actually already condemned him during his lifetime for procuring ordination while teaching in Palestine without the approval of his own Alexandrian bishop, which was in violation of the ancient canons regarding ordination. Just FYI.)
