a) "Defunding the police" is something right-wing media and social channels love to misrepresent. It doesn't mean removing law enforcement, but changing how it's enforced.
Here's an analogy. Imagine a scenario in which there's a single unified public force that's responsible for dealing with violent criminals with military-grade force, and for helping small children walk safely to school, and for putting out fires on houses and buildings. Its official are responsible for all that, but 95% of their training is in dealing with violent criminals with military-grade force. Would you want to have them arrive, in full SWAT gear, to put out a fire on your house, and to talk to your daughter so she enters the schoolyard without incidents?
The concept of "defunding the police" is to remove from police responsibilities they don't deal with well, and to transfer those responsibilities to agencies that deal better with them. Continuing with the analogy, to split a firefighting force from the unified police force, so firefighter are strongly trained in putting out fires, rather than on putting out violent criminals, which involves, evidently, removing from the unified force the money necessary to fund the new firefighting force.
In the "defund the police" world police continues existing, but it focuses only on dealing with violent criminals. Their funding is reduced proportionately, and the difference is transferred to the other forces focused on solving all the stuff policed is called upon nowadays despite having little to no training in dealing with those things.
b) "the pronoun police"
You do know this is just annoying people on Twitter and on comments sections of sites, not an actual enforcement of anything under threat of State sanctioned violence, right?
c) "mandatory (...)"
Nothing in that has ever been mandatory.
Now, one caveat: if someone benefits from and builds atop public services paid for by citizens' taxes, it's simply fair those same beneficies cannot in turn deny said citizens who paid for it all with their taxes from enjoying access to such buildings on the equal footing with all other citizens. If you disagree, are you willing to refund them the taxes they paid, covering the costs in their place?
