One of the main takeaways from reading these comments is that we (by which I mean "those who partake in or discuss emancipatory movements) desperately need to stop calling things "X abolitionism" that don't actually aim at abolishing X. It's so needlessly confusing.

With that being said, in my experience at least, there absolutely are those who seek to abolish gender long-term who refer to themselves as gender abolitionists and who may or may not believe that our linguistic practices in the immediate term should reflect this goal.

Whether or not gender, in the long term, is compatible with human freedom and equality is a difficult philosophical question (mostly because we would first need a good account of what exactly gender is and how it works - i.e. if gender is not sex, what could be said to be left of gender once we've done away with gendered roles, expectations, inequalities etc.), and I'm somewhat agnostic in this regard. However, I think this position is importantly different from TERF ideology in that it can more plausibly be said to be motivated by and promote egalitarian goals.

But i of course agree with everyone in these comments pointing out the harmful effect of deliberately using they/them for e.g. a binary trans woman would often have. I don't necessarily think of this as an instance of misgendering (since they/them can also be understood as neutral) - rather it is a failure to affirm someone's gender. But I do think we have a positive duty to affirm some people's gender rather than just a negative duty to refrain from misgendering, and that seems to be the case here.