As the writer has stated, the writer views any pronouns that are not capitalized as misgendering them, and stated the pronouns were chosen specifically to reflect the writer's self-identified divine status as "goddess gender" (a term that, as far as I can tell, only exists on one wiki and the writer's blog).

The choice of capitalized pronouns was specifically chosen to imitate reverential capitalization, indicating divine status. As part of the writer's argument, this is intended to put the writer on the same level as the Abrahamic God. The writer also states in the article that "by affirming trans capitalised pronoun users, generally you are dismantling monotheistic oppression," which is a wild claim that I cannot agree with. The use of capitalized pronouns is therefore intended to strip the other party of their beliefs, either as a monotheist or atheist (as using reverential pronouns would also affirm a polytheist worldview that they disagree with).

I cannot use any pronouns that do not acknowledge the writer's claimed divine status without the writer claiming I am misgendering them. This is the most respectful way I can refer to the writer without acknowledging divine status or actively misgendering the writer.

I am more than happy to use whichever (lowercase and grammatically correct) pronouns are requested, as I am more than happy to refer to you as they/them, (which is also the default I try to use, though I understand some people are frustrated with they/them as it can strip a chosen gender identity).

Divine status is not a gender identity. Words mean things, and language can evolve, but this is specifically appropriating a style of writing while disparaging the source of that style.