I am all for the progressive rights and inclusion of minorities in everyday life but I disagree with the notion that male gender plurals perpetuate the idea of "normal" gender. I'll explain why:
1) Our brains have the capacity to make pretty complex abstractions language-wise and else. Following my previous example: There are no distinct female traits in a house, neither functional nor organic, nor are there any distinct male traits in a car, yet we automatically assume that a house gender's is female and a gender's car male. Why would it be different in regards to other elements of the language? When we have to conflate the gender of the words to exactly match something concrete in real life (in this case the human male and female genders) we are taking away tools from our brains to deal with the complexity of modern life.
It's an interesting concept that James Flynn (whose discovered a phenomenom called the "Flynn Effect") discusses in his TED talk called "Why are IQ levels are higher than our grandparents'" which explains the evolution of thought abstraction in the past century precisely to this regard.
https://www.ted.com/talks/james_flynn_why_our_iq_levels_are_higher_than_our_grandparents/transcript
2) Even if the intention was correct in making the language more inclusive towards women, the idea is based on a now outdated notion that genders are strictly male and female. With the rise of the LGBT movement we now know that the issue of gender identity is much more complex than that and there are plenty of asexual and transexual individuals, as well as many people that considers themselves to be somewhere in between the male and the female. What about them? will we further change the language to not exclude them in the future? Will us be speaking of "los niños, las niñas y les niñes"?
3) Gender inclusion in the language as proposed currently is too biased because it assumes that we have to feminize the male constructs, but what about the opposite? for example why do we only change the male sounding professions from male to female (médicas, juezas) and not the female sounding ones? will we be talking in the future of "artistos", "estilistos", "ebanistos", "policíos", "astronautos" and "internautos"? see the absurdity of equating ending a's and o's with human female and male genders? We are solving a language inclusions by creating other language exclusions. What is worse, words are being selectively changed by these fighters of equality freedom complicating things that should no be that complicated. Why only "estudiantas" or "presidentas"? will we say in the future something like "La representanta de la Constituyenta es inteligenta pero le pegó la corrienta"?
4) Romance languages are already very inefficient because of all the redundancies they carry (having to match the genders of all the words). When we have to speak of "los niños y las niñas" or "los profesores y las profesoras" (the Venezuelan constitution is a perfect example) we just create further inefficiences which make communicating much less efective. There's precisely a principle called "economy of the language" which deals with this. An expression like "el perro es el mejor amigo del hombre" is pretty clear (because our capacity for abstract thoughts that I mentioned before) that you can have a dog that is a man's best friend or a dog that is a woman's best friend or a bitch (no pun intended) that is a man's best friend. How could we change that expression to make it more gender inclusive? "El perro y la perra son el mejor o la mejora amigo o amiga del hombre y la mujer"? I just completely destroyed the clarity of the expression when I wrote that.
5) Regarding the "latin@" which is pretty common ("están tod@s invitad@s a la fiesta") how do you even pronounce that? Latinao?
Finally, I agree with you that it is a silly thing to focus on when there are so many issues that truly effect women, starting with the attainment of full sexual and reproductive rights and the stupid morality the judges male and female actions differently (in which the Catholic church has a lot of influence I must say). Unfortunately is way easier to be an armchair activist and write "latin@" in some Facebook post than to really work for the things that matter.