Then everyone should socially call a man who identifies and passes as a woman a woman, or a woman who identifies and passes as a man a man because otherwise it would be rude, disrespectful and hateful?

"Should?" No. Several reasons:

In the U.S., that would be considered "compelled speech." There is also a critical question of Constitutional law (First Amendment) over the intersection of congressional mandates and the practices and conventions of a citizen's religion. This is currently playing out here in the courts.

Outside the U.S., that question will be determined by sovereign national governments and the membership-guided influence of international bodies. Law, policy, and response will vary widely -- consider the recent actions of policing bodies in Scotland censuring rudeness on social media. It's impossible to impose a global legal or political "should" on speech, and questionable at best to socially compel that across cultures.

I agree we have no evidence consciousness or brain is sexed, but if we have no evidence consciousness and brain are not sexed either, how do we move forward? We are stuck in the middle with no information.

That's the question, isn't it? We're operating on best evidence, and in some fields (consciousness studies) evidence moves slowly.

Can you elaborate more on this please? If you could, with analogies maybe?

Everything I've already said here about biology, medicine, and first principles of evidence covers that.

(ETA if anyone wants to poke around consciousness studies, my personal favorite program is at The Johns Hopkins University -- be warned, its orientation is clinical and therapeutic, not philosophical.)