I find American English weirdly puritanical in some respects. For instance this use of <letter>-word as a signifier for a thing you find so offensive you can't

I find American English weirdly puritanical in some respects. For instance this use of <letter>-word as a signifier for a thing you find so offensive you can't say out loud or even write down in a discussion even though in this discussion we're not actually applying it to a person or hypothetical person. (I've not used it here as I think I can make this point without using it or hopefully causing offence). We have to careful of branding words themselves "hate speech" without reference to context. The particular word I think you refer to is perfectly legitimate when used in the context of the animal it describes. In fact as I understand it's not so much offensive because it compares a person to an animal as it is because it's also a slang name for the world's oldest profession and implies ownership and coercion with regard to that profession (both of which I'd say were dehumanising in a different and more offensive way). Banning the use of an everyday word in all contexts comes across not as about hate speech but as a way of an in group asserting control on others. I feel the same about the C-word. In my culture, whilst still a bit blue for everyday use, it's much less offensive than in yours. We apply it in all sorts of situations that are not dehumanising.