> It would just reinforce the belief that the original term was nothing but a slur against masculinity as a whole That's how people use it, and that's how it's

> It would just reinforce the belief that the original term was nothing but a slur against masculinity as a whole That's how people use it, and that's how it's interpreted by normal people. > That almost no one seems willing to even assume that modicum of good faith suggests it doesn't matter what terms you use, the premise will be rejected anyway. When dealing with large groups of people, pragmatism runs paces around accuracy. I really do understand what you're saying, but trying to change pedestrian interpretations of words with multiple legitimate interpretations is like yelling into the wind. The pragmatic choice would be to change the language so that people stop arguing about the language and focus instead on the core concept. If you are a domain expert talking with domain experts, then jargon is good and makes communication more efficient. When dealing with everyday people, it gets more difficult.