Are we really arguing over the validity of a brand new activist word coined to describe a culture where some reasonable percentage of said culture find it bothe

Are we really arguing over the validity of a brand new activist word coined to describe a culture where some reasonable percentage of said culture find it bothersome/offensive, and is likely never going to used by 97% of the culture because the predominant language they use is grammatically gendered? This to me smacks of elitism and making the intention more important than the effect.