> It's not as if you can simply work around and pick similar words for that individual's particular noun

We're working with an arbitrary constraint here (and I, for one, am enjoying it, actually); we kind of /have/ to do that. ;)

> you miss almost all of a thought by dancing around it vs. using a fast shortcut that quickly aligns thoughts with low odds of ambiguity.

You seem to forget that we're trying to find clever ways to refer to people and things without using the most common letter in the English language.