Perhaps a better name would help, such as "Non-hostile communication". There is no such thing as violent communication, and the confusion between speech and violence is precisely what is driving the current pro-censorship wave.
That all being said, I think when we receive communication that we perceive as violent, we often have a reaction to try to stop people from saying those things, thus the increase in censorship. I don’t think that works well. What I like about NVC is not about stopping someone from communicating in a violent way, but choosing to respond in a nonviolent way. Similar to MLK’s beliefs on nonviolent resistance. In the end, I believe the goal is to change the way people communicate, but not violently stopping someone from being violent.
There may be some reason preventing your use of the word 'violent' for verbal ways to cause negative physical reactions and mental trauma. You may want to ask yourself why you are downplaying the core principle here and, I'm guessing, the agency of the speaker in it..
But not violent.
Just the same as I wouldn't say pirating a movie was theft, but by saying that I'm not saying I think it's OK - these are just different concepts.
It is important not to conflate the two concepts, because violence is widely criminalized and psychological harm is highly subjective. The immediate implication of bundling these completely disparate concepts is that somebody will have to arbitrate which verbal expressions constitute violent crime. This is not conjecture, activist groups have already regulated speech in several countries on the premise that words are violence.
I meant to say it's not violent by my understanding of the term, not that it can't cause real harm. It absolutely can.
Violence, as per my dictionary, requires intentional action (but is not necessarily physical). The existence of gay people is not intentional, and therefore is not an act of violence against religious fundamentalists.