What's pathetic is thinking that trying to use inclusive language is pathetic.
The #1 failure of social justice activist movements worldwide is to suggest that people who don't agree with a particular policy must somehow be racist/sexist.
It's the giant bit of gaslighting that discredits the movement, and frankly, in some cases, reveals 'truer intentions'.
The assumption that arbitrary words must have anything to do with reality, interpretation, applied nuance or discrimination is problematic to say the least.
As I alluded to in my other reply in this thread [which got downvoted into oblivion] the problem with these SJWs is that their world view is so parochial and [in terms of time] narrow, that they think these terms are offensive because "slavery"... "racism"... even when the terms and their connotations often pre-date their worldview or even their country.
A previous classic example was the same kind of people getting their knickers in a twist over the use of the adjective "black" to describe something bad because... yep, you got it... "slavery"... "racism"...
Anyone with the slightest bit of historical and cultural awareness would realise that the use of "black" as an adjective with negative connotations dates back centuries, if not millennia and blindingly obviously originates from early religious connotations of light being good and darkness being filled with danger and evil. But, of course, to the SJWs, any use of "black' in a negative sense has got to be a veiled reference to American slavery by those evil racists and their non-inclusive language.
It was a black day for the world, when this political correct bullshit became the only acceptable form of expression.