This is my take too. Ultimately the precise language used is immaterial. It is the intent behind it that matters. The precise language used may be indicative of intent, but that should be judged on a case-by-case basis rather than assuming "phrasing X good, phrasing Y bad", which will lead to both false positives and false negatives.

There's no point in arguing about these interpretations. Some people get convinced that "X with Y" means that X has Y, and since this is used in sentences like "X has cancer," autism is portrayed as a disease. There are other people who oppose the adjectival phrase for similar reasons.

IMO, the point in these cases is more that a certain phrase has obtained a negative connotation, and should be avoided, but it is framed in some Sapir-Whorf-like style.

But are you an entity with Person or a Person with Entity?

If one cannot analyze words to w/i an inch of death, what is one to do on the internet other than speak in the 3rd person?

That’s a totally false comparison. Brown hair is something you physically have.