It's interesting as I agree with the points the article makes, but come to the opposite conclusion. Euphemisms don't need to be changed, because it's not the words themselves that are a problem, it's the thoughts and stereotypes that people have about others that are the issue.

Wholesale renaming of something from A to B, doesn't very little to change perceptions of the root issue. It just stigmatises people who haven't got the latest linguistic memo.

I remember about 30 years ago, there was a fad of renaming disability to dysability and anyone who dared use the old term was considered to being completely insensitive to their needs, regardless of actions. Interestingly, that seems to all but vanished in the years since and there seems to be little trace of it left on the internet.

I think the real problem with euphemisms displacing the original words, is generally they're vaguer. One example is "person of colour" should literally mean everybody, but it's just used as a drop-in replacements for the words before it that are now considered offensive. Substituting one phrase for another does nothing to adjust people's prejudices or intentions when using a word.

So, the real issue is how we change societal attitudes towards other (people generally don't seem to consider any of these older terms offensive if the speaker is in the same group) in the subset of people who use these words pejoratively, rather than just creating linguistic minefields for everyone else to traverse.