Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar hell. You can disagree without this. There was nothing lewd in what scarface_74 posted.
Many of these complaints about arbitrary rules changing, to my observation, come from people who were simply unaware of a decades-long conversation happening in spaces they don't care to be invested in: sociological studies, gender studies, cultural studies, human behavior studies, etc. And when those conversations reach a well-reasoned consensus with convincing arguments that sway the hearts and minds of people with control over interaction spaces, it can be a little startling when rules change! But being upset about it is a little bit like being upset that the web APIs changed due to the publications of WHATWG while consistently ignoring the well-publicized discussions and work of WHATWG.
Graham in this essay seems to be laboring under the belief that because these norms didn't originate from the STEM education space, the STEM industry space doesn't need to adopt them or take them seriously... As if they weren't originating from the space of professional consideration of sociology and human behavior.
... because someone who spoke for the community spoke up forcefully in favor of the current rules.
There I put it in quotes so you can see the point being made. Considering I can attribute lewdness to nothing, I am easily capable of doing so from any comment. Now, as an "individual of color experiencing comment censorship" (the phrase for someone who is downvoted), I demand action.
You're right that the meaning of a word like "lewd" is disputed. But disputed is not the same as arbitrary, so your argument falls afoul of this guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
Whem you respond to people with opposite views (e.g. scarface_74 and gedpeck in this thread) in that way, you stand no change of persuading them or even of generating a curious response in them. It's guaranteed to be alienating. That's the opposite of the kind of conversation we're hoping for here.
What it will do is generate reinforced agreement among readers who already shared your view, but this is also the opposite of the kind of conversation we're hoping for—not just (or even at all) because it worsens polarization, but because repetition is bad for curiosity, and these are some of the most-hammered nails that exist.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
Regardless, you are correct that this discussion is tiresome and besides, pg has pointed out that it's over: freedom is winning. It's gauche to fight after victory is declared.