It often comes off as offensive or ignorant when used to describe people. E.g., "gays", "blacks".

Typically you want to avoid referring to people by the adjective that describes them.

Why? It's reductive -- you are replacing a trait with the trait. A 'transgender person', for instance, refers to a person who is trans (among other things.) A 'transgender' focuses on a specific, singular trait of a person, while removing the 'person' from the discussion.

Socially, we typically use adjectives to refer to people who we don't like. Look at media coverage of 'the reds' or 'the gays'. It's a tool for making a combining a group of people and making them a homogenous 'other'.

> we typically use adjectives to refer to people who we don't like

but do we typically refer to people who we don't like using adjectives?

Also, the semantics change by using "the gays" as opposed to just "gays".

> It's reductive

Or just efficient. Is it not understood that "transgender" refers to a person? Do I need to refer to every red sox fan as a "red sox supporting person" now? The "homogenous 'other'" stuff sounds like cynical lib-pop psychology.

> Do I need to refer to every red sox fan

"Fan" is short for "fanatic" (noun) and not, for example, "fanatical" (adjective), so this statement seems to advance the point you are purporting to refute.

> Also, the semantics change by using "the gays" as opposed to just "gays".

Who says that?

I hear, "gay people", "our gay brothers and sisters", "the gay community", "the LGBTQ community", etc. But I only hear "the gays" from people who use it in an uninformed and disparaging way.

So again, you're making the point you're trying to refute.

> this statement seems to advance the point

That's kind of a tangent. It's easy to com up with other examples - e.g Engineer vs engineering trained person, scientist vs scientifically qualified person etc..

However, to focus on this point; Given the word fan is considered neutral, and people uncontroversial refer to themselves as others as fans, to me refutes the idea that you can derive the meaning of language from narratives around their origins..

> Who says that?

me, with as much authority as your original assertions

> But I only hear "the gays" from

but isn't that cause vs correlation?

> you're making the point you're trying to refute.

I don't follow your logic. I didn't supply the example your feel refutes my point. Plus, your example is biased by whatever circles you happen to run in - who gets to judge who is/isn't informed? Can I guess the people you are talking about (as uninformed) are also an outgroup relative to you?