Sounds like a train of biases to me. Sure certain words currently have certain connotations, and certain words used to have some too. But isn't language allowed to evolve? If a word was used derogatorilly 100 years ago must we ensure that the word is never allowed to change. Rather than removing the connotation, these changes cement them by removing anyone's ability to change them.

To determine the meaning of every word as they've ever been and attempt to remove any that have ever been used in a way that could've upset anyone ever, just makes sure those words will continue to upset people and be painful. There are words with stronger denotations that would take generations to heal but these are words and concepts that the children of today might not even recognize. Should we attempt to solidify pain by hiding truth? Or would it be better to let the youngins change things the way they always do.

If you take their words, they'll just make more. And those new words will not have the ambiguity of our current language.

I mostly associate screeching with owls and monkeys, neither of which are coded feminine.

To be clear (and conciliatory): I see how you connect the dots here. I just think you have to have your antennae extended extra high to pick this signal up, high enough that you'll need to be careful walking under overpasses and stuff.

While engaging in linguistic pedantry, antennae are for insects, antennas are for signals.

What the fuck

https://grammarist.com/usage/antennae-antennas/

I can't even.

I only know this because I work with antennas a lot (and thankfully, never with antennae).

Yeah, I think trying to "correct" such "uninclusive" speech is utter bullshit; 99.9% of the time it is just used to add some colour and flavour to the language used and not to disparage any group

Sure, but at that point you're just saying that a neutral descriptive term is more commonly-applicable to one gender.

Is the word "sobbing" or the word "weeping" derogatory? Visibly-emotional crying is also associated with women, and isn't a stereotypically "manly" thing to do.

I'm saying it could be interpreted that way by extremely uncharitable individuals that try to make their existence out of being offended and fixing "social injustices", instead of recognizing that in vast majority of cases no actual person was even offended, author didn't mean anything close to offending anyone, and the word was just used to make writing more colorful.

Right, sure. I was less arguing with you than highlighting the intellectual bankruptcy of this movement.

women can have deep voices too. dont let your own bias shape your responses like this.

It seems like you are saying women screech more than men.