If one guy prefers to be called one thing and another guy prefers to be called another thing, there's nothing wrong with switching up your choice of nomenclature depending on which one you're talking to and which term he prefers.
There's nothing wrong with it. The audience is what matters.
Here's the thing, though.
There are many people out there, each with disparate preferences. It is impractical to always use the preferred term in front of the right audience.Some Corner Cases
- When addressing 2+ parties who do not agree on the right term, it's impossible to use the preferred term for both. Whatever; default to societal norm.
- When dealing with a single stranger, you have to run with your best assessment of modern, societally-preferred nomenclature. If their preference mistmatches the societal norm, you're now obligated to make and hold a mental note to use that term through the course of the conversation.
- Take the case of interacting with an infrequent contacts who prefer a term other than the societal default. You're presumably obligated to have stored the mental note long enough to use the right term. This is difficult and potentially grating in proportion to the frequency, significance, and prickliness of the contact.
I'm sure I missed a few.
It hopefully goes without saying that I'm not defending hate speech.
What I'm getting at is that an expectation to tiptoe around trigger words/phrases
when those terms are medically accurate or societally accepted—can be intrusive, tiring, and stifling.
Compulsory accommodation like that causes friction.