That's going a bit overboard.
Agreed.
I think there is something to be said for poo-pooing locker room talk. If it's ever appropriate, it would only be appropriate in a locker room. Even then, aren't there more creative, clever, and effective ways to say the same thing?
And if I feel the need to put down someone else by describing them as female genitalia of all things, the only thing I'm really doing is showing my own emotional turmoil - which isn't very manly at all, and also often reveals my inner uncertainty and weakness.
When you think about it, there are probably VERY few situations where insulting someone is an actual expression of true strength of character.
Perhaps I'm overreacting, but living in the belly of the critical theory censorship beast as I do, and having to constantly practice extreme levels of strategic enclosure due to an environment saturated with hypersensitive SJWs, I really, really don't want this forum to go down that path. Language policing is the thin end of the wedge there. When I see phrases along the lines of "we have to do better", classic SJW code for "here's a new rule you all have to follow", my hackles go straight up. Same when it seems someone is getting offended on behalf of an amorphous group: "you can't use this word because it's vaguely insulting to a group I'm appointing myself the champion of". There's no real end to that: once this tactic is permitted, essentially any language referencing a biological trait can be judged a speech crime, e.g. "that government propaganda is so lame" is insulting to the differently abled.
As it is, I think the rules here are pretty good: don't discuss illegal stuff, don't make personal attacks, don't introduce noise, and keep discussions on topic. I suppose one might argue that colorful language, being emotional, is a source of noise, but to me it seems equally valid that vocabulary policing is also a source of noise: there are situations where a visceral expression communicates meaning quite a bit more directly than more verbose, anodyne prose might achieve; while at the same time, introducing vaguely defined speech rules will a) have a chilling effect and b) over time lead to a culture of speech policing, in turn c) leading to threads accumulating posts where forum members scold people for their choice of words (as is the case here) which then d) generates off-topic posts distracting from the issue under discussion.
This is precisely the process that has unfolded in academia over the last few decades, and has culminated in academia becoming essentially useless as an arena for truth determination.
I don't mean to suggest that is anyone's intent, but living in the cultural context we do, it's all too easy for this kind of thing to seep in here, or anywhere else, simply due to unconscious assimilation of prevailing socially engineered cultural mores.
This market is highly hysterical.
