Was in a debugging scenario related to hierarchical nodes of data we identified as 'parents' and 'children'. Something was happening in a business process that left behind 'children' without 'parents'. I called them 'orphans'.<p>Out of left field: a teammate who was adopted raised such a stink about inclusiveness in our naming conventions that the whole project suffered. I'm shaking my head even recalling this.<p>I no longer use anthropomorphism in unfamiliar company.
On the contrary, claiming that using words like "diversity" or "inclusiveness" is tantamount to "meaning to do 'you' harm" is itself harmful.
I dig the sentiment. But why not use "leader" and "follower" instead?
Multi-tiered hierarchies might use military ranks (private, sergeant, etc.) or titles of nobility (king, earl, duke, etc. which would probably confuse a lot of people)
OP: "the demand for suppression of 'politically' offensive terms is ... a desire to make speech and thought malleable to political control." But OP feels that using speech to make thought comfortable with owning slaves and thereby supporting the political support for slave-holding is OK. Noobs routinely ask, "The term is WHAT? But slavery is bad." The answer is, "Not in this case. This is a case where slavery is OK." After years of living with this language, this (admittedly small) support for slavery no longer disturbs the experienced programmer. The programmer will even say that, on this side, there is no thought control in the language, but on that side, there is.