When I read defenses of these moves online, usually it is acknowledged that these terms, when used in the context of engineering, do not have a relationship to human subjugation. However, the arguments offered at that juncture are:<p>a) <i>Every little bit helps</i>: If we can help eradicate injustice even in a tiny way, such as by using more inclusive language, and it's not unreasonable to implement, why not?<p>b) <i>We need to cut ties with a problematic past to improve</i>: If we want a world with equity for all, we must voluntarily let go of heritage that binds us to a world without equity.<p>I have many problems with these arguments. (If I have not steelmanned them sufficiently, please suggest improvements).<p>First, it is not true that the current strategy is reasonable to implement. A solution is reasonable if the effort needed to implement it does not outweigh the impact of the problem. A reasonable solution is to use "leader / follower" yourself and gradually encourage people away over time at their own discretion: a low-effort solution for a low-impact problem. An unreasonable solution is to risk production impact and breaking changes (as in third-party tooling that relies on the `master` convention in git), creating more work for everyone - all so slightly different language can be used. Doc changes are a great low-effort solution if you really want to do this.<p>Second, the claim that improvement cannot occur without cutting ties is a bit of a switch-and-bait. People will defend "improvement is not possible without change", and then morph that into "improvement is not possible without disassociation". There is some merit to this latter claim in some contexts - for example, in cases of domestic abuse - but that does not make it universal. We can keep the past around, but eliminate its ability to impact the present, which is "improvement with change". I think the "master / slave" convention and its history have done this adequately, since everyone agrees that no reasonable person would associate the term now with an endorsement of slavery or oppression.<p>These two points put me firmly in the camp of "necessary changes are good, but this particular change is unnecessary".