Yes I know the opinion is controversial, that's why I'm unsure of on it, and hence want to start a discussion with knowledgeable and relevant people In order to either reject it or become less unsure on it. (and If you'll look in some of the other threads my original comment has started, I have gotten some genuinely good information and perspectives in response)

I take mild offense to the implication I am being dishonest on this issue. I understand that some people using devils advocate are doing so to push their views while distancing themselves from them in case the discussion "fails". I am not doing that. If you are unable to believe me on that, then I do not believe there is any more productive conversation for us to have. My views do not get any more "extreme" than that, and I wanted to make that clear by expressing that even this, a view that may be controversial, is something that I am debating with myself and not a strongly held belief.

If you already know why it's controversial enough to abstract yourself from the argument, then why are you arguing for it?

because understanding that something is controversial is not the same as understanding if or why it is wrong. Communism is controversial, should we stop talking about that here?

It's not hard. Your vernacular doesn't matter. You don't have to understand the why in order to address people in a way that makes them feel respected as a person.

I never said I would refuse to change how I address someone if they tell me how i do so makes them uncomfortable, I wanted to discuss whether the wholesale rejection of a new development in our language was good. Please see my other comment for a full description of my goals, As I outlined there, I could have approached the situation better, but I do dislike your reaction to my genuine attempt to clarify my goals and stance.