So let's play out why I worded the above how I did.
If you say "you cannot say dyke because Reasons" then there are only a few viable possibilities:
[RESOLUTION] I agree with you and stop.
[BOUNDARY] I disagree with you and you distance yourself from me.
[BOUNDARY] I disagree with you and I distance myself from you.
[BOUNDARY] I disagree with you and we mutually distance ourselves from each other.
...and this is super important...
I disagree with you and instead of one or both of us distancing from the other, one or both of us begins attempting to coerce the other. Either I attempt to coerce you into "allowing" me to continue or you attempt to coerce to acknowledge your authority I am "not allowed".
None of these statements argue against the power of words or reclamation or morality or ethics or structure or any of the various arguments as to why someone should / should not use them.
...this is super important again...
When you limit the power of speech beyond a self-defined boundary then you on a path of Much More Serious Consequences up to and including siding with a faction that Also Hates You but and will inevitably set their sites upon you once your infighting work is complete.
Policing language is not.
You always have the right to remove yourself from the situation of someone using a word or phrase you find distasteful, harmful, historically significant in conotations not being respected, etc.
I am not saying you have to be comfortable with people using words you have boundaries against.
If I were attempting to coerce your comfort then, well, yeah, I would be, uh, on the other side of this.
I am saying that the joyous brutality of language control by unelected, self appointed structuralists (frequently with dubious understandnig of culture and history) is an exclusively dangerous situation.
Here is to hoping this addresses the notes before they continue with an appreciation it may not!