I have no problem with the majority of a group directly affected by a nomenclature requesting a change. Where I start to have a problem is when someone not directly affected starts championing it on behalf of some nebulous group that until then has said little on the subject.
For example: git master branch. We had a HUGE kerfuffle over that, to the point where even GitHub now gives git init examples that create and rename the master branch to "main". This was a pointless exercise that served no useful purpose other than to make a bunch of social justice warriors feel important.
Building special programs to lift people out of poverty is a good thing, especially for marginalized groups, but Affirmative Action was an abomination that only hurt those groups by reinforcing the stereotype that they're less capable.
Same goes for what DEI mutated into over time. The backlash we see today is because they went WAYYYYYYYY too far (because the politics of these things are always "keep pushing"), and so now that it's swinging the otherway, we're going to throw the baby out with the bath water. Everyone loses.
> When you observe someone publicly doing something that they think is virtuous, why is your first assumption that they’re broadcasting it cynically, rather than that they’re simply being virtuous in a public setting? Most people don’t think that way.
Most people don't think that way CONSCIOUSLY, but people do crave status, and will subconsciously tweak their beliefs to put them on the virtuous side of whatever they're doing, even when bullying others to lift themselves up (dragon slaying). This behavior is as old as time, and must be fought against whenever it rears its ugly head.