I get that you're being practical here. You're not technically wrong, and the people who are disagreeing with you really are arguing points of nuance.

But they aren't wrong either. That nuance matters in certain contexts.

You can pick this hill to defend. Or you can learn something that you didn't know about the people in your online community, and probably your IRL community too.

Embrace learning something new. It will almost never be a waste of your time.

Ah, I understand now. You think that "human nonspecific terminology" and "dehumanizing terminology" are oxymoronic. Let me help clarify this for you with a lesson in reading comprehension:

"Human nonspecific terminology" refers to terminology that isn't used specifically to refer to humans. For example, nouns like "male", "female", "subject", or "specimen" can refer to humans, but they can also apply to things like plants and animals. Casually using these terms socially is generally thought of as dehumanizing and disrespectful.

This is opposed to respectful human terminology like "man", "woman", "participant", or "person" that almost exclusively refer to humans.

If a man thinks of himself as a man, but refers to women as "females", people tend to assume he has less than an acceptable amount of respect for women, since he uses less human terminology to describe them than he would to describe himself.