If she is an awful person, just say so. The fact that you connect her awfulness with her gender is the problem. Consider the fact that I am an asshole. I can describe this in many ways without needing to describe my so-called color. But the moment someone calls me a Nigger... That's wrong.
When I imagine myself calling some woman a bitch, my mind doesn't seem to contain the idea that all women are bitches. I can sort of sympathize with your having an overactive detector of bigoted speech, but I'm uncomfortable with your trying to shut me up based on the detector's output instead of what I actually meant.
If you are uncomfortable with push back against your choice of words, your best bet is to avoid using controversial expressions in public.
Regardless of what you think you mean, it's a statistical certainty that someone, somewhere is going to regard words like "bitch" as inappropriate, or will feel uncomfortable, or will think poorly of you for making that choice.
It's not like I'm this lone, eccentric weirdo suggesting that it is not necessary to use the word "bitch" to describe a person whose behavior displeases you.
Update: And yes, of course, it's not like you are a sexist oppressive pig either, nor are you in an isolated minority. We're two people arguing opposing points that are both well within the range of normal human behavior. What makes the subject "controversial" is that there are large numbers of people on either side of the question and many on each side take it seriously. All I'm trying to say here is that since it is controversial, it's safest to use the word in a more private setting, not an Internet forum and especially not a conference presentation. I think we can agree on the question of avoiding controversy even if we disagree on whether the word describes a specific woman.
Can you be a bit more specific? What is sterile about describing a person in opprobrious terms without using the word "bitch?"
What realms of human experience and observation are we ignoring? I suggest the opposite: Slurs like "bitch" are lazy, they ignore the myriad of subtle colours and shades of human behavior and replace them with a catch-all that means roughly "we disapprove of you."
I am certain that a man can damn his ex with far more wounding intent by expanding his vocabulary and unleashing his inner poet. Such insults would hardly be sterile, they would be fecund.
First of all I want to make it clear that I'm not defending Noah's use of that slide - I think it was dumb. I don't think that you think I approve of it, but I just wanted to get that out of the way up front. For the sake of argument though I'll be operating under the assumption that denigrating an ex- in a slide is a good idea, and the issue is to choose the correct word.
Back on topic, the ideology I was thinking of is the idea that men and women aren't statistically different (or if they are, that mentioning such things is impolite). I would argue that "bitch" captures a characteristically female way of hurting a man with whom she's had a relationship. (See Carmen for the high-culture version, or Louis CK for the pop-culture version - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpW3orlfp7E) It's true that the word also carries other connotations, but I don't think that was the intent.
I agree that it may be "lazy", but from a purely practical perspective, it would be tough to find a similarly short word (short enough to fit on the bobble-head) that conveys the meaning. "Evil" might work and is gender-neutral, but the class of actions that make one "evil" are broader than the class that make one a "bitch".
There should always be a divide between public life and private life. It's called professionalism. Unless your profession revolves around peoples private lives you should avoid the 'realms of human experience' and focus on 'experiences related to you getting money/work done'. There is a time and a place, and knowing this is an important part of being an adult and fitting into society.
Same thing.