> These are all trivially objectively defined to the satisfaction of reasonable parties.
I think "reasonable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. For instance, there's plenty of online debate about whether "transwomen shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's running" is bigotry or not, which side have you termed "unreasonable"?
I also think these words can have several quite reasonable but different definitions. For a trivial example, does "racist" apply only to "ought" statements or to "is" statements?
Your first example is the perfect example of defining reasonable parties. The issue is really simple. There is a championship where contestants are categorized or separated based on physical attributes. What the contestant feels about himself is completely irrelevant, that was not the point of the separation. Nor was the toy between the contestants leg.
Reasonable and trivial. And, perfectly matching OP's observation, the "issue" (there is none) is then completely muddered up with people's feelings and other things that are not related to the original 'issue': a championship has different categories based on physical attributes.
It's like a bunch of high school students having a lot of drama over nothing, and pretending they are discussing the most important issues in the world.
I think "reasonable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. For instance, there's plenty of online debate about whether "transwomen shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's running" is bigotry or not, which side have you termed "unreasonable"?
I also think these words can have several quite reasonable but different definitions. For a trivial example, does "racist" apply only to "ought" statements or to "is" statements?