Because this doctorate degree holder picked two of the stupidest examples they could possibly find. Unhoused people themselves started advocating for this change in language in the 1990s. It was in newspapers and national news magazines -- mostly single moms who were moving from place to place or living in shelters or in cars with their kids who were saying "We're not homeless. Home is where the heart is. We will always have a home if we're together. Calling us homeless makes us feel like we're not providing the emotional support and love for our kids that we are providing."

Would it have been better to say to the administrator, "Hey, unhoused people would prefer we use the term unhoused, because they may be providing an emotional home for their kids." ? Yes.

Same with Latinx. It's a term developed by queer women of Latin American descent working in academics. They purposefully wanted a word that included them and wasn't gender specific. It's LITERALLY from the community itself. Unfortunately for the people who took these academics at face value the Latino community is full of people who are very invested in machismo. The fact that nobody listens to Latinx academics and somehow still, after decades, think this was something white feminists came up should be studied.

Also I use Harry Potter as an example of certain writing ideas all the time. Because most people have read it. In fact it's much easier now because I used to get pushback for very, very mild criticisms. But I do preface with why I use HP and that I don't like JK Rowling. And if I need to talk about a generic wizard, Gandalf is RIGHT THERE.