Because they choose not to be en masse, clearly. They're literally paid to go into the majors, and still choose different ones.

Something is a problem worth dealing with when it is actually a problem and not simply virtue signaling and ridiculousness. By your logic, we should all change what we call Shrimp because I, as one (tall) person, think it's offensive to short people, and my one, stupid opinion is enough to warrant the change.

Further, you clearly don't know what a strawman is, but nice attempt at trying to be dismissive I guess?

The now removed comment above was clearly referring to the lack of representation as a reason why they felt there weren't people that would be offended by this verbiage and the implication by both you and those that would change the jargon is that there are tons of offended peoples. Therefore, in spite of there being a lack of participation by a group, people are arguing that said group is abundantly present and offended. That's not a strawman, that's concisely rephrasing exactly what is being espoused.

If you're going to make a half-assed, uneducated attempt to point out debate fallacies, as if it means anything to even bother with, than you should probably learn real examples of them.