[funklute]

In this case, it seems a perfectly valid choice of words.

"irreconcilable" basically implies that there is a binary choice -- either use a TUI or aim for accessibility, but you can't have both. The responder was saying that actually it's not a binary choice -- there are degrees of accessibility, and some accessibility can be attained within a TUI.

Disagreeing with someone, using valid arguments, is not the same as squelching discourse.

[dumpsterdiver]

> Disagreeing with someone, using valid arguments, is not the same as squelching discourse.

I can relate with your position; I understand what you're saying. I guess my point is that some words that humans speak can strike a nerve in others. For instance, apparently I'm a huge Temple Grandin fan. I didn't know that until I mentioned the name Temple Grandin to my girlfriend of nearly five years recently and she basically snapped and told me that she never wanted me to say that name again. Apparently when I first met her I had a lot of good things to say about Temple Grandin, and I guess throughout the following five years I've mentioned Temple Grandin enough that it just raises her hackles when she hears it now. She's a good person, and absolutely does not have anything against Temple Grandin. She just doesn't like hearing that name when it's my voice speaking it.

[funklute]

hehe yes I can relate to that!

I'm not sure if you had this in mind when you said "non-binary", but I also think along the same lines you just noted, that there is a difference between "not binary", and "non-binary". The latter could evoke connotations to the culture wars and gender identity -- though that of course has nothing to do with accessibility (of TUIs, bathrooms might be another matter).

Then again, I'm neither American nor a native English speaker, so I hardly have much authority on this point.