It’s not really, the precedent it sets means that words that somebody says causes offence are deemed “problematic” and, with any logical consistency or consistency in concern for various groups, must be removed from application. Remember that in the quasi-religious doctrine of intersectionality that fuels this, an -ism isn’t just hate speech or action against a group, any alleged differential in power - as defined by intersectionals of course - must first be taken into account.
You can’t be racist against white people and you can’t be sexist against men. Agree/disagree on that one statement?
Remember also that if you disagree with this, you are often hilariously put in a box of being a right-winger, a nazi, a white supremacist, somebody exhibiting misogyny or - the best one - “internalized patriarchy”. If you don’t know you are a nazi, you have unconscious nazi-ism.
Denial is an admission of guilt. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
So while master/slave when taken in isolation might seem fine and dandy to change, none of this is happening in isolation. Are male/female connectors hateful against transpeople or are an otherwise heteronormative form of hate speech against the LGBTQIA community? Why should it not be changed if somebody claims this?