I chose the term "non-het" (short for non-hetero) to not get into the confusion over "what term did they mean when they got blammed?" I could have used, "same-sex snugglebunnies" but that is even longer and could have caused a disruption in itself. I could have used "LGBT" but I am not a big fan of using fashionable terms to pigeon-hole people who are diverse and individuals. Using an atypical, non-rule breaking, non-filter-dodging, description in order to express oneself is not filter avoidance. If the point of the profanity filter is to avoid/block crass, crude and typically non-productive terms, phrases, slurs and other-wise abused portions of our vocabulary, then it is not (IMO) a rule-violation or problem to use our vocabularies in order to use a less inflammatory or otherwise prohibited term. I don't believe that the topic given as an example/link was disruptive, I don't believe that the term that I used was inflammatory, but rather it was descriptive and allowed the conversation to proceed without any filtered terms or potentially judgmental or prejudicial skew. We got to discuss the topic at hand, not the term as it applied to the people involved and making ugly statements about them and who they are. If the phrase "non-het" or any other term is used in order to slight, slander, inflame, offend or just be a jerk... then it's not the word(s) in question that are the issue. It's the post and the posters intent/outcome. IMO, this is yet another "angels on a head of a pin" discussion and I can't believe that I've made such a wall in order to ask "are you kidding me?"