It's About Bloody Time

[Chaerophon]

It is a form of censorship intended to control the language of public debate, which I see as a violation of the spirit of the First Amendment. 

The examples that you list are certainly fair. However, there are other examples with which I have little problem. For example, the removal of gender biases from certain titles and other such moves. 'Public debate' in liberal societies such as ours ought to involve providing sound justificatory reasons for suggested courses of action, policy choices, etc. One 'ideal' requirement of public debate is that it be conducted in a manner that is mindful and respectful of individuals as equal citizens. There are some modes of speech / titular conventions that indicate an underlying structural bias. It is through language acts that we conceive normative understanding - I do believe that by propagating a culture in which the use of certain, more respectful forms of language is encouraged, it can have some useful, positive effect on normative conceptions of, for example, gender roles. That said, I agree that when such ideas get pushed beyond the limits of what is reasonable/helpful, the notion of political correctness loses its moral force: a garbage person is a garbage person - not a sanitation engineer. However, it certainly does not hurt anyone to refer to 'policemen' as 'police officers' or to occasionally include a 'her' or 'she' in one's theoretical examples rather than the automatic 'him' or 'he'.