There's no etymological information in your citation, nor indeed any reference at all to the term as used offensively, so while I am happy to concede that you are an authority on your second and third assertions, I await a more robust reference for the first.
Or, given that the term is widely understood and used as being offensive, we should just let it go.
There's no etymological information in your citation, nor indeed any reference at all to the term as used offensively, so while I am happy to concede that you are an authority on your second and third assertions, I await a more robust reference for the first.
Or, given that the term is widely understood and used as being offensive, we should just let it go.