I really like this take. What I was trying to go for is sort of a simple universal complaint anyone can make, even in a formal setting vs highly educated and potentially bad faith actors.
Like, imagine you're in a marketing strategy meeting about finding a socially responsible way to engage with your customers. Your company has hired a consultant to help with this and that consultant starts using that terminology.
If you try just using a rational argument, it's just not going to work. These things have already been debated ad nauseum and you're not going to come up with something the consultant hasn't heard before and isn't ready to counter.
But if you start with "It just gets on my nerves". That's subjective, the consultant can't argue about that. You also have a rational (at least to you) justification so you're not being unreasonable. The consultant could try to argue that your justification is incorrect but they'd just be wasting everyone's time, it won't change the fact that "it just gets on my nerves" something the consultant can't argue against.
The point is to create a social cost to using that terminology so that in any kind of formal setting that terminology won't be used and more gender neutral terminology comes in to replace it.
I believe that gender neutral terminology alone can really temper the outcome of these kinds of discussion because it just changes the whole "vibe" of the discussion which can lead to real world change. But beyond that, it makes it more difficult for misandrists to use equivocation, and the gender neutral terminology should level the battlefield when arguing against misandrists.