In Her Essay, Megan Hyska Responds to the Worry That

In her essay, Megan Hyska responds to the worry that changing language to reflect collective ideals makes it impossible to articulate disagreement. She writes:
Some will suggest that changing language to reflect our collective ideals is fine, but that we should wait until after some widespread agreement about these ideals is reached before we do so. Otherwise, goes the worry, aren't we depriving dissidents of the raw linguistic materials needed to articulate their position…? The answer is no, we aren't. It just isn't the case that PC linguistic changes make it impossible to articulate a position in disagreement with the egalitarian norms that they serve. A person can still express general racial animosity without the use of a slur … and can still dispute the proper treatment of trans people while using the phrase "transgender" rather than the aforementioned non-synonymous alternatives.
In your essay, evaluate Hyska's claim. Then, try to come up with an example that would count as evidence against her view, using it as the basis for an objection to the position that she outlines here. Then, consider how Hyska might respond.