I think it's more that if users actually have mistakenly read a word and taken offense, it's easier to just use a different word than have to deal with the occasional upset person.
I do think the people going round proactively trying to change all the words with alternative negative meanings are a bit ridiculous though; if nobody's offended, you don't need to pretend to be offended on others' behalf.
Well yeah, people can be unreasonable sometimes - but from a business perspective, changing a word is better than having a few upset customers. That's literally what I was saying above.
Polysemy is orthogonal to the cases I am aware of in which people are concerned about the primary meaning, an example being "slave" to refer to an item that is bound or subservient.
And even in that case I think it depends on the word and how prominent the negative association is. "Disabled" seems a stretch to me, so I'd want to dig deeper and confirm it's actually a concern with some subset of users as opposed to trolling. But on the other end of the spectrum people who insist on using terms like "slave" at this point seem to be mostly using it as an excuse to virtue signal their adherence to principles of free speech.
I do think the people going round proactively trying to change all the words with alternative negative meanings are a bit ridiculous though; if nobody's offended, you don't need to pretend to be offended on others' behalf.