This isn't about inanimate objects. It is very specifically referring to person's as disabled, and MLBs "disabled list" is among the only uses of the term applied to person that means merely not playing due to temporarily injured rather than a person with a more permanent disability who may or may not be playing. Anyone hearing the term "disabled list" who did not have specific knowledge of how the MLB uses the term would have a notion in their head that is not what MLB is intended. Thus, MLB is merely correcting their use of language to be more in tune to common usage. Take 100 people who know very little about the MLB and ask them what "disabled list" means and what "injured list" means. 100% of them will give answers to "injured list" that is much closer to what the MLB is trying to convey. Thus, "injured list" is an objectively better term for their list.
The idea tyat we weed out all words possibly offensive to people will lead to a policaly correct authorterian stae of expression.
The opposite of what the 1st amendent means.
The 1st Amendment has zero relevance, b/c the government is in no way involved. And people choosing to revise their language to be more accurate is not authoritarian, it rational. And people's choosing to revise their language b/c it creates an unintended harmful association for some people (in this case, the association that a person with a disability cannot play a sport) is not authoritarian, it is called being ethical.
There are instances of irrational PC word control, but this is not an example. An probable example would be the switch from handicapped to disabled. Handicapped seems like the less insulting term, b/c it merely implies the person is at a disadvantage for some things but could still overcome that disadvantage unlike "disability" which implies the person is inherently not able to perform the task so why bother trying. Handicapped was already a term employed by sociologists and social workers empathetic to the people to whom it referred, replacing terms like crippled and imbecile which had acquired centuries of use as insults and derogation.
But during the 1990s, activists made the poor choice to try demand a change in language to symbolize the more meaningful change in rights and accommodations they were seeking. They were not the one's who made "handicapped" the standard term, so they wanted to force a change to a term they had chosen and they somehow chose disabled. IOW, there was no sound basis to claim that disabled was the more ethically or factually correct term, thus this was an example of being merely "politically correct" but not any real kind of correct sensible people should care about.
In contrast, now that "disabled" has come to be the prevailing term for this group of people and are who is being referred to 99.99% of the time when a person is referred to as disabled, it is objectively misleading to refer to a group of people who are being kept from playing a sport due to a temporary injury as being disabled. .
The problem with conservative snowflakes is that they go into a tizzy every time language (which is inherently and always under change) is revised, and want to lump every instance into the basket of unreasonable PC.
Notice that neither you nor anyone complaining about this change has bothered to address the obvious fact that "injured" is a more specific and accurate term to refer to who and why the person is on this MLB list. You just want to rant and rave about language changing b/c it fits your narrative.