It always amuses me when sophistry arises around the use of language.
Language does not dictate reality. Reality is itself and language can only at best try to align in some way to it. Reality existed exactly as it did before we started to speak of it, and will long after our words are forgotten, or perhaps written into the universe as eternally dancing spheres of iron.
Before the words were as accurate as they are today, they were less accurate and tomorrow they will, potentially, be more accurate than they are now.
But moreover, words were not meant solely to communicate what is, was, or the small ideas that only exist in our own personal, occasionally small, minds. Rather they may bring new things in from minds not our own, or talk of what may be.
One cannot say that it is erroneous to call a terminator "human" in a particular intent of "human". I much prefer the term "person", because "human" can conflate in the weak and small mind with 'homo sapiens sapiens' and be used as a cudgel against persons who are not, in fact, 'homo sapiens'.
Given this avenue for bad faith, it is certainly unwise, but still not wrong to do so. It is a common and accepted use of language, though not the bad faith conflation of use.
So then we get into pronouns: in the English language, and particularly so given the beligerence of some to neo-pronouns so as to use them as slurs, and of those same some to in bad faith reject one of the historic dual uses of 'they/their', we are pigeon-holed into 'he' and 'her'.
Of course, 'HE' is literally programmed into T1000.
In many cases you see the crocodile tears of the TEA bag (Trans-Exclusionist Asshole) over "newspeak".
You know in the book 1984, 'newspeak' was speech designed to make it impossible to express ideas that the establishment didn't like. Like making it impossible to express "person, but without reference to gender"
The options that the TEAbagger would have us have available to us do not even allow us to express "non-gendered" and "person" in the same word. The non-gendered reference available without they/them is 'it'!
And then they insist that language cannot use gender apart from sex!
Double plus ungood indeed.