For a long time I was an active member in the online conlanging community — where conlang is a neologism standing for constructed language. Constructed languages have a long history. There are the famous fictional ones like Tolkien’s Quenya and Sindarin and Klingon from Star Trek, and also the languages intended to facilitate international communication, like Esperanto or Volapük. (Or, for fellow Game of Throners, Dothraki.)
The problems with most proposed IALs (or International Auxiliary Languages, like Esperanto) are many and interesting. But I want to focus on some thoughts arising from the construction of artlangs (artistic languages, like Quenya or Klingon.)
One easy way to spot a new conlanger is that the underlying semantics of their work is essentially English (or whatever their native language is; but, most often, that’s English.)
One of the best recommendations I was ever given (and would then pass on to others) was to think first of who spoke the language and then try to make the language reflect the culture/society of its speakers. In other words: a misogynist society will have different lexical gaps, or semantic nuances, than a misandrist society. A society in which work is not paid hourly won’t use the same verbs when referring to time, necessarily (e.g. spending time, wasting time, etc.) The society speaking the language may not view argument as war/sport the way we do in English (e.g. “Your claims are indefensible. He attacked every weak point in my argument. His criticisms were right on target.” ).
What metaphors are used in a language, which verbs are used to express which actions, what metonyms are common, are all things most people don’t think about, which is why new conlangers inevitably reproduce them in their work.
The point being: people typically don’t think about the underlying worldview implicit in their language usage. So before you criticize the PC police for trying to constrain your speech, realize that you ought to be thanking them for trying to make you aware of the constraints already implicit in your speech.
 examples from Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By