Sorry for the delayed response. Here is the explanation you requested.

The current rules draft has been written as objectively as possible to be most understandable. Technicalities involving subjective violations must be interpreted by both the user and the moderator. Most of them are easily avoided, though there are exceptions.

The rules draft has been written with the notion that this content may be discussed in a topic exclusively dedicated to it, though such content may be discussed subtly in other topics, given that no graphical context is supplied to the content. This falls in line with the interpretation that no "crude" content or context may be posted.

The problem here is that these posts are in a topic that does not at all pertain to sexual content. The first post that was edited was edited because it was suggestive with the aid of graphic context. This is prohibited because causes content that is otherwise acceptable to become crude. Users who enter a topic about left and right-handedness should be able to expect content suitable for general audiences. This is why the rules draft was written with an actual general discussion in mind.

The word in your post was also censored out due to the presence of supplementary context, but the significantly greater issue lies with the fact that it was an off-topic post. Some words that do not currently appear in the filter will still be removed when objectionable with the present context or discussion. I commented that the particular word's omission from the filter was questionable because allowing an exclusive discussion on it is equally questionable. When discussion of general sexual content was explicitly permitted, it has still been unclear whether other similar topics would be allowed based on their most common uses in any discussion. The word was previously filtered with the notion that its discussion could rarely avoid being crude.

I think the use of the word is fine within the context of a topic based upon it. At the same time, I disagree with the idea that users may stumble into the word within the context of an entirely different topic. Users previously argued that other users who do not want to read through general discussions of sexual content can avoid those topics by simply not clicking on them. In this case, both of the users who posted very general content with in graphical context did not give those users a choice. This is why the content was removed, and I feel this is a valid justification.

If other administrators disagree with this stance, it is perfectly understandable, and I will discuss this with them if necessary. If other administrators agree with this stance, then this is more likely an issue about the rules draft pertaining to what type of content may not be posted. I approve the current draft of the rules because it is very objective, and users generally do not want to be told about subjective technicalities. I personally do not like to provide warnings for subjective rule violations unless they are consistently repeated, which is also rare.

If you have any questions about my explanation, feel free to ask me.