Yes, and if that's as far as it goes – "Hey, are you sure you want to use that word? Okay, it's your call." – I have no problem with it.
Some excellent writing involves getting into the heads of hard, mean characters who are going to say and think nasty things. I'd like it if writers were free to plumb the depths of such characters in their writing without having to worry about hurt feelings.
I'm not saying you're arguing contrary to any of this by the way. Just expanding on my views a bit.
Certainly be warned about things that might unintentionally be offensive to some readers is a good thing.
For example, many Americans don't see anything with the word "spastic" (as an adjective), because it really was not widely used derogatorily over here. But in the UK it is one of the worst ableist slurs.
That is certainly the logical sort of thing to watch out for. Or other cases where a phase has a popular slang meaning in some subcultures that might confuse or overshadow the intended meaning, even if not offensive.
Even when writing a characters that is supposed to be offensive, it can be good to know if some people are likely to find the character far more offensive than intended.
But if they are going beyond just pointing these things out (and possibly offering alternatives that the author may want to consider), then yeah, I could see that potentially being a problem.
For example, if publishers are insisting that say all sensitivity readers concerns are addressed, even when likely minor, that would definitely be going overboard.
I'm not an author, editor, or publisher, so I'm not familiar with how such things work in the industry.
Some excellent writing involves getting into the heads of hard, mean characters who are going to say and think nasty things. I'd like it if writers were free to plumb the depths of such characters in their writing without having to worry about hurt feelings.
I'm not saying you're arguing contrary to any of this by the way. Just expanding on my views a bit.