Is a man sinful if he utters the word "khawl," which means servant, but common usage deems it an insult?

If common usage shifts a word that initially did not contain insult or vulgarity to now include it, then what is considered when uttering it is the current state, custom, and context. For example, regarding the phrase "ya mukhannath" (O effeminate one), Sheikh 'Izz al-Din issued a fatwa (definition) stating that it became explicit in common usage, even though it was originally a metaphorical expression. Similarly, the word "ya qahbah" (O harlot) was once a metaphor and used for an old woman or a cough, but in our current common usage, it is a very explicit insult. As for the word "ya luti" (O sodomite), some jurists held that if one intended by it "that he is of the religion of the people of Lut," there is no hadd punishment, but if one intended "that he commits the act of the people of Lut," then the hadd punishment is obligatory. However, the most probable and preferred opinion is that of Imam al-Nawawi, which states that its usage has become prevalent in common custom to mean anal intercourse, and nothing else is understood from it. Consequently, it is explicit and necessitates the hadd punishment.