I try not to question the intelligence of others that I don't know, but this might be a case where that's merited. Leaving aside whether words can cause harm (which - I don't know, maybe they can), there are a fair number of logical inconsistencies and standards for what makes the list, as well as just factual errors.
For example "balls to the wall" comes from aviation (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls_to_the_wall) and not from human anatomy. Even when the source of that expression is well attributed, later on the list goes on to call out "rule of thumb" even though it says it is unable to attribute the source of that expression (and, yes, maybe there is a violent past to it, but also: a person's thumb is about an inch, a useful way of measuring things of that size scale). And of course, they suggest instead of rule of thumb "standard rule," even though the etymology of "standard" involved "stand" - which elsewhere seems something the list would consider ableist.
Man in some context means an adult human male, but sometimes it just means any human (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/man). When Neal Armstrong said "... one giant leap for mankind," he was not speaking on behalf of the species. Some groups of Christians have a prayer that reads in part "for us men..." which is prayed equally by the female members of the congregation. There are plenty of cases where the word "men" is equally clear that we're referring to all members of the human species.
And the word "guys" is routinely used to refer to a group that is not just men. People use it all the time, everyone knows what we mean, it does not cause offense, and in using it to refer to a group you are no more implying that the group is all male as you are implying that the group is composed of clones of Guy Fawkes (from whom the term originated).
Besides ones where just facts are getting in the way, there are also many that just seem ineffectual. For example, "the use of person-first language" - In English, adjectives come first. Sometimes English makes use of substantives, either directly or as lone words from other languages. When you put the word "person" first, you aren't magically changing how people construe that sentence - if someone wants to be uncharitable and define someone entirely by a characteristic, they probably will, and the rest of us will go on understanding that each of us can be described in multiple ways depending on the context.
The "Latinx" also needs to go. Every poll I've seen indicates that the people whom it was meant to describe don't care for it, and find it disrespectful of their linguistic heritage.