They're a specific sort of person in this scenario, literally someone who has a stake in the outcome of the situation I'm describing. Is it dehumanizing to call someone who writes code a "software developer" instead of a "person"?
Generally I agree with you and I hate the term "resource" as it's used, but I really don't agree that this is one of those cases. I could have said, "people" but in this instance it would make what I said less specific.
The term resource is dehumanizing because it reduces a person to something that exists merely to extract value from. Stakeholder is just a role a person can assume and doesn't really have any negative connotations other than being a bit jargony to some.
"Resource" being dehumanizing doesn't make "stakeholder" dehumanizing. Of course, everything depends on context. Do you think in this context I was trying to dehumanize the people I was referring to? To what end?
“Resources” is dehumanizing because it reduces people to consumed production inputs.
“Stakeholders” elevates people to active actors whose needs must be considered and addressed. It isn't dehumanizing, because instead of denying agency as “resources” does, it specifically recognizes and emphasizes agency.
Saying 'stakeholders' in this context is like saying 'engineers' or 'doctors'. Doesn't make them less human. It's just specifying a role they are taking.
A stakeholder is a person with their own agency, responsibility, goals, etc. in a partnership, giving them a leading role.
The funny thing is you are right: the immediate role in a project is just some temporary thing. The next level is understanding them as a principal more broadly-- career goals, org goals, home stuff, and how that fits into them being... a person & stakeholder :)
You say you're great at seeing other perspectives, but then you dehumanize them by calling them stakeholders (a term that is the new "resource").
They're people. Call them people.