The utility monster is a thought experiment in ethics. Basically, it's someone who derives so much more satisfaction from the use of resources than anyone else that, in a strictly utilitarian calculus, satisfying the utility monster, even at the expense of everyone else, is the best way to maximise overall utility. The thought experiment was originally devised as a criticism of utilitarianism, and it was not meant to imply that any such monster actually exists.

What I call disutility monsters are people who experience so much suffering and pain from even slight or minor inconvenience, disapproval, or discomfort, that in a strictly utilitarian calculus, everyone else should be concerned with protecting them or alleviating their suffering no matter the cost. Therefore, to maximise overall utility, all of society should be remade into a safe space to avoid triggering or upsetting disutility monsters.

It seems a lot of people have discovered how to, essentially, hack Western society, where this kind of utilitarian attitude is more common, by acting like disutility monsters. They exhibit a cultivated vulnerability and practiced sensitivity that is not entirely fake but is nonetheless highly manipulative. The more disutility monsters are catered to, the weaker they become, and the greater efforts everyone else must make to avoid hurting them. In this way, disutility monsters leverage thier exquisite vulnerability into an inordinate influence over social institutions.

Don't feed the disutility monsters.

EDIT:

Oh good, I was linked to /r/badphilosophy. According to the rules, that 'isn't a place for learns', so I'll respond here, since it might help clarify my point. But first, I'm going to copy a comment I made below:

My original post was not intended as criticism of utilitarianism. My use of 'disutility monsters' is largely rhetorical, and should by no means considered part of a rigourous philosophical argument. Nobody is, in fact, a disutility monster, in the sense described in the second paragraph. However, it's almost as though some people are striving to become disutility monsters to exploit a loophole in peoples' moral reasoning.

I get that I referred to a philosophical concept, and some people might not like the argument, but it's only indirectly philosophical at best. It's really an observation about social psychology and human behaviour, and I guess /r/badphilosophy has really low standards these days, but I would question the aptness of the submission.

In any case, in response to my line:

people who experience so much suffering and pain from even slight or minor inconvenience, disapproval, or discomfort

Shitgenstein responds:

Like the inconvenience, disapproval, or discomfort of showing even a modicum of respect for someone's gender identity.

Now, /r/badphilosophy is full of shit posting and snark, so I don't know whether Shitgenstein means this to be a serious objection. Nonetheless, it might be useful for me to treat it as such for the purpose of clarifying my original intent:

There are, to be sure, people who are inconvenienced, disapprove of, or are discomforted by the prospect of using someone else's preferred gender pronouns. Some do so anyway, out of politeness. Others choose not to, on principle. Yet others refuse out of defiance, or even the intention to offend.

However, I've never known such people cite their own feeling of distress as a reason why they shouldn't be expected, whether by custom or law, to use alternative pronouns. Normally, they would explain their distress or discomfort as arising from factual disagreements. That is, from their perspective, by using alternative gender pronouns, they would be speaking lies. But the discomfort itself would not be the reason for objecting, but rather the conviction that the freedom of each person speak their mind is a higher good than preventing offense. And so, in their view, we ought to strive to cultivate thicker skins, and tolerate offense, especially when it arises from honest disagreement rather than mere cruelty or malice.

It doesn't matter if you agree with this line of reasoning. My point here is not that this is a good argument, but just that it is more along the lines of the arguments people actually make. On the other hand, the 'disutility monsters', per definition, actually cite their feelings of discomfort and distress as reasons why other people should change their behaviour, and they appear to cultivate their vulnerability and sensitivities, amplifying it into a public performance. I doubt this is very conscious for most individuals--seems to be more a cultural thing.

In any case, while I obviously had SJWs in mind while writing that post, and alluded to them with mention of 'safe spaces' and 'triggering', I was intentionally somewhat vague. I wouldn't say SJWs are the only people who engage in this kind of behaviour. However, I would say that among the most prominent and influential people who do, most seem to come from the ranks of SJWs. I'd be surprised if some among such communities didn't recognise this as well. Of course, whether they regard disutility monsters as a good or bad thing might turn on how effective they believe this strategy will work to bring about beneficial change.