The idea there isn’t an objective truth that we can reach through dialectic and investigation, but merely the ‘truths’ of different groups, and the idea that to attempt to investigate ideas is an affront to the subjective truth of this or that identity group. If an oppressed group has a subjective truth, it has to be ‘respected’ by the oppressor group.
The transactivist ideology is lobbying for objective truth to be overruled in favour of personal agenda. Physical biology is objective truth: women's lives have and continue to be shaped by the specific functions/attributes of the female body, including childbearing, menstruation, physical strength and specific female health conditions. Whether you call us women or any other word, we are physically present in the world as a group with these characteristics.
To say you can be genetically, physically male but also be unquestionably female due to self-definition, and to demand practical inclusion - this isn't prioritising one subjective truth over another. It's saying objective, observable, palpable truth can be overruled if you shout loud enough.
But monkey and jungle are words. There are standard meanings (type of animal; type of environment), colloquial meanings (cheeky child; hostile or primeval setting) and offensive meanings. Meaning differs according to intent and context.
Intent and context are easy to pin down on an individual basis, which is why plenty of people have no issue calling their own kids monkeys and see it as a million miles away from a hostile football terrace chant.
Intent and context are more problematic with mass-audience advertising campaigns, which is why most companies are very careful to avoid terms which have alternate meanings which are used to insult, or have negative associations, the use of which can seem everything from clumsy to clueless to deliberately offensive. But oversights happen. (A few years ago, someone thought 'Lolita' was a great name for a children's bed, IIRC, and nobody noticed any issue with this until the product launched)
If 'monkey' is neutral to a large number of people (meaning: small animal, cheeky child) but offensive to a minority (meaning: sub-human, unevolved) then the company needs to decide whether to retract its usage, or decide they don't really care what the minority think. Historically, the latter option has been popular: I doubt that, even a few decades ago, anyone at a European multinational would lose sleep about offending a minority group.
But things are different now (or at least superficially different). You can class it as the automatic and mindless prioritisation of an oppressed group's subjective truth; I see it more as acknowledgment that oppressed groups have any right to any opinion or feelings at all. It's not like there have been years and years of holding varied subjective truths as equal: there's been a long, long period of not giving a shit what minorities think, because they had a lesser status. And then, much later, a shift towards the notion that we should care; a recognition that certain terms can be interpreted as offensive and that, even if they remain neutral to a large group of people, that still doesn't justify their usage in a mass campaign.