I agree that the purpose of Bitcoin was and is to be money. But the point I'm making is that that framing is only useful to a point, and can't explain all of Bitcoin's use cases. There are transactions out there that serve a purpose only known to its sender and receiver, and that may not be monetary in nature to them. Should they be denied access to the chain in that case? That seems to be the argument made by anti-spammers right now. They're trying to use "Bitcoin is money" as a way to restrict any transaction they deem is not money. That's an abuse of the narrative in my opinion. If I can come up with a non-monetary use case for Bitcoin that follows the node's rules and is acceptable to miners, there's no one that can tell me it's not allowed. Instead, these folks are trying to make Bitcoin permissioned, where you need the permission from masters who define what "money" is to transact on-chain.

I disagree about permissioning. From my understanding bip110 limits the size of what is a valid transaction not making arbitrary choices if what is valid or not. I agree that softwar does argue strongly that bitcoin is not just a money. But, Softwar doesn't claim all software is infinitely malleable in its use cases just because we use arbitrary names for the purpose of software. So for bitcoin the software would still have real design goals and what would be considered a success or fail. I think one of the most primary being survival of the network. I think you could argue a smaller more limited bitcoin is a stronger more resilient network.