It should be noted that sakāya niruttiyā is also the controversial item for those who wish to unite the Mahāyāna with the Theravāda. So those who wish to do so, have a bias when they cite the sakāya niruttiyā as “The language the ordination candidate normally speaks” (such as Chinese for Mahāyāna).
This “uniting” comes very handy with the very early resurrected “bhikkhuni” ordinations of the 19th century and early 2000’s, using the Mahāyāna as part of the “two saṅgha” system. Now I think they just do single saṅgha by monks, and during the pandemic, a nun was ordaining “bhikkhunis” based on the allowance of dangers.
But these same people think the garudhammas and saṅghadisesa rules do not apply to them. One of the biggest instigators is Ajahn Sujato. He does not directly say it, but makes many misleading “open questions” for the “bhikkhuni-to-be” to think it is okay to ignore such rules. Nevertheless, the saṅghadisesa and the garudhammas are in all traditions nearly verbatim. Ajahn Sujato’s cut and paste tactic actually proves that the garudhamma and saṅghadisesa rules should indeed be followed.
As far as Mahāyāna uniting in vinaya monasteries such as Pa-Auk or Na-Uyana? They will accept donations from Mahāyāna monks and nuns who use money. It is very clear to the Mahāyānas who donate to those monasteries their rules do not apply and are incompatible. They know the Vinaya Theravāda monastery’s position.
Ajahn Sujato also believes that English Theravāda ordinations are acceptable, but I doubt he would really want that for himself or any other monk in his lineage.