>It's possible trigger warnings might ultimately be unhelpful for PTSD sufferers. I don't know whether that's the case, as without further research I can't tell

>It's possible trigger warnings might ultimately be unhelpful for PTSD sufferers. I don't know whether that's the case, as without further research I can't tell how selective these articles are. I'll err to the side of caution and assume they are ultimately harmful to people and not use them. Which is what you are advocating in other forms of speech (particularly erring to the side of caution of gender normalization). >I did think of that. I don't think there's a gender-neutral alternative to that fallacy's name. Speech is fluid and always changing. If there isn't an alternative, you're free to create one. As long as it is understood by the person you are communicating with - language has done its job. This might cause some confusion or require further explanation, since the term won't be a common part of peoples' shared vocabulary, but it will get the job done. The worst that could happen is people don't adopt the word, choose a different word, or re-purpose the word. On a tangent, I'd like to tell a short story about a female leader of an all-female group. She begins speaking to the group with "Okay guys". I think any reasonable person would accept that the term "guys" has lost its masculinity over the years and is used as a gender-neutral. What the meaning once was is not the meaning it holds now. This is common in both words and symbols. To share an extreme example of both re-purposing and a changed definition, see Pink Triangle [0] Ultimately - policing speech is a waste of effort. New words will always come into existence as euphemisms of the "wrong" words and knowing that speech is "bad" allows others to use it for power. An insult is only ever as strong as you let it be. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_triangle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_triangle