3 ms·
Using language that includes a group isn't a cost that is born by those not in the group. Notably, many people not in the group may OK or even encouraging of th
by joe_the_user 4y ago
Using language that includes a group isn't a cost that is born by those not in the group. Notably, many people not in the group may OK or even encouraging of the changes.
I'm not terribly pleased by extremely vague bureaucratic language. But the arguments that try to turn such into an actual harm or cost to those not in the group being protected here are engaging in language that's far more deceptively vague.
- kurtreed 4y ago> Using language that includes a group isn't a cost that is born by those not in the group. Often it is. Simply changing from familiar terms to artificial terms is a cost.
- vkou 4y agoAll of language is artificial.
- joe_the_user 4y agoMy point is that inclusion isn't like a check written out to an excluded group. Inclusion benefits society by making things run more smoothly, it benefits various bureaucracy since the bureaucracies can deal with more people and so-forth. And the cost is a small amount of understandability, yes. But even that isn't necessary paid by those outside the exclude group.
- kurtreed 4y ago> Inclusion benefits society by making things run more smoothly Big claim, little justification
- selfmodruntime 4y ago> Using language that includes a group isn't a cost that is born by those not in the group Exactly. Using „woman“ isn‘t a cost to the tiny majority that feels excluded by that word.