Hm. To me, it seems that the article could have been quite a bit more differentiated. I agree that it's ridiculous to avoid using the word/color "black". On the

Hm. To me, it seems that the article could have been quite a bit more differentiated. I agree that it's ridiculous to avoid using the word/color "black". On the other hand I don't see a problem with for example using "children" instead of "boys and girls" as a generic term for, well, children. One thing that the article gets wrong though is why changes like these are made. As I read it, the author seems confident that the (only) reason is to avoid offending children. I'd be surprised if that was ever the reason for anyone to advocate for using other phrasings. Instead, I'd argue, the idea is to stop reinforcing/introducing shitty (read: harmful to some degree) ideas. "Boys and girls" implies that those are the only two options. Using "fat" as something that only evil characters are and as something that should be laughed at implies that fat people are bad and that it's okay to ridicule them for being fat. And so on. Now, the question about whether it's good and worth it to make these adjustments is one that imho can and should be discussed and that reasonable minds can differ on. But as is, the article seems to be written with either a lack of good understanding or good faith.