19 ms·

The pendulum is swinging back because equity language censors took this way way too far. People-first language ("enslaved people" not "slaves") makes complete

The pendulum is swinging back because equity language censors took this way way too far. People-first language ("enslaved people" not "slaves") makes complete sense to me, but making a big fuss about how common English idioms like being "blind to a problem" is somehow offensive is going to earn you nothing but eyerolls from nearly everyone. Some of these, like "grandfathering", cannot even be understood without deep diving on etymology to discover the racist origins. People are so far up their own asses on victimhood culture that the people of high education and privilege driving these initiatives are looking for literally any reason to feign offense on behalf of other peoples' identities and disabilities. With the prioritization of equity also comes erasure of identity. For example, it seems like we can't say "mother" anymore in medical settings. For my partner's entire pregnancy, our providers only referred to "birthing people" because of some tiny number of trans men that exist and also want to give birth. I support trans people living however they want, but my mother was a mother, goddammit, not a "birthing person", and I don't appreciate anyone implying that this word and identity are somehow offensive. At work, a "women in engineering" group got renamed to something bland like "gender minorities in tech". The recently reported bowdlerization of Roald Dahl by 'sensitivity readers' is another symptom of this illness. The whole equity language sterilization process forgets that words which are synonyms are not interchangeable because to the writer each word is chosen with intention for the flavor it provides, its connotations and rhythm, the image it creates in the mind. People should be able to communicate using whatever words they wish. Otherwise we're just deleting colors from the artists' palette.

nonethewiser 4y ago
That is ridiculous. Was this hospital on the coast? I did not hear this at our hospital.
low_tech_love 4y ago
This is an academic issue, ”a solution in search of a problem” as almost all the rest of academia is. As such, it never stops at a reasonable, meaningful equilibrium; it has to be kept pacing, moving forward towards more and more ridiculous extremes. An academic, in order to stay relevant, needs to keep pushing the invisible and mostly inexistent boundaries that they perceive in whatever field they are involved in. If they’re faced with a set vocabulary today, then tomorrow they’ll have to come up with an ”aha! Found a new offensive word” to position themselves as a relevant, meaningful part of this strange, ethereal movement. It’ll never end, because the movement itself needs its members to keep also pacing forward and motivated in order for itself to remain existing. The exact same could be said of any academic movement; the difference is that, in most cases, it mostly does not spill into reality. Other than a bit of research funding money, meaningless academic ideas don’t hurt society much. In this case, however, the academic movement is dead set on spilling all over everything, using the most aggressive possible strategies of shaming and reputation murder in order to push down its opposition.
- 78124781 4y ago
  It's not just academia, it's the modern "meritocracy" more broadly. When getting into a campus club at a top college requires four rounds of interviews, you look for easy ways to signal your eliteness and being hip to the new verbal trends is a great way for the well-heeled to extend their advantage over the less-enlightened. This also applies to jobs whose occupants need to justify their own existence, which they can do so be seeking to remake language in an organization and launch a few fun purges to boot. These new terms are basically a new form of arcane knowledge that allows those who chant these magical new incantations social and professional prestige in the modern meritocracy rat race.
  - syntheweave 4y ago
    All social structures survive through their self-perpetuation...it's a general critique with a lot of explanatory power that I've had on my mind. Any kind of senseless decorum or self-defeating policy comes down to the intersection of self-perpetuating framings of reality with actors who either promote it out of self-interest, or take it upon themselves to become footsoldiers on faithful behalf of that idea, extending it to unreasonable, totalizing lengths in the process of protecting it like a child. And that can manifest as "my way is right behavior and that is wrong behavior", or "we are good because they are bad", or any number of other illogical defenses. It's just automatic once you decide some thought has to be defended, and when it forms a really persistent, robust structure you end up with a religion, national mythos, economic norm etc. The structure is looking out for itself first, and the current elites hold the most gravity in deciding whether to further perpetuate or not. But elites aren't immune to being true believers either - they have to be able to let go and examine what they want to accomplish, and if the belief they have is too firmly tied to their immediate self-interest, they can't do it. My reading here is derived somewhat from Heather Marsh's writings, but with different focus and phrasing.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  > As such, it never stops at a reasonable, meaningful equilibrium; it has to be kept pacing, moving for In fact, proponents can’t even define this equilibrium, despite stating that it is the end goal. This proves that the goal is a lie. It’s pure power seeking, and that shouldn’t be a surprise, because that is precisely what they assert determines truth and shapew society. Not some natural order, but people who held power over others. They complain about it but if you watch, it’s exactly what they’re doing themselves. Pure projection.
HyperSane 4y ago
A pregnant person is a woman.
- homieg33 4y ago
  [flagged]
- 8note 4y ago
  At least, the person that birthed you is your mother. I'd question the association between mother and woman, rather than mother and birth
  - Spivak 4y ago
    Thank you, I swear half the time I can’t figure out if people are genuinely confused by inclusive language or if they confuse it on purpose just to get riled up. It’s the same with people who menstruate — not only for trans men but for post menopausal women, women who’ve had hysterectomies, or are otherwise have amenorrhea.
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      No — people are just aware that humans are sexually dimorphic and don’t appreciate people demanding they not use language that accurately describes the peaks of a bimodal distribution because there’s a small percentage of outliers. Mammals in general are sexually dimorphic. Particularly when that language control is transparently used for power seeking. We don’t need to shape every utterance around outliers — that’s pathological and stifles discussion.
      - Spivak 4y ago
        Girl you gotta get off the internet. No one is demanding you use this language. It’s actually the opposite where people have a visceral reaction to someone voluntarily choosing to use inclusive language. Style guides like these are for awareness, everyone has had the moment where they discover a word they picked up is actually offensive. One that happened for me was “gypped.” A lot of the guides do contain silly substitutions but that’s because they’re wrong about the history of the words and their usage not because the idea or intent is bad.
angarg12 4y ago
It seems to me that one of the issues is that the (more extreme) woke culture has put the entire burden of communication on the speakers rather than the listeners. Is not enough that you intend to offend, or that you say something that offends someone, is whether something that you say could possibly offend someone, even if you didn't have the slightest intentions. On the other say the listeners are free to interpret the message in the most uncharitable way possible, and blame you for it.
- Spivak 4y ago
  Eh, that’s just internet discourse in general. Once you put down Twitter this stops being an issue. I would love for someone to deconstruct what about social media, regardless of leaning of the platform, the people, or the subject being discussed causes these bad faith takes.
  - Aloha 4y ago
    The issue is when you didn't say it on twitter, or even intend it for public consumption and it's posted as receipts on twitter as examples of your badness - often out of context. Then there are some knock on second and third order effects on your life. It's one thing if communities on twitter would like to define their own use of the language - it's another when it's imposed on others without their consent.
  - jimbokun 4y ago
    Until the Twitter people are running your HR department or university or media outlet or government.
- prawn 4y ago
  I describe these scenarios to my young children as concentric circles. One person can be acting reasonably (small circle around them) or very badly (larger circle). A person nearby can be very resilient (small circle) or fragile (larger circle). Where the circles overlap, is when there is tension and there are fights, tears or anything else that requires me to intervene. Obviously very bad behaviour (large circle) is going to overlap with a nearby resilient child. Or a very tired and fractious child is going to sulk by their sibling doing just about anything. But the more resilient and better behaved the combinations, the better. If the children are fighting, I've taken to just calling out "Circles!" Unfortunately, a polarised society and social media seem to make everyone treat interaction as war, which is pretty tedious.
tastysandwich 4y ago
> For my partner's entire pregnancy, our providers only referred to "birthing people" Calling my wife a "birthing person" just made her feel like some gross vessel for having a baby. We purposefully chose providers that didn't use that language. "Chestfeeding" is another one that's cropping up and makes zero sense. Men have breasts, so breastfeeding is already gender-neutral. But it's seen as female-centric so out the door it goes. There seems to be this weird erasure of women taking place at the moment. To the extent that it's now controversial to ask "what is a woman?"
- flippinburgers 4y ago
  The utterly hilarious defense by the left for a movement that - above all others - is deeply patriarchal in its attempt to overwhelm and wipe out the very concept of "woman".
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  Our entire group of animals is named after tits: Mammals. How can referring to the fact people have what our entire branch of the tree of life is named after be offensive?
  - TomK32 4y ago
    Good thing tits are global but have have different names in other languages, Meisen in the case of my primary-guardian language.
  - ertian 4y ago
    ...Probably better not to point that out, or next thing you know we're gonna have to rewrite damn near every textbook...
    - kergonath 4y ago
      Isn’t this ongoing already?
      - 4y ago
cassonmars 4y ago
I'm trans myself and this language policing game is insane. The most surreal part about it is it's rarely anyone allegedly impacted by it who is actually asking for these things.
- throwbadubadu 4y ago
  Yep, same with disabilities, or children playing/costuming as cowboy and indian, or cultural appropriation where certain people are now not allowed wear a rasta haircut, or, or, or... Most ""affected"" people actually don't give a shit AND don't want this shit. But sjws can scapegoat any doubt to this holy mission and make one look like a Nazi. Usually never is also the intention or context taken into account.. You will always find someone who will say he feels insulted for anything, but we won't find a common denominator if we need to account for every salty person on earth. True respect, equality and no discrimination for everybody is what should count... but it feels today more and more that this is actually alienating, and also excluding people more than what it helps, the contrary! How to stop? Intention is good, but taken to the extreme, this is todays discrimination and exclusion..
  - cassonmars 4y ago
    Realistically I think what has happened is the puritanical culture has donned new clothes. Blind subservience and self-flagellations to ever increasing standards of a sacrificial victim sky man who never asked for these things in the words they twisted, replaced with blind subservience to sacrificial victims in the present who one again, never asked for these things in the words they twisted. It makes me feel like a pawn in their own self-actualization, not someone they remotely ever gave a thought or care about.
    - leoedin 4y ago
      I agree - it's basically a new strain of puritan thinking. The problem is that unlike established religions - where you can step away and say "I don't recognise your moralising" with pretty much no repercussions, the line between "progressive left" ideology and wider society is much less clear - and so fighting this type of thinking can have real repercussions for your career or social life. It's not really worth rocking the boat.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
stephen_g 4y ago
I think the “people-first language” is actually kind of dumb in a lot of cases. Because the idea behind it is not really sound. Shall I now say I have to call a “person who performs plumbing work” to fix my drain because calling them a plumber indicates that they have no worth outside their job? No, that’s not how language has ever worked. Basically for “people-first language” to exist, you have to create a problem that didn’t exist before to come up with it as a solution.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
> People-first language ("enslaved people" not "slaves") makes complete sense to me Why is that? I’m genuinely curious. Who should be offended by the word slave? Is it I, the Slav? The etymology of the word concerns my heritage, and yet I’m not offended. It’s not as though people toying with language today is going to bring back my relatives who died as slaves, nor will it undo the suffering they endured.
- jimbokun 4y ago
  Reminds me of Norm McDonald commenting on Patton Oswalt saying the worst thing about Bill Cosby was the hypocrisy. But he thought it was the raping. https://twitter.com/rexchapman/status/1437871709911195655?s=46&t=w6xl3m8dH1kbukZO7-nZHw https://twitter.com/rexchapman/status/1437871709911195655?s=... I doubt slaves care so much about being called slaves or enslaved people, but having their freedom and autonomy stripped from them and treated horribly with no avenue for recompense.
- Elyra 4y ago
  I agree, and personally found it upsetting once when someone who was from a relatively well off family tried shaming me for using the term slave in my code. I'm of Ukrainian descent, and my grandfather was separated from his family at the age of 12 and sent to a forced labor camp, never to see them again. No human should ever have to experience that, and we must remember that even now there are still humans being treated like literal tools, as our computers are also nothing but tools. If seeing the word slave makes you uncomfortable, then good, it should make you uncomfortable that there are humans who have been treated no better than your computer, potentially even in the supply chain of making it.
- GoblinSlayer 4y ago
  Wait, it means slavery implies whites.
  - yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
    Slavery doesn’t imply any particular race. Some people hold the belief that it does, or that one needs to be of a particular race to take a position on or claim victimhood of slavery, but this, quite frankly, is racist.
JKCalhoun 4y ago
> For example, it seems like we can't say "mother" anymore in medical settings. Well, that's entirely up to you and me isn't it? I think what bothers me is not so much the word police (ignore them) but everyone else that allow them to set the agenda. I talk the way I've talked my entire life and I don't care what people think about it.
- webdood90 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - JKCalhoun 4y ago
    I'm well aware of dumb shit that I've done in my life and I try to learn from it and improve. The difference I suppose is that I don't think that words I use are dumb shit. Someone wants to be the moral authoritarian over the language you use? Only if you let them. And why would you do that?
  - goatlover 4y ago
    Dumb shit as defined by whom, though? People one doesn't agree with? Why should one stop doing it, then?
dragonwriter 4y ago
> People-first language (“enslaved people” not “slaves”) “enslaved people” is not people/person-first language. “People who are enslaved” is people-first language. “enslaved people” is “situation first” (more commonly “identity first” or “disability first”, but neither strictly applies to “being enslaved”) language, just as “slaves” is. (In the disability context, “the disabled” and “disabled people” are textbook examples of “disability first” language, to which “people first” or “person first” language is contrasted.) EDIT: Yes, I realize that this is an example of "people-first" language given near the opening of this opinion piece. It says something that in this rant about "equity language", the example given of the application of a particular form ("people-first language") of equity language is basically a textbook example of what that form seeks to avoid rather than what it prescribes. > For example, it seems like we can’t say “mother” anymore in medical settings. You can absolutely use “mother” to describe a specific person who, in fact, is a mother in medical settings. Because people of non-feminine gender identity can give birth, it is sub-optimal and exclusionary as a generic term for a person giving, or who has given, birth. > I support trans people living however they want, but my mother was a mother Literally no one has a problem with your mother being described as a mother. > At work, a “women in engineering” group got renamed to something bland like “gender minorities in tech”. Presumably, it got renamed that because whoever made decisions for it decided the mission was broader than women. “Gender minorities” isn’t a bland alternative to “women”, it has a broader scope.
- throwbadubadu 4y ago
  Close to a disability, I don't give a shit, and reading that I don't even understand til now what is better, for what reason... disability first, person first, what first, wtf?? Can we just communicate? > can give birth, it is sub-optimal and exclusionary as a generic term for a person giving, or who has given, birth Realize that smartassing someone with that excourse is alienating andor insulting andor exclusionary to other people the same, for whatever reason, may it be a different level of education or just disagreement. > the mission was broader It is good that you call it like that what it is, a mission for the new missionaries, almost just a religion of a strange minority that usually even is not affected at all. Please also try to understand a little the other side.
sirmarksalot 4y ago
I take any equity language guides with a grain of salt, but how people respond to them speaks volumes about who they are. Obviously there are problems with it. It's largely performative, it can distract from bigger advocacy work, and it's often a lazy attempt by a large organization or corporation to avoid having to make meaningful changes. The thing is, when you add terms like "victimhood culture" to your response, it makes it extremely clear that you're not taking issue with awkward terminology, but with the entire concept of equity itself.
- remarkEon 4y ago
  >but with the entire concept of equity itself. A lot of people do take issue with the concept of equity itself. Because it's unattainable, a fantasy to keep the "movement" going. No amount of language puritanism will ever be enough for the kinds of people that write these guides, because no human society will ever exist - or has ever existed - where everyone is some sterile, "equitable" copy of each other.
- goatlover 4y ago
  > but how people respond to them speaks volumes about who they are Does that mean they are bad, immoral people? I think equity is faulty concept. Seems like an attempt to create equality of outcome by policing language. But I'll defer to arguments made by the likes of Sam Harris, Julia Galef and Coleman Hughes. Or the Atlantic author of this article.
- simple-thoughts 4y ago
  It’s an exercise of power by a wealthy ($30k/yr is rich in most world), western, educated, native English speaking elite over the unprivileged. Someone who studied English in high school in rural India does not have access to the latest equity terminology nor the western cultural context to understand it. Changing language is a great tool to privilege the non working academic class with access and time to study the latest fad over the global working class who build the consumer products these elites type their screeds on.
  - bcrosby95 4y ago
jimbokun 4y ago
Hard to miss the similarities with Orwell’s Newspeak. The attempt to make certain thoughts unthinkable by removing the words that denote those ideas.
- Joker_vD 4y ago
  Absolutely: > Once you acquire the vocabulary, it’s actually easier to say people with limited financial resources than the poor. The first rolls off your tongue without interruption, leaves no aftertaste, arouses no emotion. Compare with Orwell's "Politics and the English Language": > Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. [...] A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    Further: Literally everyone has limited financial resources. If you want to specifically talk about a problem relating to being actually poor, it’s probably better to use language that communicates that than language that spans being poor, being in the top 5% of US households, and having to sell $TSLA stock and borrow money to buy Twitter.
- xkcd-sucks 4y ago
  The "justice-involved person" one is especially gross and disingenuous depending on context: Through repetition it strengthens the assertion that a conviction is justice, and it erases the power imbalance between convict and court employees/cops. Plus, it's a transparent euphemism - Nobody will refer to a judge as a JAP for example
cauthon 4y ago
I largely agree with your first paragraph, but I do think the term “birthing parent” is important in contexts such as parental leave policies. “Mother” could be inadequately specific in situations involving same-sex relationships, surrogacies, and/or adoption. For example, Washington state offers up to 6 weeks of medical leave to the birthing parent, in addition to the 12 weeks of bonding leave that are offered to both parents. Policy language needs to be specific and able to accommodate minority or edge cases.
ShredKazoo 4y ago
>For example, it seems like we can't say "mother" anymore in medical settings. For my partner's entire pregnancy, our providers only referred to "birthing people" because of some tiny number of trans men that exist and also want to give birth. The troll argument here is: now that we're saying "birthing people" instead of "women", it's time to acknowledge that abortion is not actually a "women's issue".
- kergonath 4y ago
  > now that we're saying "birthing people" instead of "women", it's time to acknowledge that abortion is not actually a "women's issue". Which is partly right, to be fair. It’s a fundamental human right issue about who can force things on your body. The consequences also affect whole families, not all men are arseholes who vanish when their girlfriend gets pregnant. Framing this as only women’s issue is part of a dangerous tribal war. It is also part of a pattern of subjugation of a social group on religious grounds, and as such part of a broader attack on secular, liberal societies.
  - bandie91 4y ago
    1. the embryo/fetus inside the mother's body is not the mother's body. 2. it is not the mother's body, but it's completely dependent on it to live. 3. parents have and have to have natural responsibility over their offspring. 4. the society establishment (both secular and religious) are there to protect society's norm. 5. not killing innocent humans is a social norm. 6. the embryo/fetus is a human. 7. saying that someones on "religious grounds" want to subjugate "secular, liberal societies" by opposing to killing innocent humans is no more that projecting USA's domestic radicated bipolar politics to the global level. 8. "religious grounds" are nothing mystical, nothing like "things which only unreasonalbe superstitious are afraid of", but a core attribute of the human nature: just »don't kill humans who are annoying to you even if they don't have social security ID yet, even if they don't pay taxes yet, even if they are your own children« 9. "abortion rights" group also stands on religious grounds, except it worships Moloch. 10. "abortion rights" people often comes from the pre-assumption that they are entitled to enjoy sex without consequences and without any responsibility. gain without pain. 11. "abortion rights" is an other level of productionalization of people. our life is already mostly a product of soulless companies. now they are turning babies into commodity which you can return if you changed your mind or not satisfied with it. wondering how much does it differ from the menacing "slavery".
justbored123 4y ago
[dead]
kergonath 4y ago
> For my partner's entire pregnancy, our providers only referred to "birthing people" because of some tiny number of trans men that exist and also want to give birth. I completely understand the “gender is social and not biological” concept, and I believe it is true to a large degree. But this is not the case: if you are able to bear a child, then by definition you are female and a woman in the biological sense.
- jamilton 4y ago
  Why does it become purely biological and not social in this case? Applying this definition strictly means woman who aren't able to bear children are not women.
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
    No. What GP is saying is merely that being capable of childbearing obviously requires female biological sex. But the implication doesn't have to go in the opposite direction for it to be true. Another example: the only vertebrates that can fly are birds(ignoring squirrels and weird fish). That's not equivalent to saying that the ostrich is not a bird. Flying vertebrate => bird Bird =/> flying vertebrate
    - lionsdan 4y ago
      Bats are vertebrates, aren't they?
      - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
        You're right, I forgot about bats! Yet I still took the time to disparage squirrels. Now I feel silly. I guess I can fix it easily enough: Flight(not gliding or floating) implies wings. Wings don't imply flight.
  - wadd1e 4y ago
    > Applying this definition strictly means woman who aren't able to bear children are not women. Not quite sure what the commentor you are replying to means by the social part but they didn't state that giving birth => woman is a 2 way implication.
oboes 4y ago
> Some of these, like "grandfathering", cannot even be understood without deep diving on etymology to discover the racist origins. That one in particular, I was almost offended when I learnt during a DEI training that it could be construed as insensitive/racist of me to use that idiom. English is not my native language, and is not an official language of my country. I work for a local branch of a large US tech company, and the working language is English, which I'm perfectly fine with. But when we get subjected to DEI training material which was very obviously made for an American audience, even though nobody in this office is a native English speaker, I think it goes too far and ironically becomes slightly insensitive in its own way.
- eru 4y ago
  I briefly worked for Facebook in Singapore. I felt a similar disconnect with their concern about African-Americans. (I think it might have been 'black history month' or perhaps the 'black lives matter' riots were ongoing. I can't remember.) Singapore has its own problems and groups of people that aren't doing so well. A focus on African-Americans felt extremely tone-deaf to me. Almost like it was designed to mock the whole DEI enterprise.
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
I'm probably be downvoted to death for that but, while I have nothing against transgenderism - do whatever you want people, I don't care - it baffles me that the subject takes so much space in the political discourse. It's like 1.6% of the population by applying the broadest critieria available. Sometimes I wonder if some interests are not all too happy to see people fight about who they might have to share a public bathroom one day in their entire life rather than issues actually affecting them.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
DeathArrow 4y ago
No matter what you say and how you say it there can be people who might want to feel offended.
heresie-dabord 4y ago
> equity language censors took this way way too far. In fact, they took it so far that it is now in the realm of fan fiction. Language cannot be legislated, and meaningful change requires more than a new literay style of expression. Social progress in real, measurable ways is possible and important. Workers' rights, pay equity, access to education, public health-care, affordable living, good care for our elderly... These are good things that measurably grow happiness in community. Hurt-Feelings Fan Fiction is a section of the book store that I will never visit.

nonethewiser 4y ago

That is ridiculous. Was this hospital on the coast? I did not hear this at our hospital.

low_tech_love 4y ago

This is an academic issue, ”a solution in search of a problem” as almost all the rest of academia is. As such, it never stops at a reasonable, meaningful equilibrium; it has to be kept pacing, moving forward towards more and more ridiculous extremes. An academic, in order to stay relevant, needs to keep pushing the invisible and mostly inexistent boundaries that they perceive in whatever field they are involved in. If they’re faced with a set vocabulary today, then tomorrow they’ll have to come up with an ”aha! Found a new offensive word” to position themselves as a relevant, meaningful part of this strange, ethereal movement. It’ll never end, because the movement itself needs its members to keep also pacing forward and motivated in order for itself to remain existing. The exact same could be said of any academic movement; the difference is that, in most cases, it mostly does not spill into reality. Other than a bit of research funding money, meaningless academic ideas don’t hurt society much. In this case, however, the academic movement is dead set on spilling all over everything, using the most aggressive possible strategies of shaming and reputation murder in order to push down its opposition.

78124781 4y ago
It's not just academia, it's the modern "meritocracy" more broadly. When getting into a campus club at a top college requires four rounds of interviews, you look for easy ways to signal your eliteness and being hip to the new verbal trends is a great way for the well-heeled to extend their advantage over the less-enlightened. This also applies to jobs whose occupants need to justify their own existence, which they can do so be seeking to remake language in an organization and launch a few fun purges to boot. These new terms are basically a new form of arcane knowledge that allows those who chant these magical new incantations social and professional prestige in the modern meritocracy rat race.
- syntheweave 4y ago
  All social structures survive through their self-perpetuation...it's a general critique with a lot of explanatory power that I've had on my mind. Any kind of senseless decorum or self-defeating policy comes down to the intersection of self-perpetuating framings of reality with actors who either promote it out of self-interest, or take it upon themselves to become footsoldiers on faithful behalf of that idea, extending it to unreasonable, totalizing lengths in the process of protecting it like a child. And that can manifest as "my way is right behavior and that is wrong behavior", or "we are good because they are bad", or any number of other illogical defenses. It's just automatic once you decide some thought has to be defended, and when it forms a really persistent, robust structure you end up with a religion, national mythos, economic norm etc. The structure is looking out for itself first, and the current elites hold the most gravity in deciding whether to further perpetuate or not. But elites aren't immune to being true believers either - they have to be able to let go and examine what they want to accomplish, and if the belief they have is too firmly tied to their immediate self-interest, they can't do it. My reading here is derived somewhat from Heather Marsh's writings, but with different focus and phrasing.
nonethewiser 4y ago
> As such, it never stops at a reasonable, meaningful equilibrium; it has to be kept pacing, moving for In fact, proponents can’t even define this equilibrium, despite stating that it is the end goal. This proves that the goal is a lie. It’s pure power seeking, and that shouldn’t be a surprise, because that is precisely what they assert determines truth and shapew society. Not some natural order, but people who held power over others. They complain about it but if you watch, it’s exactly what they’re doing themselves. Pure projection.

HyperSane 4y ago

A pregnant person is a woman.

homieg33 4y ago
[flagged]
8note 4y ago
At least, the person that birthed you is your mother. I'd question the association between mother and woman, rather than mother and birth
- Spivak 4y ago
  Thank you, I swear half the time I can’t figure out if people are genuinely confused by inclusive language or if they confuse it on purpose just to get riled up. It’s the same with people who menstruate — not only for trans men but for post menopausal women, women who’ve had hysterectomies, or are otherwise have amenorrhea.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    No — people are just aware that humans are sexually dimorphic and don’t appreciate people demanding they not use language that accurately describes the peaks of a bimodal distribution because there’s a small percentage of outliers. Mammals in general are sexually dimorphic. Particularly when that language control is transparently used for power seeking. We don’t need to shape every utterance around outliers — that’s pathological and stifles discussion.
    - Spivak 4y ago
      Girl you gotta get off the internet. No one is demanding you use this language. It’s actually the opposite where people have a visceral reaction to someone voluntarily choosing to use inclusive language. Style guides like these are for awareness, everyone has had the moment where they discover a word they picked up is actually offensive. One that happened for me was “gypped.” A lot of the guides do contain silly substitutions but that’s because they’re wrong about the history of the words and their usage not because the idea or intent is bad.

angarg12 4y ago

It seems to me that one of the issues is that the (more extreme) woke culture has put the entire burden of communication on the speakers rather than the listeners. Is not enough that you intend to offend, or that you say something that offends someone, is whether something that you say could possibly offend someone, even if you didn't have the slightest intentions. On the other say the listeners are free to interpret the message in the most uncharitable way possible, and blame you for it.

Spivak 4y ago
Eh, that’s just internet discourse in general. Once you put down Twitter this stops being an issue. I would love for someone to deconstruct what about social media, regardless of leaning of the platform, the people, or the subject being discussed causes these bad faith takes.
- Aloha 4y ago
  The issue is when you didn't say it on twitter, or even intend it for public consumption and it's posted as receipts on twitter as examples of your badness - often out of context. Then there are some knock on second and third order effects on your life. It's one thing if communities on twitter would like to define their own use of the language - it's another when it's imposed on others without their consent.
- jimbokun 4y ago
  Until the Twitter people are running your HR department or university or media outlet or government.
prawn 4y ago
I describe these scenarios to my young children as concentric circles. One person can be acting reasonably (small circle around them) or very badly (larger circle). A person nearby can be very resilient (small circle) or fragile (larger circle). Where the circles overlap, is when there is tension and there are fights, tears or anything else that requires me to intervene. Obviously very bad behaviour (large circle) is going to overlap with a nearby resilient child. Or a very tired and fractious child is going to sulk by their sibling doing just about anything. But the more resilient and better behaved the combinations, the better. If the children are fighting, I've taken to just calling out "Circles!" Unfortunately, a polarised society and social media seem to make everyone treat interaction as war, which is pretty tedious.

tastysandwich 4y ago

> For my partner's entire pregnancy, our providers only referred to "birthing people" Calling my wife a "birthing person" just made her feel like some gross vessel for having a baby. We purposefully chose providers that didn't use that language. "Chestfeeding" is another one that's cropping up and makes zero sense. Men have breasts, so breastfeeding is already gender-neutral. But it's seen as female-centric so out the door it goes. There seems to be this weird erasure of women taking place at the moment. To the extent that it's now controversial to ask "what is a woman?"

flippinburgers 4y ago
The utterly hilarious defense by the left for a movement that - above all others - is deeply patriarchal in its attempt to overwhelm and wipe out the very concept of "woman".
zmgsabst 4y ago
Our entire group of animals is named after tits: Mammals. How can referring to the fact people have what our entire branch of the tree of life is named after be offensive?
- TomK32 4y ago
  Good thing tits are global but have have different names in other languages, Meisen in the case of my primary-guardian language.
- ertian 4y ago
  ...Probably better not to point that out, or next thing you know we're gonna have to rewrite damn near every textbook...
  - kergonath 4y ago
    Isn’t this ongoing already?
    - 4y ago

cassonmars 4y ago

I'm trans myself and this language policing game is insane. The most surreal part about it is it's rarely anyone allegedly impacted by it who is actually asking for these things.

throwbadubadu 4y ago
Yep, same with disabilities, or children playing/costuming as cowboy and indian, or cultural appropriation where certain people are now not allowed wear a rasta haircut, or, or, or... Most ""affected"" people actually don't give a shit AND don't want this shit. But sjws can scapegoat any doubt to this holy mission and make one look like a Nazi. Usually never is also the intention or context taken into account.. You will always find someone who will say he feels insulted for anything, but we won't find a common denominator if we need to account for every salty person on earth. True respect, equality and no discrimination for everybody is what should count... but it feels today more and more that this is actually alienating, and also excluding people more than what it helps, the contrary! How to stop? Intention is good, but taken to the extreme, this is todays discrimination and exclusion..
- cassonmars 4y ago
  Realistically I think what has happened is the puritanical culture has donned new clothes. Blind subservience and self-flagellations to ever increasing standards of a sacrificial victim sky man who never asked for these things in the words they twisted, replaced with blind subservience to sacrificial victims in the present who one again, never asked for these things in the words they twisted. It makes me feel like a pawn in their own self-actualization, not someone they remotely ever gave a thought or care about.
  - leoedin 4y ago
    I agree - it's basically a new strain of puritan thinking. The problem is that unlike established religions - where you can step away and say "I don't recognise your moralising" with pretty much no repercussions, the line between "progressive left" ideology and wider society is much less clear - and so fighting this type of thinking can have real repercussions for your career or social life. It's not really worth rocking the boat.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

stephen_g 4y ago

I think the “people-first language” is actually kind of dumb in a lot of cases. Because the idea behind it is not really sound. Shall I now say I have to call a “person who performs plumbing work” to fix my drain because calling them a plumber indicates that they have no worth outside their job? No, that’s not how language has ever worked. Basically for “people-first language” to exist, you have to create a problem that didn’t exist before to come up with it as a solution.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

yakshaving_jgt 4y ago

> People-first language ("enslaved people" not "slaves") makes complete sense to me Why is that? I’m genuinely curious. Who should be offended by the word slave? Is it I, the Slav? The etymology of the word concerns my heritage, and yet I’m not offended. It’s not as though people toying with language today is going to bring back my relatives who died as slaves, nor will it undo the suffering they endured.

jimbokun 4y ago
Reminds me of Norm McDonald commenting on Patton Oswalt saying the worst thing about Bill Cosby was the hypocrisy. But he thought it was the raping. https://twitter.com/rexchapman/status/1437871709911195655?s=46&t=w6xl3m8dH1kbukZO7-nZHw https://twitter.com/rexchapman/status/1437871709911195655?s=... I doubt slaves care so much about being called slaves or enslaved people, but having their freedom and autonomy stripped from them and treated horribly with no avenue for recompense.
Elyra 4y ago
I agree, and personally found it upsetting once when someone who was from a relatively well off family tried shaming me for using the term slave in my code. I'm of Ukrainian descent, and my grandfather was separated from his family at the age of 12 and sent to a forced labor camp, never to see them again. No human should ever have to experience that, and we must remember that even now there are still humans being treated like literal tools, as our computers are also nothing but tools. If seeing the word slave makes you uncomfortable, then good, it should make you uncomfortable that there are humans who have been treated no better than your computer, potentially even in the supply chain of making it.
GoblinSlayer 4y ago
Wait, it means slavery implies whites.
- yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
  Slavery doesn’t imply any particular race. Some people hold the belief that it does, or that one needs to be of a particular race to take a position on or claim victimhood of slavery, but this, quite frankly, is racist.

JKCalhoun 4y ago

> For example, it seems like we can't say "mother" anymore in medical settings. Well, that's entirely up to you and me isn't it? I think what bothers me is not so much the word police (ignore them) but everyone else that allow them to set the agenda. I talk the way I've talked my entire life and I don't care what people think about it.

webdood90 4y ago
[flagged]
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  I'm well aware of dumb shit that I've done in my life and I try to learn from it and improve. The difference I suppose is that I don't think that words I use are dumb shit. Someone wants to be the moral authoritarian over the language you use? Only if you let them. And why would you do that?
- goatlover 4y ago
  Dumb shit as defined by whom, though? People one doesn't agree with? Why should one stop doing it, then?

dragonwriter 4y ago

> People-first language (“enslaved people” not “slaves”) “enslaved people” is not people/person-first language. “People who are enslaved” is people-first language. “enslaved people” is “situation first” (more commonly “identity first” or “disability first”, but neither strictly applies to “being enslaved”) language, just as “slaves” is. (In the disability context, “the disabled” and “disabled people” are textbook examples of “disability first” language, to which “people first” or “person first” language is contrasted.) EDIT: Yes, I realize that this is an example of "people-first" language given near the opening of this opinion piece. It says something that in this rant about "equity language", the example given of the application of a particular form ("people-first language") of equity language is basically a textbook example of what that form seeks to avoid rather than what it prescribes. > For example, it seems like we can’t say “mother” anymore in medical settings. You can absolutely use “mother” to describe a specific person who, in fact, is a mother in medical settings. Because people of non-feminine gender identity can give birth, it is sub-optimal and exclusionary as a generic term for a person giving, or who has given, birth. > I support trans people living however they want, but my mother was a mother Literally no one has a problem with your mother being described as a mother. > At work, a “women in engineering” group got renamed to something bland like “gender minorities in tech”. Presumably, it got renamed that because whoever made decisions for it decided the mission was broader than women. “Gender minorities” isn’t a bland alternative to “women”, it has a broader scope.

throwbadubadu 4y ago
Close to a disability, I don't give a shit, and reading that I don't even understand til now what is better, for what reason... disability first, person first, what first, wtf?? Can we just communicate? > can give birth, it is sub-optimal and exclusionary as a generic term for a person giving, or who has given, birth Realize that smartassing someone with that excourse is alienating andor insulting andor exclusionary to other people the same, for whatever reason, may it be a different level of education or just disagreement. > the mission was broader It is good that you call it like that what it is, a mission for the new missionaries, almost just a religion of a strange minority that usually even is not affected at all. Please also try to understand a little the other side.

sirmarksalot 4y ago

I take any equity language guides with a grain of salt, but how people respond to them speaks volumes about who they are. Obviously there are problems with it. It's largely performative, it can distract from bigger advocacy work, and it's often a lazy attempt by a large organization or corporation to avoid having to make meaningful changes. The thing is, when you add terms like "victimhood culture" to your response, it makes it extremely clear that you're not taking issue with awkward terminology, but with the entire concept of equity itself.

remarkEon 4y ago
>but with the entire concept of equity itself. A lot of people do take issue with the concept of equity itself. Because it's unattainable, a fantasy to keep the "movement" going. No amount of language puritanism will ever be enough for the kinds of people that write these guides, because no human society will ever exist - or has ever existed - where everyone is some sterile, "equitable" copy of each other.
goatlover 4y ago
> but how people respond to them speaks volumes about who they are Does that mean they are bad, immoral people? I think equity is faulty concept. Seems like an attempt to create equality of outcome by policing language. But I'll defer to arguments made by the likes of Sam Harris, Julia Galef and Coleman Hughes. Or the Atlantic author of this article.
simple-thoughts 4y ago
It’s an exercise of power by a wealthy ($30k/yr is rich in most world), western, educated, native English speaking elite over the unprivileged. Someone who studied English in high school in rural India does not have access to the latest equity terminology nor the western cultural context to understand it. Changing language is a great tool to privilege the non working academic class with access and time to study the latest fad over the global working class who build the consumer products these elites type their screeds on.
- bcrosby95 4y ago

jimbokun 4y ago

Hard to miss the similarities with Orwell’s Newspeak. The attempt to make certain thoughts unthinkable by removing the words that denote those ideas.

Joker_vD 4y ago
Absolutely: > Once you acquire the vocabulary, it’s actually easier to say people with limited financial resources than the poor. The first rolls off your tongue without interruption, leaves no aftertaste, arouses no emotion. Compare with Orwell's "Politics and the English Language": > Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. [...] A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Further: Literally everyone has limited financial resources. If you want to specifically talk about a problem relating to being actually poor, it’s probably better to use language that communicates that than language that spans being poor, being in the top 5% of US households, and having to sell $TSLA stock and borrow money to buy Twitter.
xkcd-sucks 4y ago
The "justice-involved person" one is especially gross and disingenuous depending on context: Through repetition it strengthens the assertion that a conviction is justice, and it erases the power imbalance between convict and court employees/cops. Plus, it's a transparent euphemism - Nobody will refer to a judge as a JAP for example

cauthon 4y ago

I largely agree with your first paragraph, but I do think the term “birthing parent” is important in contexts such as parental leave policies. “Mother” could be inadequately specific in situations involving same-sex relationships, surrogacies, and/or adoption. For example, Washington state offers up to 6 weeks of medical leave to the birthing parent, in addition to the 12 weeks of bonding leave that are offered to both parents. Policy language needs to be specific and able to accommodate minority or edge cases.

ShredKazoo 4y ago

>For example, it seems like we can't say "mother" anymore in medical settings. For my partner's entire pregnancy, our providers only referred to "birthing people" because of some tiny number of trans men that exist and also want to give birth. The troll argument here is: now that we're saying "birthing people" instead of "women", it's time to acknowledge that abortion is not actually a "women's issue".

kergonath 4y ago
> now that we're saying "birthing people" instead of "women", it's time to acknowledge that abortion is not actually a "women's issue". Which is partly right, to be fair. It’s a fundamental human right issue about who can force things on your body. The consequences also affect whole families, not all men are arseholes who vanish when their girlfriend gets pregnant. Framing this as only women’s issue is part of a dangerous tribal war. It is also part of a pattern of subjugation of a social group on religious grounds, and as such part of a broader attack on secular, liberal societies.
- bandie91 4y ago
  1. the embryo/fetus inside the mother's body is not the mother's body. 2. it is not the mother's body, but it's completely dependent on it to live. 3. parents have and have to have natural responsibility over their offspring. 4. the society establishment (both secular and religious) are there to protect society's norm. 5. not killing innocent humans is a social norm. 6. the embryo/fetus is a human. 7. saying that someones on "religious grounds" want to subjugate "secular, liberal societies" by opposing to killing innocent humans is no more that projecting USA's domestic radicated bipolar politics to the global level. 8. "religious grounds" are nothing mystical, nothing like "things which only unreasonalbe superstitious are afraid of", but a core attribute of the human nature: just »don't kill humans who are annoying to you even if they don't have social security ID yet, even if they don't pay taxes yet, even if they are your own children« 9. "abortion rights" group also stands on religious grounds, except it worships Moloch. 10. "abortion rights" people often comes from the pre-assumption that they are entitled to enjoy sex without consequences and without any responsibility. gain without pain. 11. "abortion rights" is an other level of productionalization of people. our life is already mostly a product of soulless companies. now they are turning babies into commodity which you can return if you changed your mind or not satisfied with it. wondering how much does it differ from the menacing "slavery".

justbored123 4y ago

[dead]

kergonath 4y ago

> For my partner's entire pregnancy, our providers only referred to "birthing people" because of some tiny number of trans men that exist and also want to give birth. I completely understand the “gender is social and not biological” concept, and I believe it is true to a large degree. But this is not the case: if you are able to bear a child, then by definition you are female and a woman in the biological sense.

jamilton 4y ago
Why does it become purely biological and not social in this case? Applying this definition strictly means woman who aren't able to bear children are not women.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  No. What GP is saying is merely that being capable of childbearing obviously requires female biological sex. But the implication doesn't have to go in the opposite direction for it to be true. Another example: the only vertebrates that can fly are birds(ignoring squirrels and weird fish). That's not equivalent to saying that the ostrich is not a bird. Flying vertebrate => bird Bird =/> flying vertebrate
  - lionsdan 4y ago
    Bats are vertebrates, aren't they?
    - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
      You're right, I forgot about bats! Yet I still took the time to disparage squirrels. Now I feel silly. I guess I can fix it easily enough: Flight(not gliding or floating) implies wings. Wings don't imply flight.
- wadd1e 4y ago
  > Applying this definition strictly means woman who aren't able to bear children are not women. Not quite sure what the commentor you are replying to means by the social part but they didn't state that giving birth => woman is a 2 way implication.

oboes 4y ago

> Some of these, like "grandfathering", cannot even be understood without deep diving on etymology to discover the racist origins. That one in particular, I was almost offended when I learnt during a DEI training that it could be construed as insensitive/racist of me to use that idiom. English is not my native language, and is not an official language of my country. I work for a local branch of a large US tech company, and the working language is English, which I'm perfectly fine with. But when we get subjected to DEI training material which was very obviously made for an American audience, even though nobody in this office is a native English speaker, I think it goes too far and ironically becomes slightly insensitive in its own way.

eru 4y ago
I briefly worked for Facebook in Singapore. I felt a similar disconnect with their concern about African-Americans. (I think it might have been 'black history month' or perhaps the 'black lives matter' riots were ongoing. I can't remember.) Singapore has its own problems and groups of people that aren't doing so well. A focus on African-Americans felt extremely tone-deaf to me. Almost like it was designed to mock the whole DEI enterprise.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

I'm probably be downvoted to death for that but, while I have nothing against transgenderism - do whatever you want people, I don't care - it baffles me that the subject takes so much space in the political discourse. It's like 1.6% of the population by applying the broadest critieria available. Sometimes I wonder if some interests are not all too happy to see people fight about who they might have to share a public bathroom one day in their entire life rather than issues actually affecting them.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

DeathArrow 4y ago

No matter what you say and how you say it there can be people who might want to feel offended.

heresie-dabord 4y ago

> equity language censors took this way way too far. In fact, they took it so far that it is now in the realm of fan fiction. Language cannot be legislated, and meaningful change requires more than a new literay style of expression. Social progress in real, measurable ways is possible and important. Workers' rights, pay equity, access to education, public health-care, affordable living, good care for our elderly... These are good things that measurably grow happiness in community. Hurt-Feelings Fan Fiction is a section of the book store that I will never visit.