-1
What's your opinion of inclusive language?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2024
-1 points (49.2% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26709 readers
1796 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Why would I want to use exclusive language? If I know it's going to make someone feel worse instead of better, why would I use?
The only argument for not using it that I can think of is that you don't give a shit about other people...
The alternative is not exclusive, but traditional. Some words have double meaning, traditionally. A word "man", for example, can mean male, but can also be inclusive. Nobody in the right mind would argue that the word "mankind" means only male part of humanity.
Plenty do.
Well, then as my sentence states, they are not in the right mind.
Traditional homonyms reinforce ingrained cultural stereotypes.
Perhaps not, but it does support the outdated tradition of considering the male gender to be the "default person". This has had many lasting negative consequences, in areas ranging from scientific research to product design.
I seriously do not think that when people use the word mankind they do anything that has negative consequences. The word has very gender neutral meaning today and if anyone would want today to change it, then they actually do disservice to equality movement because they look like crazies.
It's very easy to cast ableist accusations at imaginary scenarios.
Nobody is suggesting the word is erased from the dictionary or existing literature be modified. We're suggesting that it is more efficient communication to choose words which communicate our intended meaning instead of incorporating unintended additional anachronistic connotations. There are plenty of existing choices that are just as easily understood, we don't even need to invent new ones.
It's the same reason I no longer call cigarettes "fags" - and that actually has a different etymology to the slur, whereas "mankind" is inherently based on the gendered word "man". It's just not worth it to have to actively disambiguate the meaning, especially to someone who has some associated memories of being bullied for their sexuality.
People may not say a word with negative intentions, but when you are excluded for irrelevant historical reasons that imply you're not worth considering, it's noticeable. If you think that's not the case, walk into your next work meeting and greet them only with "Hello, ladies."
Intention and perceived intention are conveyed by the words we choose, it makes sense to be intentionally unambiguous.