Many of these look like good guidelines for someone, especially one in a position of public communications, to use as guidelines. Or for some sort of social worker, I can see these being some reasonable guidelines to consider.
But I would recoil at the idea of these being hard and fast rules considered for everyday speech. And the idea that casual, every day speech must be as equitable as possible doesn't sit right with me either. I would push back on any notion that use of these words/phrases would necessarily constitute a micro-aggression (they may in context, but not universally). For example, they have "straight" listed as a word that should be replaced by "heterosexual". Okay -- I get how this recommendation might make sense in a social worker setting, but the word "straight" by itself it not a micro-aggression ("the plane flew in a straight line").
If you're speaking publicly or on behalf of an organization - be careful, considerate, and deliberate with your language. If you're having a quick huddle with the 3 or 5 folks on your product team about today's activities -- always be considerate, but there's a lot more leeway. And hopefully you know the folks close to you well enough that there's mutual respect, even if a word used might not be ideal.
I think with some comment sense applied, this list is good guidance. As something to be applied with draconian enforcement, this would be nightmarish.
Yeah, this thread is nuts to me how many people in this thread are mad. Sure, some of the words are a bit of a stretch but while going through the most I was nodding along being like, “yeah, makes sense.”
Like nobody is gonna string
you up not following the guidelines but in my own writing I follow these pretty much naturally because, yeah, it’s kinda weird that we describe things with limited or reduced functionality as crippled.
This basically proves my point, if I was writing a post for public consumption at work I would avoid this language but outside that it doesn’t really matter.
I think if a race of aliens saw us calling our phones dead when they break they would be a little confused since they were never alive; so in that sense yes.
The reason language has to constantly evolve for certain topics is that every time people come up with new words that don't carry stigma people invariably start using them in everyday language; so $word that was coined specifically to be neutral becomes $word (pejorative). So for example if people would just stop using whatever word is used to describe people with intellectual disabilities as an insult the vocabulary wouldn't have to keep changing.
* "What are you blind (pejorative)?"
* "What are you deaf (pejorative)?"
* "They're delusional (pejorative)!"
* "They're deranged (pejorative)!"
* "She's hysterical (pejorative)."
* "He's demented (pejorative)."
* "They're absolutely mental (pejorative)."
* "She kind of a skitso (pejorative)."
* "They're special (pejorative)."
* "What, do you need a handicap (pejorative)?"
I don't think it's a good idea to use those words even after they fall out of fashion. It just seems cruel for no reason and it's easy enough to just say something different.
Every word can be pejorative in the right context. Especially if it is a characteristic that one does not identify with. Like calling a box champion a "delicate flower", other people would consider it a compliment
As soon as you ban any word, both pejorative and intended use, the similar next one will be used in a pejorative way, which will give you the same problem later on
Seems unnecessary effort to ban most of the language because some people don't use it correctly. Especially because people are not born knowing those stigmas. So they naturally disappear
But I would recoil at the idea of these being hard and fast rules considered for everyday speech. And the idea that casual, every day speech must be as equitable as possible doesn't sit right with me either. I would push back on any notion that use of these words/phrases would necessarily constitute a micro-aggression (they may in context, but not universally). For example, they have "straight" listed as a word that should be replaced by "heterosexual". Okay -- I get how this recommendation might make sense in a social worker setting, but the word "straight" by itself it not a micro-aggression ("the plane flew in a straight line").
If you're speaking publicly or on behalf of an organization - be careful, considerate, and deliberate with your language. If you're having a quick huddle with the 3 or 5 folks on your product team about today's activities -- always be considerate, but there's a lot more leeway. And hopefully you know the folks close to you well enough that there's mutual respect, even if a word used might not be ideal.
I think with some comment sense applied, this list is good guidance. As something to be applied with draconian enforcement, this would be nightmarish.