I fail to see how "blind review" "perpetuates that disability is somehow abnormal or negative". I understand how disability "is abnormal and negative", and that makes sense; although in many contexts is better to be specific and use a neutral point of view. (Someone wrote "normal" (and "natural") is a bad word, and I can see, it is compared to something which is allegedly "normal" and "abnormal", though.) (However, some people if they are already blind, might not care anymore if they can see, and might be able to compensate for blindness, if they are used to being blind, opposed to someone who is temporarily blinded.)
However, it still makes more sense to use "anonymous review" instead of "blind review", because the reviewer is not necessarily unable to see the review (or the document being reviewed), although it is anonymous, so "anonymous review" makes sense, and is better descriptive.
There are many problems with this list, although some of the things mentioned are sensible, at least in some contexts (the suggested alternatives are not always appropriate).
Isn't review itself problematic though? To re view something implies it needs to be viewed, which can't be done by a blind person.
And anonymous could be seen as being disrespectful to unidentified bodies.
This is the problem, once you go down the route of banning words that could possibly be problematic, then where do you stop, because any word can be problematic.
The list suggests hooked instead of addicted, which to me still has the same connotations, so even the author can't avoid all problematic words.
> Isn't review itself problematic though? To re view something implies it needs to be viewed, which can't be done by a blind person.
In that case, it would seem that "blind review" would be a contradiction, isn't it?
> This is the problem, once you go down the route of banning words that could possibly be problematic, then where do you stop, because any word can be problematic.
Of course, you are right.
But to me, my intention isn't about being disrespectful or not, but rather, to be clear and accurate.
> But that's just more evidence that we shouldn't take parts of a phrase and start interpreting them out of context.
I agree, but I still think that it is better to use more descriptive and clear words; "anonymous review" seems more descriptive and clear to me than "blind review" does.
(I also don't like the words "metric ton" and "tonne"; I think "megagram" is more descriptive and clear, so it is better.)
However, it still makes more sense to use "anonymous review" instead of "blind review", because the reviewer is not necessarily unable to see the review (or the document being reviewed), although it is anonymous, so "anonymous review" makes sense, and is better descriptive.
There are many problems with this list, although some of the things mentioned are sensible, at least in some contexts (the suggested alternatives are not always appropriate).