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.
Traditional homonyms reinforce ingrained cultural stereotypes.
Nobody in the right mind would argue that the word “mankind” means only male part of humanity.
Perhaps not, but it does support the outdated tradition of considering the male gender to be the “default person”.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.
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.