British Uni bans "politically incorrect" Words

[Sama-81]

And you'll still know what people are saying even if someone is speaking in gender neutral language. I don't see why every little thing people do has to trigger a forum-wide meltdown. Don't you people have better things to do than flip out about nontroversies over the internet?

I can absolutely see your position, and it definitely has merits. However, some of the changes on that link is straight out preposterous to the degree of obscuring reality (take the house wife-one as an example), a stance a university of all places should be supremely embarrassed by, and it really is a staggeringly low blow to find criticism towards those changes to be more nonsensical and absurd than the actual changes themselves. Changes that obviously aren't set in stone, and could at least theoretically still be undone.

One has to remember that the changes aren't affecting those already 'ideologically blessed', but normal young people lacking experience of the world. Everyone that's been to university, is well aware that students on their first year at university tend to believe most everything they hear, sadly (as someone now teaching at university himself). Severly disliking the use of extremist political language in that setting (which it clearly is, seeing some of the examples), whatever the variety, seems rather rational to me. Some of the words not to be used, according to that list, are perfectly fine whatever the circumstances, and students (or lecturers) wishing to use them should be perfectly welcome to do so - everything else would be an outright scandal, considering the location. It is NO place, for political bias of that magnitude.

It's like empowering young females by pretending that women played an equally important part in history (ie, the kind of parts we find in history books) - which, in places, is a thing now. Well, they simply didn't, obviously, which is quite sad, but still a fact - which everyone well knows. That kind of behaviour is straight out anti-science, and by that merit alone, should be utterly abhorred by universities and places of learning. The same effect could easily be achieved by simply stating facts, such as females nowadays being on an equal footing, and able to achieve basically whatever they strive for. History is what it was, there is literally zero reasons for white-washing it (including altering "problematic" terminology in old literature, etc).

[apepi]

Human resources? So that is what they think? That humans are just resources? How dare they!

[Allybeboba]

Why settle for what works when you can have what works better?

I generally agree with your statements as a whole. And I agree with this one as a whole as well.
However, it seems the university is simply trying appease a few, maybe even as many as half while forgetting about the others they may be displeasing. That "half" or so seem to be getting tired of it.
People are supposed to avoid the use of "mother" or "father" seperately. You people have got to be kidding me!
Should we start using numbers for names next? "Meet my sibling 25473. My female parental unit gave birth to it before me. It is my older sibling."

[Dhrizzle]

What's wrong with waitress and homosexual?

Presumably the term "waitress" implies that women should be in a serving role, given the recommended alternative to "homosexual" is "same-sex" I assume it's when used as a descriptor for a relationship, describing it as a same-sex relationship leaves the possibility open for someone being bi rather than assuming they are homosexual.

- - - Updated - - -

Well they are already trying to change women to womyn/wimmin

I've only ever seen the terms "womyn" and "wimmin" used by angry/offended anti-feminists/alt-righters/misogynists.

- - - Updated - - -

This is the shit that makes people support Trump.

Congrats. Can't even caricature SJWs anymore. They act way more hilariously retarded than even jokes about what they could act like.

I thought since Trump's election you'd joined us as a fellow SJW?

[tehealadin]

Presumably the term "waitress" implies that women should be in a serving role, given the recommended alternative to "homosexual" is "same-sex" I assume it's when used as a descriptor for a relationship, describing it as a same-sex relationship leaves the possibility open for someone being bi rather than assuming they are homosexual.

Waiter also implies a serving role, as does waiting staff. Some women are in serving roles, I don't think that acknowledging this implies women should be doing this, only the most warped mind would take away this meaning.

And not all homosexual people are in relationships. I think there is scope for both, depending on the context.

I've only ever seen the terms "womyn" and "wimmin" used by angry/offended anti-feminists/alt-righters/misogynists.

Must not be trying hard enough, there is a hardcore of more extreme feminists who use the womyn term.

[Allybeboba]

No requirement to use "mother" and "father" together or not at all appears in the document in question. As has been thoroughly established, the article in the OP flat out lies about several parts and very selectively sampled other parts with an obvious agenda in mind. What they do say is that it would be best if you didn't stick to one single pattern of male first and then female first or vice versa when referring to both genders throughout multiple sentences. The other instance of "mother" in the document suggests "working parent" instead of "working mother" or "working man," presumably when talking about some generic person whose gender is not pertinent, if we base our interpretation on the rest of the document.





I'd also reiterate that these are just guidelines.

- - - Updated - - -



The link in the OP pretty much flat out lies about the document, which has been posted a few times in this thread now. Multiple suggestions were made for "housewife" and it was stated that it was context dependent. The other two specific suggestions were "shopper" and "homemaker." Naturally an article wishing to upset people picked the one that sounded the dumbest when deprived of context.

We've been whitewashing history since we began writing it though, which is part of why we have this issue. A lot of what people construe as claiming "women played an equally important part in history" is more a claim that women played important parts in history and have not always been given their historical due because the people who wrote history were generally males in a male-oriented societies.

Stay at home women haven't really been called "housewives" in America since the 50's or 60's. Sure, some people may have called them that.
Just has we have not had "secretaries" since the 80's. Or "stewardesses" since the early 80's. Even though the later two are actually professional positions their names simply changed to "flight attendants" and "executive assistant".
Heck, even garbage men are sometimes called "waste engineers".

I was fortunate enough growing up that mother did not have to work. My mother always said she wasn't the wife of a house.

[Dhrizzle]

Waiter also implies a serving role, as does waiting staff. Some women are in serving roles, I don't think that acknowledging this implies women should be doing this, only the most warped mind would take away this meaning.

Having looked at the actual document and not just the recycled outrage from the Daily Mail, it seems like the university prefers "server" or "waiter" as gender-neutral terms because there's little point in assuming or implying the gender of the person who's serving food.

And not all homosexual people are in relationships. I think there is scope for both, depending on the context.

Like I guessed (and reading the actual document confirmed,) the document recommends avoiding "homosexual" as a description of relationships, so relationships would be described as "same-sex" or "other-sex" rather than "homosexual" or "heterosexual." It doesn't mean to imply (and I've no idea why you thought) that all homosexual people would be in a relationship.

Must not be trying hard enough, there is a hardcore of more extreme feminists who use the womyn term.

How hard am I supposed to try to find fringe groups and get outraged over their ideas? I know that some people seem to like putting in the effort but it seems like a waste of time to me.

[Sama-81]

The link in the OP pretty much flat out lies about the document, which has been posted a few times in this thread now. Multiple suggestions were made for "housewife" and it was stated that it was context dependent. The other two specific suggestions were "shopper" and "homemaker." Naturally an article wishing to upset people picked the one that sounded the dumbest when deprived of context.

Well, outright lies obviously puts things in another perspective, and everything stated that is actually a falsehood is just a sad state of affairs. I'm not exactly sure what is and isn't a lie, so please just ignore whatever statement I made that had a lie as a foundation for it. Can't fucking stand media like that, lying and heavily slanting news due to political bias (whatever side of the spectrum it might be).

That said, substituting "home wife" for "consumer" or "shopper" is either just blatantly erroneous, or an outright obfuscation depending on context (I suppose, it could be valid in some context or other, but I really struggle to come up with one where the word would be used in the first place, I really do). Those are not even remotely the same things, after all, and universities should hold themselves to a far higher standard than forcing such things down a lecturers throat. It's hard for someone with a particular interest in the quality of higher education to watch such stupid, nonsensical rulesets. The intentions doesn't matter one singular bit, science has to at least strive towards being entirely unbiased. Granted though, that "homemaker" seems a perfectly valid alternative.

We've been whitewashing history since we began writing it though, which is part of why we have this issue. A lot of what people construe as claiming "women played an equally important part in history" is more a claim that women played important parts in history and have not always been given their historical due because the people who wrote history were generally males in a male-oriented societies.

Of course we have, but seldom to the degree of more or less rewriting it, and that doesn't excuse yet another attempt at white-washing in the least. If anything, we ought to have come far enough to seize taking such pitiful actions (not to mention starting to re-do some of the damage already done). When it comes to having a more nuanced picture of how the life of women actually were like, examples of women breaking the norms, the parts they did play from an objective standpoint, and what have you, I'm certainly all for it. It would be good for everyone, I think, to learn more about that side of history than we generally do at present time. To the degree the syllabus allows, of course.

[Endus]

Must not be trying hard enough, there is a hardcore of more extreme feminists who use the womyn term.

Y'know, I've literally never encountered anyone who used it, outside of angry people who use it as a boogeyman, as you are here.

It seems pretty telling to me that you seem to encounter it so much more often than those of us supposedly on "their side" do. It's almost like you folks are taking fringe nuts and acting as if they represent an entire movement and what everyone is advocating for, and you can't see how ridiculous that projection is because you have no familiarity other than your echo chamber sites that keep linking to the same comments by the same handful of nuts, over and over and over.

That said, substituting "home wife" for "consumer" or "shopper" is either just blatantly erroneous, or an outright obfuscation depending on context (I suppose, it could be valid in some context or other, but I really struggle to come up with one where the word would be used in the first place, I really do). Those are not even remotely the same things, after all, and universities should hold themselves to a far higher standard than forcing such things down a lecturers throat. It's hard for someone with a particular interest in the quality of higher education to watch such stupid, nonsensical rulesets. The intentions doesn't matter one singular bit, science has to at least strive towards being entirely unbiased. Granted though, that "homemaker" seems a perfectly valid alternative.

The policy was also pretty clear that these suggestions were about avoiding generic terms that were gender-biased.

There wouldn't be any issue with describing a woman who was a homemaker while her husband worked as a "housewife". The issue is when you describe the stay-at-home partner as a "housewife" in general, ignoring that men are often the ones staying home. And rather than say "housewives and househusbands", it's just easier to say "homemakers" in the first place.

[Exeris]

Y'know, I've literally never encountered anyone who used it, outside of angry people who use it as a boogeyman, as you are here.

.

I had never even heard of it before reading about it on this site, I try to stay away from extremist forum/people.

[Evangeliste]

I get why they are doing this. In a society where the ability to reassign sex amongst other things to broaden the term from just two terms man and woman, it's just sometimes safer to remove the probability of offending then it is to stick to old values which to be honest are outdated. Housewives are around but it's pretty much resigned back to when the populace had a typical lifestyle where the man worked and the woman stayed at home and yes, we grew up with them and it's hard to release that attachment we made from growing up but in the end, the world changed as much as we did growing up. I mean being married and being a housewife don't really happen in some relationships as they cohabitant together so being called a housewife is technically wrong lawfully.

[Deleted]

I may as well add a trigger warning now but a British Uni banned "politically incorrect" word usage essentially because we now live in a world where people are hyper sensitive and words original meaning cannot be used with out being misinterpreted or someone taking offense for something else, or the condemnation of freedom of speech if it "hurts other people"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...rds-heres-list

Source is a site I've never heard of , who's own source is the Daily Mail, who've failed to provide any sources for the supposed document.

While I don't really see the harm in changing the use of these words (as their PC alternatives often make more sense), banning the use of words is the incorrect way to go about it.
Create guidelines and advise on use instead.

And with that said, the most triggered and upset people I see as a result of this harmless stuff are, well, not the PC crowd if you know what I mean.
It's ironic how some people seek out this stuff so that they can act indignant and offended, while mocking political correctness for those traits.

[Deleted]

Waiter also implies a serving role, as does waiting staff. Some women are in serving roles, I don't think that acknowledging this implies women should be doing this, only the most warped mind would take away this meaning.

And not all homosexual people are in relationships. I think there is scope for both, depending on the context.


Must not be trying hard enough, there is a hardcore of more extreme feminists who use the womyn term.

Because the anti feminist seek them out and bring attention to people and opinions that we'd otherwise never freaking hear about.
I sincerely wish you'd all stop giving extremist minorities all this damned attention.

[Mistame]

Dictionaries can just as easily spin a false narrative as the universities they come from. There are Two Genders, everything else is made up, even using the logic of the Regressives, they're social constructs, and as such, not Solid concepts.

I use Biological Sex, because that is a standard, everything else is made up.

You're free to be as ignorant as you want. The failure to adapt to things changing is on those failing to adapt, not the change.

[DJ117]

Closing down threads with fake news is now censorship?

Sigh, the alt-right nowadays.
No wonder people keep punching them in the face.

Any closure is censorship.

We will not be using Nazi methods and resolve to violence like you.

[Shadowmelded]

Have they really been "banned", or encouraged to be replaced?

As far as I can tell, the original document only says things like "encourages" and "promotes" not enforces. The rest of your post is basically my take as well. God forbid people actually make a conscious effort to evaluate their use of language instead of repeating unthinking cliches.

[Moratori]

As far as I can tell, the original document only says things like "encourages" and "promotes" not enforces. The rest of your post is basically my take as well. God forbid people actually make a conscious effort to evaluate their use of language instead of falling into unthinking cliches.

Why change what already works?

[Shadowmelded]

Why change what works?

Why be intellectually lazy?

[Moratori]

Why be intellectually lazy?

Nothing about being intellectually lazy. If something is already working, why change what already works? There's no reason to change something that already works.

[Shadowmelded]

Nothing about being intellectually lazy. If something is already working, why change what already works? There's no reason to change something that already works.

For greater nuance and accuracy? To encourage people to think about what they're saying and express themselves as accurately as possible instead of, like I said, falling into the trap of repeating hackneyed cliches?