British Uni bans "politically incorrect" Words

[darkwarrior42]

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.

Because there is a better, more accurate, more efficient way to do it.

[Moratori]

Because there is a better, more accurate, more efficient way to do it.

Prove that it's better, more accurate and more efficient.

[darkwarrior42]

There is nothing sexist about calling women who are staying at home, housewives or men staying at home, househusbands.

I agree. I also agree with the document in question, particularly because it's endorsing suggestions, rather than rigid guidelines, and as such has room for interpretation and cases where a gender-specific term is obviously appropriate, such as what you describe here.

- - - Updated - - -

Prove that it's better, more accurate and more efficient.

I have to prove that using gender-correct terminology when referring to a specific gender, while not using gender-specific terminology when referring to a person of unknown gender, a group of mixed genders, or where the gender doesn't matter, is more accurate and efficient?

I'm honestly not sure how to go about proving something that seems to be blatantly obvious from the mere description.

- - - Updated - - -

So here's an example. My local PDQ (chicken fast-food chain) has a very good staff; fast, efficient, reliable. Never had a problem with my service. I could say the following:
-"The waiters and waitresses that work there are very good at their jobs"
-"The servers that work there are very good at their jobs"
-"The waiters that work there are very good at their jobs"

The first one is perfectly accurate, but unnecessarily wordy. The second one is completely accurate, and efficient. The third one is accurate, but waiter is used both as a term for a male server and as a term for a server in general, so it is vague; it is, however, as efficient as the second.

The second version combines the accuracy and precision of the first, with the efficiency of the third.

Edit: "Staff" would probably be an even better choice, because then it doesn't imply that it's just the servers that are doing a good job, but also the managers and the cooks.

[Moratori]

I have to prove that using gender-correct terminology when referring to a specific gender, while not using gender-specific terminology when referring to a person of unknown gender, a group of mixed genders, or where the gender doesn't matter, is more accurate and efficient?

I'm honestly not sure how to go about proving something that seems to be blatantly obvious from the mere description.

That's not what this is about. They want to, instead of housewife, to use "consumer". If it's a housewife, the gender is already known. Not using "housewives" and instead use "consumer"(Shouldn't be used at all since we're all consumers) or "homemaker"(Should be used when gender is unknown or you're speaking generally about people who stay at home regardless of gender) when you're talking about "housewives" is obfuscation.

- - - Updated - - -

They're reductive terms that minimize their value to someone's kept partner... or some such. I don't know their reasoning behind each word. I'm fine with them running their institution as they see fit. If the students themselves have an issue with it then they can take action. Everyone else that's getting offended at their attempt to use more educated language is pretty hilarious. Keep fighting for the right to remain ignorant!

It's not more educated language. It's obfuscated speech. These people are going to be out there in the society after they're done, that makes it a problem for society.

[Plutarch78]

The "ban" is just a policy to promote gender neutral word choices wherever possible, which is a pretty sensible policy if your goals include being inclusive to all people, regardless of gender.

Found the social justice warrior.

[Deleted]

Found the social justice warrior.

It's that guy that keeps saying "sjw, sjw, sjw" is if it were a rational argument, like he has some weird form of far-right tourettes.

[Plutarch78]

Right, and there are no laws forcing institutions of higher education to allow ignorance to permeate their halls.

Yes there is. Its called the First Amendment. Kids who go to these kinds of institutions become indoctrinated with such nonsense so that when they become elected officials they will attempt to pass laws that reflect their upbringing. Today it will be in institutions of higher learning. Tomorrow it will become public policy.

- - - Updated - - -

It's that guy that keeps saying "sjw, sjw, sjw" is if it were a rational argument, like he has some weird form of far-right tourettes.

If the show fits...

[Deleted]

If the show fits...

It is "shoe". Jesus.

[Mehrunes]

The "ban" is just a policy to promote gender neutral word choices wherever possible, which is a pretty sensible policy if your goals include being inclusive to all people, regardless of gender.

Applying it to things like man-made or manpower which is derivative from the meaning of the word "man" as in human in general or idioms is particularly sensible. Polio survivor is the apotheosis of sensibility in this context.

[Moratori]

Incorrect. Many of the terms do the exact opposite. Saying forefathers is obfuscating ancestors. They're rectifying these issues so that they don't appear to be male only and the like. Get over your ignorance please.

So you're going to say that calling housewives "consumer" is not obfuscation? Please. We're all consumers, we're not all housewives.

[Mehrunes]

The Polio one seems pretty dumb in particular. Certain kinds of polio can kill people without medical attention, and calling such a person a polio survivor would be pretty bad taste.

Yeah, they didn't really think that one through. I don't really understand the reasoning behind homosexual either.

[Mehrunes]

Except for the part where mankind can mean humankind or it could literally mean just men. Especially with men's rights people all over the place.

If you use words in archaic manner, sure. But why would you?

[Mehrunes]

Because there is a better, more accurate, more efficient way to do it.

This is a simplification. Calling someone a chairperson instead of chairman isn't more efficient, is less accurate since it conveys less data (that this data may be of no particular relevance in given context is another topic) which leaves "better" that is at best subjective.

[Underverse]

The only thing the actual document says about "homosexual" is in the context of marriage, saying that "homosexual marriage" comes off as having negative connotations, which it 100% does thanks to the word choices of the Christian right, and it would be best if the term were avoided, using "same-sex marriage" instead.

meh, I've heard this argument before but I don't see it. If you're using the word correctly I don't think there's a problem; it will lose its negative connotations the more it's used in a neutral or positive light anyway.

[Mehrunes]

Because people do in our society today and since we have more accurate terminology that isn't loaded with another meaning why would we continue to use an inaccurate term like mankind?

It isn't "loaded" with anything because context is a thing. Your logic would necessitate an immense purge and overhaul of the entire dictionary.

[Mehrunes]

The only thing the actual document says about "homosexual" is in the context of marriage, saying that "homosexual marriage" comes off as having negative connotations, which it 100% does thanks to the word choices of the Christian right, and it would be best if the term were avoided, using "same-sex marriage" instead.

I'd say it's more of an example given how it's under the "sexuality and marriage" category and homo/heterosexuality is the only bullet point that would actually fit sexuality. That aside, the connotations from Christian right don't stop at relationships anyway. And since I'm seeing them using same sex marriage more often without changing the substance, they transplant the connotations there. Are we going to have a term race with the Christian right or ignore them as they fade into obscurity?

[Moratori]

My logic would dictate that educated people pick their words more carefully than the average ignorant bigot on the street.

I think you've kinda lost it if you think people who aren't speaking like some elites prefer them to speak are bigots.

[Mehrunes]

That would make it less precise, not less accurate.

Given that these words are synonyms, you're splitting hairs at this point. And even if you weren't, it would still not make the chairperson more accurate. The two would be ambivalent in terms of accuracy, making darkwarrior42's point a simplification regardless, which was, you know, the point.

[Moratori]

No, I think you've kinda lost it when you get upset that a University wants the language their lecturers use to be tolerant and unbiased.

"Tolerant and unbiased", so I was right. You think people are bigots because they don't speak like you want them to.

[Moratori]

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort. I said the University wants that. I know, logic is hard.

" My logic would dictate that educated people pick their words more carefully than the average ignorant bigot on the street."