Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[apl68]

Some items on the list are such old figures of speech that it's a little surprising anybody would still be worried about them.  There are a couple of items that I thought had already been mostly banished from polite society in general.

In some cases involving items that refer to particular ethnicities, there's an admission that, uh, actually some members of the group in question prefer the term they're trying to get rid of.  So you might ask them what they prefer.  Which is meant to be polite, I'm sure, but sounds like a great way to make ordinary introductions into something fraught.

It can't be easy always to be chasing whatever is the most politically correct usage.  People who've trained themselves always to ask for "preferred pronouns"--another great way to make initial meetings potentially awkward--are now being told that they'd better drop the "preferred" part.  People who've labored to say "African American" instead of black, and given others a hard time for using the wrong term, are now told that they need to start saying black.  "Crippled"--one of those terms I would have thought so archaic that it wouldn't even be on their radar any longer--is out, but so is the formerly acceptable substitute "handicapped."  One reason why many complain so bitterly about this sort of language policing is that sense that the goalposts are always being moved on them.

I've never been one to gripe much about "politically correct" speech myself, but this sort of thing can be annoying, especially since the suggested superior terms are so often wordy doubletalk.  The Sanford list takes it to a new level.  There are some things that just parody themselves.

[MarathonRunner]

In my field, perhaps because it is one of the few female-dominant in academia, we've moved away from "seminal" which can be considered sexist (non-males have written important works too) and moved to foundational, pioneering, or key, to describe such works.

I can see how "take a shot at" could be distressing for those whose communities have experienced gun violence, and therefore potentially problematic. The others have multiple meanings, and context is important.

Person-first language is interesting. We are taught to use it, but some communities or individuals (since people are not monolithic within a community) prefer to be called otherwise.

[apl68]

Grandfather? WTF?

Likely referring to the phrase grandfather clause, which has its roots in voter suppression laws after emancipation, which allowed white people to be able to vote who would have been blocked by newly enacted  laws designed to keep newly freed Black people from voting.

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/10/21/239081586/the-racial-history-of-the-grandfather-clause

That was the rationale given in the guidance.  You can't say "grandfather something in."  That it's also gender-specific is I'm sure an additional problem with it.

Anything with the word "master" in it is also apparently out.

[apl68]

In my field, perhaps because it is one of the few female-dominant in academia, we've moved away from "seminal" which can be considered sexist (non-males have written important works too) and moved to foundational, pioneering, or key, to describe such works.

Can't say I'd miss "seminal," since it's always seemed like kind of a weird term. 

Now that you mention "pioneering," I'm rather surprised that wasn't on the list under "colonialist" terms.  Its use probably won't be encouraged for much longer.

[Ruralguy]

Some of these are very easy to replace. Its not that hard just to say "main bedroom" instead of "master bedroom."
For mechanics and electronics it might be harder to work around "master cylinder" and "male/female connector" but I am sure some creative inclusive engineer can think of something.

Sometimes, you just become all too aware of how someone can mis-hear a word, or imbue it with its most obscene meaning, such as "oral." So, you just start using some-what less potentially cringe-y words.

[Puget]

Person-first language is interesting. We are taught to use it, but some communities or individuals (since people are not monolithic within a community) prefer to be called otherwise.

We always have an interesting discussion about this on the first day of my (psych) courses. There was a big push starting in the 90s for people-first language (promoted, e.g., by the APA style guide) that really came from a medical model (i.e., the assumption that people would not want to be defined by their "disease"), which has more recently gotten a lot of push-back from the disability/neurodivergent rights communities, who see, e.g., being autistic or Deaf as identities they embrace, and who find the person-first language actually stigmitizing. Its a complex and changing linguistic landscape, and it all comes down to trying to use the terms that the people being referred to prefer, and when you can't be sure (e.g., when writing) just acknowledging that different people have different preferences in that community.

[apl68]

Sometimes, you just become all too aware of how someone can mis-hear a word, or imbue it with its most obscene meaning, such as "oral." So, you just start using some-what less potentially cringe-y words.

There's a somewhat archaic term synonymous with "stingy" that also sounds somewhat like a common racial slur.  I can remember some years ago reading about a few tempests in a teapot when somebody using the archaic word was blindsided by some quite fierce accusations of racism.  Pointing out that the word was a longstanding English word that had absolutely nothing to do with racial slurs only made the opposition fiercer.  Using a word deemed slur-adjacent was deemed the equivalent of using the actual slur. 

The word soon passed out of usage with no protests that I was ever made aware of.  It was evidently so old and little-loved that nobody found it worth defending.

[Wahoo Redux]

Sometimes, you just become all too aware of how someone can mis-hear a word, or imbue it with its most obscene meaning, such as "oral." So, you just start using some-what less potentially cringe-y words.

There's a somewhat archaic term synonymous with "stingy" that also sounds somewhat like a common racial slur.  I can remember some years ago reading about a few tempests in a teapot when somebody using the archaic word was blindsided by some quite fierce accusations of racism.  Pointing out that the word was a longstanding English word that had absolutely nothing to do with racial slurs only made the opposition fiercer.  Using a word deemed slur-adjacent was deemed the equivalent of using the actual slur. 

The word soon passed out of usage with no protests that I was ever made aware of.  It was evidently so old and little-loved that nobody found it worth defending.

Ha!  I had an elderly music professor use this term in regards to my playing, saying essentially "don't hold back!"  I was a little freaked since this fella was such a nice old guy.

[Juvenal]

Thirty years on--longer?--I still cringe to recall I used that word while talking to a Black student!  Caught myself a moment too late.  Too late to salvage the moment.  The perils of a too-extensive vocabulary?  Foot-in-mouth disease?  I don't think I've spoken the word since.

[kaysixteen]

If my kid took a wipe-out on his bike, hurt himself, and I brought him to the hospital, and upon being x-rayed, the doc says to me, kid has a broken arm, and I am going to put a cast on it now.  If I say then, no, no cast, and the doc says, but you do not understand, the kid's arm is broken, and he needs a cast, and I respond, I get that the kid's arm is broken, but no cast.   What would the doc do?  He'd call the child welfare agency, which would immediately take custody of the kid over the phone and order the cast put on.  And none of us here would disagree with that action.

So what is my point?   One of the problems I have with the normalization of homosexuality and nowadays also transgenderism is the notion that soon enough, normalization and acceptance is likely to morph into forced acceptance.   I used to think this paranoid- a few years ago, in response to the gay marriage SCOTUS ruling, my pastor decided we needed to rewrite the church bylaws to explicitly forbid gay marriages within it, because he was concerned that soon enough the church might be sued by homosexual activists who wanted to force us to allow our facilities to be used for their weddings.   I thought that was crazy, and that the easy solution was simply to require any marriage held in the building to have at least one of the spouses be a church member.   But now I am not so sure that we will not see such activism, especially wrt transgenderism and children.  Consider this scenario-- instead of breaking his arm on his bike, my 8yo goes to school and for whatever reason(s) some teacher, counselor, nurse, etc., decides he's transgender, and calls me up to offer info as to where I could get him 'gender affirming care', whereupon I say, no thanks.   Not for my kid.   What then?

[Wahoo Redux]

Kay, forgive me, but you are such a bigot that you actually believe you can make an analogy between bodily harm and homosexuality.

Incredible.

If your kid wants to be transgender, do what you think is best for the kid.

At 18 years old your kid will be able to do whatever hu wants, so if you stand in the way of your kid transitioning at 13, hu will just have to wait 5 unhappy years until hu zips you out of hu's life forever and you can go on frothing all alone in your house until old age finally takes up to your heavenly (or hellish) reward.

Can you find one factual example of a teacher, counselor, nurse, etc. calling up a parent of an 8 yo out of the blue and advising transgender care?

[marshwiggle]

Can you find one factual example of a teacher, counselor, nurse, etc. calling up a parent of an 8 yo out of the blue and advising transgender care?
[/quote]

The scary part is that there are advocates of the teacher, counselor, etc. providing the "care" without even informing the parents.

[Istiblennius]

Gender affirming care includes a variety of options and the most significant options do require a prior series of steps. If the doctor in your weak sauce analogy failed to make an x-ray or went straight to amputation instead of first offering the appropriate care based on a thoughtful diagnosis and evidence, that would be a concern. And it would be of similar concern if gender affirming medical treatment took place without similar approach.

[marshwiggle]

Gender affirming care includes a variety of options and the most significant options do require a prior series of steps. If the doctor in your weak sauce analogy failed to make an x-ray or went straight to amputation instead of first offering the appropriate care based on a thoughtful diagnosis and evidence, that would be a concern. And it would be of similar concern if gender affirming medical treatment took place without similar approach.

"Gender-affirming" surgery is very unusual because it is not based on correcting any organ or system which is improperly functioning. It is surgery based on a psychological condition, namely, gender dysphoria.

[Wahoo Redux]

Can you find one factual example of a teacher, counselor, nurse, etc. calling up a parent of an 8 yo out of the blue and advising transgender care?

The scary part is that there are advocates of the teacher, counselor, etc. providing the "care" without even informing the parents.
[/quote]

Where has this happened?