Read on Twitter
Quick thread on 'inclusive language'.
Sample of recent of straight-faced 'woman' substitutions I've seen from various ostensibly serious organisations:
Menstruator
Chestfeeder
Bleeder
Person with (uterus/vagina/cervix/ovaries/womb)
Birthing parent
Sample of recent of straight-faced 'woman' substitutions I've seen from various ostensibly serious organisations:
Menstruator
Chestfeeder
Bleeder
Person with (uterus/vagina/cervix/ovaries/womb)
Birthing parent
That's nine different phrases for broadly the same group of people under different circumstances, in service of the inclusion of one group of people.
That group of people is a) quite small b) confident enough with the English language that this helps, rather than hinders, them.
That group of people is a) quite small b) confident enough with the English language that this helps, rather than hinders, them.
Other groups are available. If you've, say, recently moved to the UK you might have been a renowned poet in Farsi, say, but still be getting to grips with basic everyday English phrases, like "you wot," "pint of Stella please darlin'," and "leave it Terry it's not worth it"
For someone who is not a native (or at least confident) English speaker, having to know (or puzzle out) that each of these 9+ phrases does or does not apply to you is actively a hindrance to your engagement with whatever the topic is.
In healthcare, this is not just an inconvenience - it's a risk.
To be clear, language which alienates the first group is *also* a risk - any time any obstacle is placed between a person and their access to/understanding of a medical service, some degree of risk is introduced.
To be clear, language which alienates the first group is *also* a risk - any time any obstacle is placed between a person and their access to/understanding of a medical service, some degree of risk is introduced.
With that in mind, it's the wrong framing entirely to brand the 9+ as 'inclusive' language.
The question is not 'is this language inclusive', it's 'to whom is this language inclusive - and to whom is it *not*'.
The question is not 'is this language inclusive', it's 'to whom is this language inclusive - and to whom is it *not*'.
Once you have that in mind, it becomes clear that the real underlying question is whose inclusion is to be prioritised, and on what basis - for example, what are the relative changes to risk caused by the different approaches, what risks, and to whom?
You might recognise this as a straightforwardly social and political question, with a far broader range of stakeholders than is obvious from just calling one option 'inclusive' - people from all backgrounds can have, or develop, difficulties with a language.
Examples, off the top of my head:
- Children
- Non-native English speakers*
- People born with mental or linguistic impairments
- People who develop those through illness or injury
- Children
- Non-native English speakers*
- People born with mental or linguistic impairments
- People who develop those through illness or injury
(*Note here also that women in particular are more likely to be disadvantaged - there are plenty of other places in the world which discourage or even actively suppress women's literacy and general education, and this treatment sometimes continues into their new lives in the UK)
If you were being uncharitable, you might therefore say that calling one option 'inclusive' begs that broader question quite cynically, attempting to brush it under the carpet as though it has already been decided in favour of one group rather than the others.
If you were being charitable, you'd call it naïve and thoughtless.
It's not clear to me which of the two would be better.
It's not clear to me which of the two would be better.
