“Men with prostate cancer?” v. “People with prostate cancer?” By Howard Wolinsky The Active Surveillor got a big reaction to the blog post on whether we should drop “men with prostate cancer” and refer to “people with prostate cancer” or “patients with prostate cancer” to be inclusive of transgender women, an admittedly small group that tests our thinking and boundaries.
Nothing wrong with 'pregnant people' either, depending upon the sentence, I guess.. It covers anyone pregnant, which is its purpose, and is obviously accurate.
if we reject inclusive but objectively accurate terms, will we then argue for more of our 'own' narrower categorizations, (like we somewhat did in bygone years) by promoting descriptions such as 'pregnant girls' or 'pregnant ladies' or 'pregnant damsels,' etc.
Word usage changes all the time. When it does so for reasons which only benefits others, while remaining accurate, why would we not embrace it?
If 'people' in some cases does sound redundant, then something like 'the pregnant,' 'those who are pregnant,' etc. would be an equally good solution, and in some cases even better, if it flows better in a particular sentence and does not pick on others..
Often there are multiple accurate and objective ways of solving language questions.
Makes sense. At first, I was more comfortable with patients with prostate cancer. People could work.But it seems like "pregnant people," which seems redundant. HW
So it seems to come down to a conflict over our perceptions of reality and the recognition that reality, i.e. the world, is constantly changing. There is no evidence that will hold up in the light of rational examination that there is "the God-given definition of male and female." This is a social construct. And what happens if one rejects the idea of "God"? The validity of the construct is further undermined, if not entirely invalidated. Moreover, atheism and agnosticism have no absolute connection with conservative or liberal political attitudes or ideologies. So let us talk in realistic terms that all people can use--politically or ideologically neutral--when we discuss gender related issues. ACG
Nothing wrong with 'pregnant people' either, depending upon the sentence, I guess.. It covers anyone pregnant, which is its purpose, and is obviously accurate.
if we reject inclusive but objectively accurate terms, will we then argue for more of our 'own' narrower categorizations, (like we somewhat did in bygone years) by promoting descriptions such as 'pregnant girls' or 'pregnant ladies' or 'pregnant damsels,' etc.
Word usage changes all the time. When it does so for reasons which only benefits others, while remaining accurate, why would we not embrace it?
If 'people' in some cases does sound redundant, then something like 'the pregnant,' 'those who are pregnant,' etc. would be an equally good solution, and in some cases even better, if it flows better in a particular sentence and does not pick on others..
Often there are multiple accurate and objective ways of solving language questions.
Don't fall for the right's trick of categorizing things they don't like as 'woke.'
They know 'woke' is a trigger word; they've made it that way. Then they use it to set up a 'false premise' argument.
'People' is preferred because it's objectively accurate, not because it's 'woke' or promotes an ideology.
No one can argue that 'people' is inaccurate.
Greater accuracy is always preferred.
Makes sense. At first, I was more comfortable with patients with prostate cancer. People could work.But it seems like "pregnant people," which seems redundant. HW
So it seems to come down to a conflict over our perceptions of reality and the recognition that reality, i.e. the world, is constantly changing. There is no evidence that will hold up in the light of rational examination that there is "the God-given definition of male and female." This is a social construct. And what happens if one rejects the idea of "God"? The validity of the construct is further undermined, if not entirely invalidated. Moreover, atheism and agnosticism have no absolute connection with conservative or liberal political attitudes or ideologies. So let us talk in realistic terms that all people can use--politically or ideologically neutral--when we discuss gender related issues. ACG
Thanks for sharing your views, Allan. Howard