The words [Equity-language] guides recommend or reject are sometimes exactly the same, justified in nearly identical language.
…
Although the guides refer to language “evolving,” these changes are a revolution from above. They haven’t emerged organically from the shifting linguistic habits of large numbers of people.
…
Prison does not become a less brutal place by calling someone locked up in one a person experiencing the criminal-justice system.
…
The whole tendency of equity language is to blur the contours of hard, often unpleasant facts. This aversion to reality is its main appeal. Once you acquire the vocabulary, it’s actually easier to say people with limited financial resources than the poor.
This exactly. It’s not just about the euphemism treadmill as some people here are saying, it’s also about how the construction of the language or phrasing chosen makes you think of a person. For instance in medical documentation, "this is a 57 year old diabetic male who presents with… " just sounds and feels very dehumanizing compared to “this is a 57 year old man with a history of diabetes who presents with…” It gets across the same exact meaning, but a patient reading the first version could reasonably feel like they’re being reduced to just one thing instead of what was intended (to highlight that having diabetes is important background information for the story about the person to follow).
As for the euphemism treadmill aspects, we’ll never outrun that; language and meanings are always changing, and we can’t pretend it doesn’t. We’ll always need to be changing our language with time as language itself evolves if we want to have the same or similar meanings as before.
It’s certainly better to use language that affirms people’s humanity, but if a doctor were to use the first statement to describe me, my first thought wouldn’t be “my doctor didn’t use the right words, he must not see me as a human”.
And that’s where the disconnect is. There should be nothing wrong with describing a man who is diabetic as a “diabetic male”. It’s is accurate, and to the point. It is reductive, perhaps, but how is dehumanizing to describe someone as “male”? And describing someone as “diabetic” is perfectly fine as well if they are, in fact, diabetic and that plays a role in why they are seeing the doctor in the first place. Of course, their entire life is not defined by their diabetes, but their current medical visit may be.
Does every interaction have to be an affirmation of everyone’s life story? Or is it possible that, sometimes, being reductive is exactly what is called for, and we shouldn’t assume the worst in every interaction.
Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.
Being reductive can have disadvantages though, if you’re thinking of someone as “a diabetic” it can lead to cognitive traps and premature closure on diagonoses that may make someone miss important additional information or considerations. Medical records are also now immediately shared with patients, for better or worse, and it can sometimes be a shock to read. It may not be true for you, but many people can get a negative view of how they think their doctor must see them if the language in the notes isn’t careful, and it may harm a working physician-patient relationship. How people’s identities and diagnoses interact is complex to say the least, and can vary a lot between people.
I don’t think every interaction needs to be an affirmation of a life story or something elaborate, but I think there are times when it can be easy to lose the humanity in a situation with bad results. A little cognitive reminder can be a helpful piece in dehumanizing places like the medical system (especially in the medical system, in which most health care providers are striving not to be dehumanizing against a heavy current in that direction).
By a doctor, I very much want to be seen strictly as the biological organism that they have spent their life studying. The fact that there are very few doctors, and every person born on this earth will be a patient, means that a standard for unvarnished and concise language is morally praiseworthy in terms of its service of the greater good.
I guess my feeling is, there’s no good reason to get offended by the standard of language that the medical system operates in. There is an ocean of ill people who need help, and we’re not all special, in that sense.
A doctor who is led into a cognitive trap by seeing “diabetic” on a chart, is a bad doctor. I’m not sure small refinements of language are the remedy for that doctor’s deficits.
As for the euphemism treadmill aspects, we’ll never outrun that; language and meanings are always changing, and we can’t pretend it doesn’t. We’ll always need to be changing our language with time as language itself evolves if we want to have the same or similar meanings as before.
Yes, but as the author points out.
Although the guides refer to language “evolving,” these changes are a revolution from above. They haven’t emerged organically from the shifting linguistic habits of large numbers of people.
Something has changed recently where the language change has been too top down, and seemingly more about creating pleasant sounding euphemisms that either mean the same thing or obfuscate the meaning to make the term less useful.
I’m in agreement with you there, it shouldn’t be something to obfuscate the meaning. It should be about being more precise with your meaning if anything, about being more aware of what your word or phrasing choice may imply. But there’s always going to have to be change or people will end up saying things they didn’t mean if they refuse to acknowledge a word has changed over time or if different words may carry different meanings for different people.
I’m skeptical of the author’s argument that this is some new phenomena though. I’m also skeptical of the idea that if you’re being more careful and precise in your language it means you’re just doing it to ignore real problems. Not saying no one has ever done that before. But our brains think with language, so the language we use matters and affects ourselves as much as others, in my opinion. It’s not something that should be used in place of fixing problems, but something that could potentially help people think in that direction.
I think the new phenomenon is discussed:
Equity-language guides are proliferating among some of the country’s leading institutions, particularly nonprofits. The American Cancer Society has one. So do the American Heart Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Recreation and Park Association, the Columbia University School of Professional Studies, and the University of Washington. The words these guides recommend or reject are sometimes exactly the same, justified in nearly identical language. This is because most of the guides draw on the same sources from activist organizations: A Progressive’s Style Guide, the Racial Equity Tools glossary, and a couple of others. The guides also cite one another.
It’s calling out that a handful of sources that are cited in profession specific style guides that have referential loops, and are managed by a small portion of people. Based on the names, of these sources, is the activist nature appropriate for general style guides, or is it a dangerous tool of politicization of language? I identify as a leftist and progressive, but I don’t think partisan orgs with this much influence and questionable methodology should set standards. The Progressive’s Style Guide links websites like this as sources ( which is basically one journalist’s opinion blog post): https://grist.org/climate-energy/how-to-write-about-climate-pull-up-a-barstool/
Or this table from the source. How is “genderfuck” a professionally acceptable term, but “sexual preference” a taboo. Or slut or slut shaming is allowed, but only in certain context? Or we can’t talk about metaphors of spirit animal since that is appropriation, but for gender two spirit is okay to appropriate? How does a lay person navigate this minefield of discourse without a masters degree and staying up on style guide updates?
Or this page on discussing Israel. Personal politics aside, this style guide has an obvious political agenda, right?
