Apart from that last one, how are these not labelling people with their gender identity or sexuality? If they're referring to a gay man or gay men, that absolutely is labelling people with their...
We do not label people with their gender identity or sexuality. Instead we say:
trans woman
trans man
lesbian woman
gay man
men who have sex with men
Apart from that last one, how are these not labelling people with their gender identity or sexuality? If they're referring to a gay man or gay men, that absolutely is labelling people with their sexuality.
I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Sometimes you need to know someone's sexuality, such as when discussing strategies to reduce health issues in certain populations, or identifying certain groups at higher or lower risk of certain diseases.
But it seems quite a stretch to say that referring to a "gay man" is somehow not labelling his sexuality.
There's some amazing double-think here. "We're using the phrase 'gay man' but that doesn't label someone's sexuality."
The only way I could parse that is if it's saying to always use those identifiers as adjectives rather than nouns: "a lesbian woman" rather than "a lesbian". I'm not sure that's what they meant by...
The only way I could parse that is if it's saying to always use those identifiers as adjectives rather than nouns: "a lesbian woman" rather than "a lesbian". I'm not sure that's what they meant by "labelling", but it's the only thing I could think of that made sense. At best, it's hardly clear language for a style guide, of all places, to be using.
Incidentally, it also made me realise that saying "a lesbian" is something that might still slip into modern prose while "a gay" would either be archaic (with a negative undertone) or ironic. Whether or not there's more to read into that, I don't know.
Interesting point. Maybe because of it's relationship to a place? Just like saying somebody is "An Italian" wouldn't be offensive (unless there was other context).
Incidentally, it also made me realise that saying "a lesbian" is something that might still slip into modern prose while "a gay" would either be archaic (with a negative undertone) or ironic. Whether or not there's more to read into that, I don't know.
Interesting point. Maybe because of it's relationship to a place? Just like saying somebody is "An Italian" wouldn't be offensive (unless there was other context).
That's for sure! I'm pretty sure I've seen people use "a gay" and "the gays" non-ironically. I believe it has already slipped into modern usage.
At best, it's hardly clear language for a style guide, of all places, to be using.
That's for sure!
it also made me realise that saying "a lesbian" is something that might still slip into modern prose while "a gay" would either be archaic (with a negative undertone) or ironic.
I'm pretty sure I've seen people use "a gay" and "the gays" non-ironically. I believe it has already slipped into modern usage.
I honestly think they messed that part up in some rewrite? It sounds – as in the other categories – like they wanted to say "we do not use these label unless relevant to the information" but...
I honestly think they messed that part up in some rewrite? It sounds – as in the other categories – like they wanted to say "we do not use these label unless relevant to the information" but forgot the last part. The "instead" makes no sense unless "label" means something different, now.
Ironically they are both Americanisms but they are banning one and are promoting the other. In the UK for as long as i can remember we've used "disabled" as the general and legal term. Handicapped...
Ironically they are both Americanisms but they are banning one and are promoting the other.
In the UK for as long as i can remember we've used "disabled" as the general and legal term. Handicapped comes across as a bit crass and, well, american. You'd never hear "handicapped parking spot" they are "disabled spots"
"Diabetic person" is going against the "people first" languages that is in vogue in america at the moment. It is "person with diabetes" or a "person with autism" so as not to put the disability first because that isn't the disabled persons identity. I thought that "identity first" was more popular over here but maybe (hopefully) the NHS did a survey or study to find out what was preferred.
As far as there can be an underlying technical logic to something as subjective and delicate as this, my understanding is that "disability" is considered to be a purely descriptive term: an...
As far as there can be an underlying technical logic to something as subjective and delicate as this, my understanding is that "disability" is considered to be a purely descriptive term: an ability is absent, nothing further is implied.
A "handicap", on the other hand, is explicitly something that acts as an obstacle or impediment.
Of course, you're entirely right in saying that what really matters is how your audience interprets the terms.
Apart from that last one, how are these not labelling people with their gender identity or sexuality? If they're referring to a gay man or gay men, that absolutely is labelling people with their sexuality.
I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Sometimes you need to know someone's sexuality, such as when discussing strategies to reduce health issues in certain populations, or identifying certain groups at higher or lower risk of certain diseases.
But it seems quite a stretch to say that referring to a "gay man" is somehow not labelling his sexuality.
There's some amazing double-think here. "We're using the phrase 'gay man' but that doesn't label someone's sexuality."
The only way I could parse that is if it's saying to always use those identifiers as adjectives rather than nouns: "a lesbian woman" rather than "a lesbian". I'm not sure that's what they meant by "labelling", but it's the only thing I could think of that made sense. At best, it's hardly clear language for a style guide, of all places, to be using.
Incidentally, it also made me realise that saying "a lesbian" is something that might still slip into modern prose while "a gay" would either be archaic (with a negative undertone) or ironic. Whether or not there's more to read into that, I don't know.
Interesting point. Maybe because of it's relationship to a place? Just like saying somebody is "An Italian" wouldn't be offensive (unless there was other context).
That's for sure!
I'm pretty sure I've seen people use "a gay" and "the gays" non-ironically. I believe it has already slipped into modern usage.
I honestly think they messed that part up in some rewrite? It sounds – as in the other categories – like they wanted to say "we do not use these label unless relevant to the information" but forgot the last part. The "instead" makes no sense unless "label" means something different, now.
The first part covers stuff I never heard of. "Handicapped" is non-inclusive language, now? "Diabetic person" is bad?
Ironically they are both Americanisms but they are banning one and are promoting the other.
In the UK for as long as i can remember we've used "disabled" as the general and legal term. Handicapped comes across as a bit crass and, well, american. You'd never hear "handicapped parking spot" they are "disabled spots"
"Diabetic person" is going against the "people first" languages that is in vogue in america at the moment. It is "person with diabetes" or a "person with autism" so as not to put the disability first because that isn't the disabled persons identity. I thought that "identity first" was more popular over here but maybe (hopefully) the NHS did a survey or study to find out what was preferred.
To me, an American, "disabled spots" sounds crass. Know your audience, I guess.
As far as there can be an underlying technical logic to something as subjective and delicate as this, my understanding is that "disability" is considered to be a purely descriptive term: an ability is absent, nothing further is implied.
A "handicap", on the other hand, is explicitly something that acts as an obstacle or impediment.
Of course, you're entirely right in saying that what really matters is how your audience interprets the terms.