[zaptheimpaler]

"seems to be good practice" for who? people who enjoy policing language, maybe. some people just want to express themselves without hypervigilantly monitoring every single word they say, for anything that could potentially offend anyone.

[jacalata]

People who care about the effect their words have on other people.

[zaptheimpaler]

And what of the effect suppressing/policing speech has on society and wellbeing? Believe it or not, censoring yourself and having to be in a heightened state of alertness with every word you say, against a litany of possible ways someone might take offense also has a negative effect on people.

[jacalata]

It's funny, I don't experience that "heightened state of alertness" at all. Maybe the onus should be on those people who have no way to know if what they say could be offensive to get a clue and learn about the world?

[zaptheimpaler]

Great, diversity and inclusion for everyone! (except anyone who doesn't agree with you, or anyone with poor social skills - fuck em). Business as usual. You know there are plenty of people, women included, who AREN'T offended at all by the term "guys" to refer to people.

And tomorrow when inclusion for neurodiversity/autism becomes the next social cause, you can talk about how you value diversity SO MUCH, all the while telling them to "get a clue" when their "diversity" manifests itself.

[jacalata]

In my experience, autistic people are far less likely to offend people than charismatic "leader types", mostly because they are willing to learn and don't just blow off feedback with some bullshit about having the right to be offensive. Don't use them as a shield. And yes - people who don't agree on the value of inclusion cannot be included without destroying the inclusivity. Popper, paradox of intolerance, etc.

[zaptheimpaler]

Bullshit shallow understanding of autism. The people from your experience are people who are clearly autistic, enough so you know that they are, and hence get some leeway. The majority of them are not so obvious, whom you will gladly burn at the stake for saying the wrong things.

Even besides that, this extremist view of "if saying X offends Y, we must ban saying X" is bullshit. If you are offended by the use of gendered pronouns as a 0.1% who does not fall into male/female, tough shit. Its not used out of some hatred towards non-binary people, its simply a matter of convenience. You are talking about "inclusivity", but arguing over which goddamn pronoun to use.. there are real problems to solve re: inclusivity.

Ands its great that tiptoeing around gendered pronouns is easy for you, it might not be so easy for people who don't speak English well. I will be "inclusive" of them by assuming good intentions rather than assuming they are trans-hating assholes simply because they used a "he" instead of a "they".

Anyways, great job fighting for inclusion via nitpicking pronouns. Rosa Parks would be pumped knowing all it takes to bring about racial equality is to get the slaveowners to stop saying the N-word.