But isn't your restriction of my language and how I refer to the people I love pretty much the opposite of "inclusion"?
What if my wife would prefer if I referred to her as my "wife" instead of as a generic, faceless "partner"? By insisting that I refer to her as a genderless "partner", you are failing to respect her chosen pronoun.
This is almost certainly for product or marketing materials, and not for you talking about your personal relationships. That is Okta should not talk about building a security tool for you and your wife to use, but instead for you and your partner to use.
Because I have no clue who your partner is (or really if you have one) so I shouldn't assume until I have that information. Note that the words in the example are all plural, presumably referring to multiple other peoples' partners.
Oh, I see what you are saying. I can definitely get behind the use of gender neutral language in product and marketing materials. That part makes sense anyways.
Curious about the context here - is the guidance page suggesting how to refer to your own relationships, or when referring to an abstract group of relationships?
What if my wife would prefer if I referred to her as my "wife" instead of as a generic, faceless "partner"? By insisting that I refer to her as a genderless "partner", you are failing to respect her chosen pronoun.