[gobip]

"Mesdames et Messieurs" is inclusive. You've heard that for as long as you can remember.

"Statut : marié(e)" is also inclusive. Check your tax return.

The median "." for example "marié.e" is also inclusive and is probably what you're against. Please hate it right, we all use inclusive, even in English (ladies and gentlemen for example). Being inclusive is good, you're doing it too.

[throw_m239339]

> "Mesdames et Messieurs" is inclusive. You've heard that for as long as you can remember.

Oh so french was already "inclusive" then? LOL.

> The median "." for example "marié.e" is also inclusive

I don't care about "inclusivity", it's weasel word for intersectionalists. The "median ." isn't french language, it's unreadable when literred everywhere.

"l'écriture inclusive" is a canonical exemple of cultural vandalisme (and newspeak, absolutely nothing inclusive about that language, but intersectionality is first and foremost a war on language).

[gobip]

It was already inclusive, through these means, yes. This is the real "écriture inclusive".

I've seen your other contributions on this post and I think I'm done exchanging with you. You nitpicked just the right thing and forgot all about the rest of my comment. Have a nice day, you need some love.

[throw_m239339]

> I've seen your other contributions on this post and I think I'm done exchanging with you. You nitpicked just the right thing and forgot all about the rest of my comment. Have a nice day, you need some love.

"La réforme oui, la chienlit, non".

The french language was never "inclusive" and doesn't need to be, it's called "courtoisie". The default is the masculine gender, that's a grammatical rule, and listing feminine gender next to it is purely a matter of courtoisie.

There is no "inclusivity" problem with the french language because there is no "inclusivity" problem to begin with, only in the head of the people specialized in making grievances a business.

[master-lincoln]

I think you don't know what you are talking about.

Intersectionality is a framework where it is believed that for systemic issues it makes sense to not look at individual axis of oppression/empowerment (race, gender, ...), but to look for the combined individual effect (or something like that, apparently there is no consensus on the details)

Using "inclusive language" means that you use words to address the target audience in a way that all members feel approached. So e.g. just saying "Mesdames" would target a female only audience. If there would be males in the target group you would not have included them. It's not a "weasel word" for anything else.

> I don't care about "inclusivity"

So you would be fine if people would call you Madame (assuming you are a male)?

> The "median ." isn't french language, it's unreadable when literred everywhere.

There are similar discussions in other languages, but ultimately, language is evolving naturally and not by a standard body. The language is what people use to communicate. So you are free to dislike it and advocate against it, but saying it isn't french language is meaningless. Every change to a language was not part of the language before.

Yeah, it's advocating for changes on language (what you call war), because language determines what people think.

[throw_m239339]

> I think you don't know what you are talking about.

I think I'm simply not buying into that evil ideology. I know exactly what I'm talking about, I've seen the consequences of bolshevism already. "intersectionality" is no different, same old marxist garbage.

[master-lincoln]

You do not seem to want to engage in a fair discussion where arguments are exchanged. This debate culture will not help in convincing others about your view. Sorry you are so bitter about this...

[throw_m239339]

> You do not seem to want to engage in a fair discussion where arguments are exchanged. This debate culture will not help in convincing others about your view. Sorry you are so bitter about this...

You want a debate about the 'virtues' of communism? LOL...