![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
These days, I don't have the patience or fortitude to do extensive genealogical research. On the other hand, I am endlessly fascinated by some of the terminology I see used in family histories. Things like:
Joe Blow was a child of natural birth
Jill Hill was born on the wrong side of the blanket
As modern-day readers, we probably understand what is meant and muse to ourselves: how quaint! We may reflect on how closed-minded earlier generations were. Then we congratulate ourselves on our wokeness at having mastered Equity Diversity & Inclusion 101.
It's true that the euphemisms we use to spare others - whether from hurt feelings, shame, embarrassment or more serious consequences like overt discrimination or ostracization - are very much governed by the era and cultural milieu in which we live. But what we may not always see is that we can get just as outraged and offended today about language usage with no malicious intent - it's just that today we are offended by different words and terms.
Take, for example, the word "queer", which some gays and lesbians embrace while others reject as an insult or slur. Or inadvertent misgendering or deadnaming. Even asking for a person's pronouns is a bit of a sticky wicket, in my opinion. I mean, if a person volunteers or chooses to provide them, that's fine. Personally, I'd prefer not to be asked in the first place. If someone addressed me as "Sir" or Mr. Blogcutter, I'd be a little surprised but I don't think I'd be either offended or flattered. Depending on the particular situation, I might or might not correct them.
But even when folks use the most up-to-date, woke-certified language, there is terminology I find misleading or depersonalizing at best, and mildly-to-moderately insulting at worst.
"Assigned Male at Birth" or"Assigned Female at Birth" implies, to me at least, that the doctor or midwife just flips a coin or uses a random X&Y generator to decide if the just-delivered babe is a boy or a girl, whereas in a majority of cases, there is actually no medical or otherwise specialized expertise needed to determine the baby's biological sex. Yes, mistakes can be made and ambiguities occasionally occur. And certainly there is no way (that I know of) of getting inside the infant's mind to determine their gender identity, any more than we can know if they will ultimately approve of the names that we as parents assign to them.
Then there's the whole range of words we use to describe a person's state of mental health or illness, some colloquial, some technical. The term "manic-depressive" has given way to the term "bi-polar" which I find far less descriptive or evocative - or at least, it's evocative of something other than what's intended. I picture some white conjoined bears living up in the Arctic. Or perhaps a new species of penguin or puffin which is native to both the Arctic and Antarctic?
Another pair of terms I hear a lot these days is "neurodiverse" vs. "neurotypical" (my Autocorrect feature recognizes these words so they must be right, right?) I guess to most of the medical experts, I'm probably "neurotypical". But is ANYBODY truly neurotypical? Is there such an animal? And isn't it human nature to want to be recognized for whatever our particular talents or personal qualities and assets may be?
I'm sure you can think of other examples. Wouldn't it be interesting to know what people of the 22nd or 23rd century will make of the language we use today?
Joe Blow was a child of natural birth
Jill Hill was born on the wrong side of the blanket
As modern-day readers, we probably understand what is meant and muse to ourselves: how quaint! We may reflect on how closed-minded earlier generations were. Then we congratulate ourselves on our wokeness at having mastered Equity Diversity & Inclusion 101.
It's true that the euphemisms we use to spare others - whether from hurt feelings, shame, embarrassment or more serious consequences like overt discrimination or ostracization - are very much governed by the era and cultural milieu in which we live. But what we may not always see is that we can get just as outraged and offended today about language usage with no malicious intent - it's just that today we are offended by different words and terms.
Take, for example, the word "queer", which some gays and lesbians embrace while others reject as an insult or slur. Or inadvertent misgendering or deadnaming. Even asking for a person's pronouns is a bit of a sticky wicket, in my opinion. I mean, if a person volunteers or chooses to provide them, that's fine. Personally, I'd prefer not to be asked in the first place. If someone addressed me as "Sir" or Mr. Blogcutter, I'd be a little surprised but I don't think I'd be either offended or flattered. Depending on the particular situation, I might or might not correct them.
But even when folks use the most up-to-date, woke-certified language, there is terminology I find misleading or depersonalizing at best, and mildly-to-moderately insulting at worst.
"Assigned Male at Birth" or"Assigned Female at Birth" implies, to me at least, that the doctor or midwife just flips a coin or uses a random X&Y generator to decide if the just-delivered babe is a boy or a girl, whereas in a majority of cases, there is actually no medical or otherwise specialized expertise needed to determine the baby's biological sex. Yes, mistakes can be made and ambiguities occasionally occur. And certainly there is no way (that I know of) of getting inside the infant's mind to determine their gender identity, any more than we can know if they will ultimately approve of the names that we as parents assign to them.
Then there's the whole range of words we use to describe a person's state of mental health or illness, some colloquial, some technical. The term "manic-depressive" has given way to the term "bi-polar" which I find far less descriptive or evocative - or at least, it's evocative of something other than what's intended. I picture some white conjoined bears living up in the Arctic. Or perhaps a new species of penguin or puffin which is native to both the Arctic and Antarctic?
Another pair of terms I hear a lot these days is "neurodiverse" vs. "neurotypical" (my Autocorrect feature recognizes these words so they must be right, right?) I guess to most of the medical experts, I'm probably "neurotypical". But is ANYBODY truly neurotypical? Is there such an animal? And isn't it human nature to want to be recognized for whatever our particular talents or personal qualities and assets may be?
I'm sure you can think of other examples. Wouldn't it be interesting to know what people of the 22nd or 23rd century will make of the language we use today?
