Quite so!Exactly. Hence why inclusive language works. It even includes gammons.
And thus not the same here - the TM accidentally excluded a group of people who should have been included in the address, while @Journeyman deliberately used a pejorative term that described a specific group of people.
I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge it's a pejorative term, but in context I think it does what it says on the tin. I was seeking to identify a body of opinion widely represented within the readership of the Daily Mail. Those opinions have been dominant in society for many years, and I think a lot of them deserve to be challenged, because they make life difficult for a lot of people. I'm talking about the sort of person who will quite happily drop terms like "poofter" or the n-word into casual conversation.
I know that objectively it isn't the best form for a discussion, but I'm not finding within myself any inclination to be troubled by it - for the exact same reasons as yours.
Haha, exactly. Given what some of these people are willing to call others, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.I know that objectively it isn't the best form for a discussion, but I'm not finding within myself any inclination to be troubled by it
So is continuing to use a turn of phrase when you know it can exclude some people.
But they were once considered acceptable. People can still be excluded by things that others consider acceptable.
But we're now aware that it causes issues for some people, and therefore should be willing to change it. Good intent or not, it's an increasingly obsolete term. If your intentions are good, you won't mind making a small change.
I think we're scrutinising and questioning things quite a lot here. While I generally agree with the opinion the person involved expressed here, you'll note I don't approve of the way they did it.
...but neither is it right to continue to do something that you know might be offensive, even if you think it's trivial.
Exactly. It might only directly benefit a very small number of people, but it has no derogatory effect on anyone else, and I'd question your motives if you find a conscious effort to include everyone offensive.
When choosing not to offend is so easy, I don't see why the opinion of the latter group mentioned really matters. There are many polite ways to address all passengers on a train that don't by omission exclude the non-binary. Very, very, very few people would even notice such inclusive language, let alone be offended by it, which can't be said for exclusionary language.
LGBT+ people are constantly accused of pushing an agenda or making their movement look bad for simply fighting for recognition and equal treatment. But if calling for inclusive language is ridiculous agenda-pushing, then I don't see how pushing for exclusionary language somehow isn't.
Does it matter? Non-gendered toilets make life a lot easier for some people. Yet another thing that makes some people needlessly lose their sh*t.
and they're also ladies (and will continue to be ladies when they stop being passengers)
As I've already mentioned, many women find the term "lady" to be archaic and objectionable. What people become when they cease to be passengers is irrelevant here - they were on a train.
I quite agree. However much I think the complainant has a point, it's been handled very badly.
Yup. I was in a museum with non-gendered toilets recently, basically a corridor with a number of cubicles opening off it, each containing a toilet and sink. An older couple found this massively offensive for some reason, and did so very loudly.
That's true. This is an issue that should've been taken to private messages but unfortunately wasn't (resulting in the above article posted and this Railforums thread). It's very easy to use inclusive language so it's not something that's likely to happen again.
Exactly, it's not difficult at all, and I'm sure it's probably standard procedure in most places these days.
No it isn’t. But there’s also nothing wrong with “ladies and gentlemen”. I don’t think I’d describe myself as a “gentleman”.
I'd say there's potentially more wrong with "ladies and gentlemen", for a small number of people, thus best practice should be to no longer use it.
So people are not allowed an opinion on the issue. No-one has the right not to be offended.
Agree completely.
Accusations of attention seeking are routinely used to silence or disregard LGBT+ and other minorities fighting for their right to be recognised as equals.
What "issue" are you having "an opinion" on? People's identities are non-negotiable. If you misgender someone you have no right to complain about them ignoring you because you went into a conversation forgetting basic human decency.
"Ladies and gentlemen" is still mainstream language and nothing wrong with that. People use archaic language everyday and if it offends you then tough. I get fed up with new fads in language which irritates me, and my wife gets fed up with people calling her "love" or "darling" but when it happens we just get on with the day. There is much more in the country to bother about than people using straightforward English language
