Inclusive language

Inclusive language is a language style that seeks to avoid expressions that its proponents perceive as expressing or implying ideas that are sexist, racist, or otherwise biased, prejudiced, or insulting to particular group(s) of people; and instead uses language intended by its proponents to avoid offense and fulfill the ideals of egalitarianism, social inclusion and equity. Its aim is bias-free communication, that attempts to be equally inclusive of people of all ethnicities, gender identities, sexual orientations, religious affiliations, abilities, and ages by communicating in a way that makes no assumptions about the receiver of such communication.
Its supporters argue that language is often used to perpetuate and spread prejudice and that creating intention around using inclusive language can help create more productive, safe, and profitable organizations and societies. The term "political correctness" is sometimes used to refer to this practice, either as a neutral description by supporters, by commentators in general, or with negative connotations by its opponents. Use of gender-neutral terminology has been controversial in languages where "all grammar is gendered", such as Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, and German; some areas have banned its use.
Inclusive language is usually adopted by following a language guide that lists words and expression not to use and substitutes for them. Language guides are used by many organizations, especially non-profits (at least in the United States).
An important part of communicating in a bias-free manner is by making sure to engaging in meaningful conversations using bias-free language. The writer's word choice is vital in terms of effectively communicating in ways that do not offend the receiver. According to Locker, "Bias-free language is language that is sensitive to people's sex, race, age, physical condition and many other categories. Bias-free language does not discriminate and therefore includes all readers in a fair and friendly manner."
Bias exists everywhere, even if it is not always acknowledged. If a verbal or written communication includes any of the following, it may be biased:
These sources should be questioned for their bias because it could impact their validity in their points. Therefore, avoiding bias in all communication will ensure that the point is crystal clear and the speaker is trusted.
In French, a reference to a mixed-gender group of friends would traditionally be written as "amis", but a gender-neutral variation changed its spelling to "ami·e·s." However, in May 2021, the Minister for Education wrote to schools across the country to say that "so-called 'inclusive' writing should be avoided, which notably uses the midpoint to simultaneously reveal the feminine and masculine forms of a word used in the masculine when it is used in a generic sense."
As of June 2022, the city government of Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina, banned teachers "from using any gender-neutral words during class and in communications with parents", on the grounds that it "violated the rules of Spanish and stymied students' reading comprehension". At least five organizations, "a mix of gay rights and civil rights groups", have filed lawsuits seeking to overturn" the ruling. The governor of Buenos Aires province, Axel Kicillof, rejected the authority of the Royal Spanish Academy, citing the Argentine War of Independence as a reason. Darío Villanueva Prieto, from the RAE, clarified that the RAE does not use the slang of Spanish language from the Iberian peninsula, but that it receives input from all countries in the world where the language is spoken.
In December 2021, Uruguay's public education agency issued a memo to limit use of inclusive language.
Organizations in the U.S. with equity language guides include The Sierra Club, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Medical Association, National Recreation and Park Association, Columbia University School of Professional Studies, University of Washington. According to George Packer, most of these guides are based on other guides such as A Progressive's Style Guide, the Racial Equity Tools glossary, and others.
Several tech companies promotes or provide inclusive language guides: Google, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Cisco Talos, SAP.
Inclusive language in English, at least in the United States, goes well beyond gender inclusivity, the following with varying levels or usage.
Political correctness and inclusive language both focus on attempting to use neutral terms and expressions to influence psychological and social forces to combat prejudices, stereotypes, etc. However, what may be, and in many cases already has, happened is that while some markets and audiences embrace the new language, others react against it (an example being the alleged "War on Christmas"). Whether businesses and organizations embrace or reject the language, they risk alienating the opposing side. Thus inclusive language has become part of "culture wars".
Journalist George Packer makes a number of criticisms of inclusive language as used in the U.S.
Replacing vivid language with jargon, while failing to deliver on its goal of creating empathy
Packer compares a passage from Behind the Beautiful Forevers by Katherine Boo with the same text rewritten in inclusive language, and asks if equity language does "what it claims to do" -- i.e. create more empathy for Sita and her struggles than Boo does in her language use.
Packer notes that Boo's book was written in 2012 before the new language guidelines emerged, and worries what the new rules will and are doing to good writing. "Shelf upon shelf of great writing might go the way of 'blind' and 'urban'" (both forbidden in language guideline). "Open Light in August or Invisible Man to any page and see how little would survive."
And not only do the changes come without any transparent discussion, they come "with a suddenness and frequency that keep the novitiate off-balance".
From a jumping-off point of a The Lancet quote specifying "bodies with vaginas have been neglected" rather than "cisgender women," a NLM study claims that rather than mere elaboration to specify a subset of women in order to be more accommodating of people who identify as transgender, this is "desexing language when describing female reproduction" and represents the broader "avoidance of sexed terms" such as "mothers." Hence, engaging in language alteration when the sex of the person is relevant risks "decreasing overall inclusivity; dehumanizing; including people who should be excluded; being imprecise, inaccurate or misleading; and disembodying and undermining breastfeeding."