Inclusive language training
Discussion
I've worked for my employer for 25 years in a public facing role where I'm in contact with members of the public every day. My employers are now putting us all through 'Inclusive Language' training and they've just sent me a pre-read....
Apparently we can't refer to someone who is diabetic as 'diabetic', instead we have to refer to them as a 'person with diabetes'. Has it really come to this? Other such nonsensical words and phrases also have to be used/avoided. Someone I know who is a police officer tells me they have also had to do Inclusive Language training, so maybe it's a public sector thing?
I just hope I'm never in a situation where a 'person with diabetes' needs me to give first aid or phone for an ambulance. What if I was to forget and tell the ambulance crew that the casualty was diabetic? Would I the casualty be upset? What will they think of me?
Apparently we can't refer to someone who is diabetic as 'diabetic', instead we have to refer to them as a 'person with diabetes'. Has it really come to this? Other such nonsensical words and phrases also have to be used/avoided. Someone I know who is a police officer tells me they have also had to do Inclusive Language training, so maybe it's a public sector thing?
I just hope I'm never in a situation where a 'person with diabetes' needs me to give first aid or phone for an ambulance. What if I was to forget and tell the ambulance crew that the casualty was diabetic? Would I the casualty be upset? What will they think of me?
Edited by Big Stevie on Thursday 19th January 16:47
Language by its very definition is a system of conventional spoken, manual (signed), or written symbols by means of which human beings, as members of a social group and participants in its culture, express themselves. Therefore by saying that you need training in it to modify it to someone else's arbitrary ideals is restricting your human right to express yourself in your own way. Therefore sue for them discrimination and ring the Daily Mail immediately.
Or tell them to Foxtrot Oscar, its probably easier.
Or tell them to Foxtrot Oscar, its probably easier.
We're not public sector but we're getting pushed by our larger customers to make sure our contracts/proposals etc all use inclusive language. As we're a cyber security company some stuff is easier than others, blacklist/whitelist can become block/allow, but references to the cyber "kill" chain are a bit trickier. Most of us think it's a bit of a joke and can't be arsed/will go along with it for an easy life, but there's a few really onboard with it, generally the same mob that are f*cking up the ESG policies.
The pre read instructs the reader not to use the word ‘darks’ when referring to black people and to consider terms such as ‘black Caribbean’ etc instead.
What’s embarrassing and insulting is to even consider that anyone in my employment would use the word ‘darks’ let alone to say it when at work and speaking to the public.
By trying to teach us not to insult anyone, the whole process is insulting to us employees. It feels like one step away from ‘please don’t use the N or the P word’ for heavens sake.
What’s embarrassing and insulting is to even consider that anyone in my employment would use the word ‘darks’ let alone to say it when at work and speaking to the public.
By trying to teach us not to insult anyone, the whole process is insulting to us employees. It feels like one step away from ‘please don’t use the N or the P word’ for heavens sake.
not good news for most of the Croatian football team eitherI agree with the move in principle though I admit that in some cases it sounds bit trivial. In other instances I think the idea makes more sense eg a person with a disability rather than a "Disabled person" which as another PHer has pointed out labels them as if that fact defines them.
As I said, I like the idea in principle because it teaches good habits when speaking to people and about how we think of others.
As I said, I like the idea in principle because it teaches good habits when speaking to people and about how we think of others.
Randy Winkman said:
I agree with the move in principle though I admit that in some cases it sounds bit trivial. In other instances I think the idea makes more sense eg a person with a disability rather than a "Disabled person" which as another PHer has pointed out labels them as if that fact defines them.
PHer? 
Person on PH, please.Rumdoodle said:
Randy Winkman said:
I agree with the move in principle though I admit that in some cases it sounds bit trivial. In other instances I think the idea makes more sense eg a person with a disability rather than a "Disabled person" which as another PHer has pointed out labels them as if that fact defines them.
PHer? Person on PH, please.
M22s said:
Voldemort said:
Big Stevie said:
Apparently…
‘He is diabetic’ - isn’t allowed
‘He is a person with diabetes’ - isn’t allowed
‘They are a person with diabetes’ - is allowed.
Surely 'fat ‘He is diabetic’ - isn’t allowed
‘He is a person with diabetes’ - isn’t allowed
‘They are a person with diabetes’ - is allowed.
' is both gender neutral and indicative of having diabetes
Ironically though, they've probably just proved why so many companies are now having to introduce some of these measures
Type 1 here - not my choice - cheers family biology - and personally the he / she / they are thing as referenced by the OP doesn't bother me - just pointing out i'm not a fat c--t therefore ruining Voldemort's reference
Edited by AlexRS2782 on Thursday 19th January 20:35
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff