The Purpose Of Inclusive Language

Inclusive language is a dynamic set of guidelines allegedly aimed towards promoting what academics consider to be  “inclusiveness” in daily life through respectful and non-offensive word choices. This may look like a trivial concept, however, it fails to make any scientific sense. 

These guidelines have their roots in academia, specifically from the guidelines for nonsexist usage developed by the Committee on the Status of Women in Linguistics in 1996. While the intention was to promote equality and inclusiveness through respectful language, the actual implementation and interpretation of these guidelines may vary and lead to conflicting views on the role of language in communication.

Unfortunately, they fail to take into account that language is just a small piece of the puzzle of what we consider to be the art of communication, with tone, body language, and context being far more significant while words play only a small portion. Despite this, inclusive language has continued to be pushed especially in corporate and academic circles, leading to valid questions about the arbitrary nature of deeming certain words as ‘bad’ without considering the context. 

We can conclude that this type of ‘language’ is not ‘grassroots’—it does not evolve naturally. Instead, it is artificially imposed from a top-down hierarchical structure, originating in academia and big business.

The implementation of inclusive language guidelines is often done by an individual in a position of authority, such as a teacher, who dictates to students which words they can or cannot use. This can lead to situations where students are expected to use language that may make it difficult for them to express their actual intentions and ideas. In such cases, the authority figure’s interpretation of the guidelines may override reality, leading to a focus on blind obedience rather than a consideration of cultural and individual perspectives.

The example of the word ‘LatinX’ illustrates how the push for inclusive language can disregard the reality of cultural perspectives and experiences. Although many members of the Latin community find the word offensive and bothersome, proponents of inclusive language continue to promote its use without considering this perspective. This highlights a disregard for reality and a focus on blind obedience to authority in the implementation of inclusive language guidelines.

Another example is the attempt to ban the word America. Stanford University claims that it should not be used because the ‘term’ “often refers to people from the United States only, thereby insinuating that the US is the most important country in the Americas (which is made up of 42 countries).” But even more so, in this line of thinking It's important to acknowledge the diversity of the Americas, made up of 42 countries, each with its own unique culture and history. The term ‘America’ often perpetuates the notion that the United States is the most significant nation, overlooking the significance of the other 41 countries. In other words, all countries are just as important as the one you’re paying tax money to, so don’t complain when your government sends another billion in foreign aid somewhere,

Besides restricting the way people think by forcing them to use only specific terms, inclusive language also actively promotes and encourages hatred. It splits people into an in-group and out-group mentality. Those who are “decent people” and care about marginalised communities and use the language, and those who do not are actively hurting people for refusing to speak the speech.

As such, students who are restricted by inclusive language have a subconscious bias and feeling of loathing towards individuals who are free to express their thoughts and ideas because they see them as unchained and able to think outside the box, while they feel like a ‘chained dog’ unable to be free and exist without commands from their ‘owner’. This creates a sense of jealousy and anger towards those who are perceived to be free, and the students are taught to recognise and dominate those who do not embrace the ‘woke’ ideology.

Recently, a New York Times poll shows that a high percentage of the population is aware of the words inclusive language is trying to push but they are rejecting many of them. For example, the term chestfeeding can be found in many publications and is even present on government websites. But the NYT poll shows that 90 per cent of people say they will never use this word followed by the previously mentioned example ‘LatinX’.

It begs the question if these words are so unpopular, does it show inclusive language is failing to achieve its purpose?

The answer is of course no because the actual purpose is not the stated one. Instead, it is to force a student through peer pressure to just accept whatever reality the ‘expert’ is telling him to accept. It frustrates the student and makes him unable to think for himself as his ideas are most likely racist and evil and to just accept the thinking of the expert instead which is good just, and progressive. And once you start accepting words you don’t want to use as part of your lexicon, then it is very easy to start accepting ideas that aren’t yours and be manipulated by people who do not care about you.

As such, it is also important to consider the potential for manipulation and control through inclusive language. When individuals are pressured to conform to a certain language, it can be easy for them to accept ideas and beliefs that align with that language without critically evaluating them. This is precisely the point of why it’s being pushed and why it sounds so ridiculous compared to the way normal people speak.

Codrin Stavri is a Romanian persecuted for trying to put smiles on people's faces. Took over This Week in Stupid (TWIS)

Follow RomanianTVee on YouTube.