There's nothing wrong at all with using gender neutral language.
But if you're going to quote a woman who was very specifically talking about women and the challenges women face in a sexist society, don't neutralize her words.
But if you're going to quote a woman who was very specifically talking about women and the challenges women face in a sexist society, don't neutralize her words.
https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1439259891064004610
For the same reason, if I were quoting a late trans rights pioneer who was specifically talking about trans issues, I wouldn't dare replace "trans people" in a quote of theirs with, "[people]" for the purpose of being more inclusive to non-binary people.
Being more inclusive is good, yet I'm wary of changing other people's meanings and contexts generally (I mean, I'm a journalist).
The good news is that I can be more inclusive in my own language without doing that.
The good news is that I can be more inclusive in my own language without doing that.
That said, if you're mad about the ACLU editing RBG's quote but dont care about the attacks on trans kids' rights and dignity in state legislatures (which has far worse repercussions on living people), then perhaps reflection is in order? mississippifreepress.org/10100/lives-of…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
