Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Imagine that in the United States, a piece of legislation is proposed that…
Imagine that in the United States, a piece of legislation is proposed that would require all official documents and public statements follow the guidelines for inclusive language proposed in the APA guide.
Team A
-
Possible counterargument: Well, they are just words, no? What difference does it make?
-
-
Possible conflicts arising from the legislation are worth the risk, because it would help to include marginalized people.
-
Team B
The idea in general is good, but the execution is poor
-
-
Possible counterargument: we should eliminate the aspects of our language that cause more harm than good. But the difference between the old language and the new language is minimal; we don't really see the point of making such a big change.
-
Team C;
We want to maintain the integrity of culture, AND make it so that people are included rather than excluded
We think it's OK to use the replacement language, but it could cause exasperation in users of the language
Our proposal: we should implement this inclusive language in public documents and other things that already make use of complex language -- those changes would not be so significant. But in documents accessible to the public, the suggested alternatives could be more complicated to implement, so the terms to avoid should be avoided, but replace the suggestions with other suggestions
Response from Team A:
Hasn't APA already tried tor replace the terms to avoid with the simplest and best possible alternatives?
Response from Team C;
Yeah but we can do better. In particular, it can be made more accessible to the general public -- something that fits common language.