It will be a beautiful world when everyone speaks like an HR memo.

These language guides are always broken into four ridiculous categories of phrases.

1. Don’t call people racial slurs like ***** or **** or even **** with a **** and cheese. Because professors at Stanford need to be reminded of this.

2. Instead of this word used by an in-group to define themselves, use this other word a cabal of business moguls created. I’m disabled and the revolving door of sanitized euphemisms for disability is ridiculous. No, I am not and never will be handicapable.

3. Words that you really need to strain to find problems with. No, that’s not the etymology of picnic. Crowbar and buck don’t have origins in slavery either. Brown bag refers to brown paper bags (surprise) and the racism connection is tenuous. Though I’m maybe other people have stronger feelings about this.

4. Sanitized euphemisms for things which are bad. Don’t whitewash homelessness or poverty. By turning it into ‘unhoused’ or ‘living without a house’ makes it clean when this is a condition that there needs to be real societal change on. Changing it to something cute and sweet is disgusting and sweeps the real systemic issues under the rug. Also they should not be called ‘The Forsaken.’

Finally, I think it’s funny and a little pretentious that these inclusive language guides are so focused on prescriptive language when so many marginalized groups (Underserved? Groups of marginalization?) have separate dialects and modes of speech. Which one do you want, sanitized language or to get out and start telling oppressed groups what to say?