Microsoft Word will change your words to be 'gender inclusive'

[SocksKnitter]

Not on my devices it won't.

www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/05/07/microsoft-word-will-change-words-gender-inclusive/

It is going to suggest ways to shorten sentences, too. But I do not want to be brief. Brevity is not always desirable. So I shall ignore it! Just as I ignore its suggestions to chsnge 'which' to 'that' and to stop using the passive voice. I already use terms like 'police officer', but I am unlikely to write them down anyway.

Shortening sentences would have really pissed me off in Uni when I was trying to reach those word counts for essays!

It is going to suggest ways to shorten sentences, too. But I do not want to be brief. Brevity is not always desirable. So I shall ignore it! Just as I ignore its suggestions to chsnge 'which' to 'that' and to stop using the passive voice. I already use terms like 'police officer', but I am unlikely to write them down anyway.

TL;DR

Users of the new Microsoft Word feature could see suggestions to change “policeman” to “police officer”, for example.

I think by 'gender inclusive' they mean 'not sexist'.

That seems just another step to far, not so much about being gender neutral but the monitoring and correction of what you write.

But word doesn't know the difference between advice and advise (feck off you little purple line) so I am not holding out much hope for this.

At least one of my spell checkers already tells me that "transwoman" should be "trans woman".

At least one of my spell checkers already tells me that "transwoman" should be "trans woman".

I know. I do my bit by adding the word "transwoman" to every spellcheck dictionary I come across.

What was that language in that book that shortened sentences and rewrote things?
I think it was Newspeak.
Double plus good.

Just as I ignore its suggestions to chsnge 'which' to 'that' and to stop using the passive voice

Those are soooooo annoying.

Every single time I type the word 'functioning' in a text, my (also Microsoft) phone suggests the next word that I might be about to type. It predicts, in order:

1. as
2. of
3. in
4. and
5. vaginas

It does skew suggestions based on previous usage, but I can categorically state that, whilst I most probably have used that word in the past followed by each of numbers 1-4, I have never had the cause or inclination to send anybody a message regarding 'functioning vaginas'.

Clutching at straws here, but even in the event that I were a transwoman discussing TMI about my personal experience, I still can't imagine why I'd be referring to them in the plural.

Just why?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

What was that language in that book that shortened sentences and rewrote things?
I think it was Newspeak.
Double plus good.

What on earth do you mean about seeing this in some book? This is the way it always has been and always will be. Until it changes, of course....

My phone also appears not to have heard of the archaic, virtually-unheard-of word 'tonight' as, every time I try to type it, it clicks and changes it to 'Toni and Guy'.

Assuming that neither company would ever stoop so low as to offer or take a kickback in order to facilitate this bizarre happening, I can only assume it must be an anomalous glitch. As some would also point out, a clearly heteronormative glitch, to boot....

1984 is the book PP is referencing.

1984 is the book PP is referencing.

Sorry, maybe I should have added a 'tapping the side of my nose in an ironic validating-the-wise-point-you-are-making fashion' suffix.

Talking of that book ... Archives will be important, I hope that archived material is not automatically updated...

Doesn’t ‘gender-neutral’ always actually mean ‘male’? For example, school uniforms becoming gender-neutral by everyone wearing trousers, job titles becoming gender-neutral by everyone using the male version.

I almost cried when I dropped into a service celebrating women being vicars. The vicar at the front was saying was chuffed that women became priests rather than priestesses. Why the hell not? What is wrong with priestesses?

I almost cried when I dropped into a service celebrating women being vicars. The vicar at the front was saying was chuffed that women became priests rather than priestesses. Why the hell not? What is wrong with priestesses?

I started a thread a while ago genuinely wondering why describing females in the acting profession as actresses was considered sexist or demeaning, but I was instantly shouted down and accused of being a MRA. I agree with you - I don't understand why the appropriate use of a feminine variant of a word is considered somehow derogatory, any more than is 'he/she' or 'Dear Sir or Madam' - as opposed to assuming that male is the default and, by extension, somehow 'superior'.

Users of the new Microsoft Word feature could see suggestions to change “policeman” to “police officer”, for example.

I think by 'gender inclusive' they mean 'not sexist'.

Surely, it's a matter of context, though? If you're talking about police officers in general, then of course that's the best inclusive phrase to use, but how would it be sexist if somebody said "My dad is a policeman"?

how would it be sexist if somebody said "My dad is a policeman"

Ooh, wouldn't that be, um, cisnormative presumption? In this amazingly woke modern world?

I'd say that actress etc is a derivative - the male is the default.
Some other words are a bit different e.g. postman, postwoman.
Nobody would seriously suggest we use "doctoress" or "undergraduette".

My spell check has been doing this for a while. Ignoring the red wriggly line under Transwomen gives me quiet satisfaction.

Why the hell not? What is wrong with priestesses?

Speaking as a retired vicar, who was one of the first cohort ordained priest in Wales, I would have fought vehemently against being described as a priestess, with its ancient pagan overtones. The only people who ever tried to use the word were those (mainly men) who utterly rejected the idea of women's ordination and they used it purely to demean us.