"Inclusive language" for the Lords

[ResisterRex]

It just never ends. You'd think Parliament would be the one place where no one gets to police others. But no:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10724953/Staff-told-say-folks-colleagues-inclusive-Lords-language-guide.html

@tabbycatstripy

I find “folks” absolutely nauseating.

I can’t object to folk or folks - it’s a good Yorkshire word and as a Yorkshire Woman I’m not giving them up.

Mebbe dunt say it if tha’s not from North though 🤣

@mudgetastic

In times of a terror attack the country needs a coordinated response , an effective response , a clear workable response

And maybes if we had fewer people trying to give strong responses we might actually get effective solutions

But that is about disagreeing with the best way to approach things, not about whether strong is the appropriate word to express what they actually do mean. I don't disagree that it is important to understand how language affects people differently, but it doesn't necessarily follow that because we understand implications/effect that we should stop using the language. If strong and grip are the right words to describe something/give impression that is wanted, we should use them. The fact that this same language puts women off who might otherwise be real assets is something that can be addressed in other ways.

This is where things get tricky... as a woman, I want to feel included and not singled out.. but I do not want to be erased. We need visible female role models but research shows that being identified as a woman has an impact on how you are perceived and how people react to you.

I’m sure there was a section in ‘invisible women’ about this very thing