Re: [Terminology] [Gendispatch] WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 4/28/21 3:02 AM, Jay Daley wrote:


(In response to Dan, I believe)

> I’m struggling to understand how it’s possible to suggest certain 
> words are problematic, and therefore imply they should be avoided, 
> while attacking the principle of avoiding problematic words.  Perhaps 
> I’m mistaken but you appear to agree with the principle that specific 
> words have uncomfortable meanings for specific groups and that they 
> should be avoided as a result.

I can't speak for Dan, but I wonder if the apparent contradiction is due 
to differing ideas about rigidity and specificity.

There are a few words that are better avoided under the vast majority of 
circumstances.   There are other words that are problematic in certain 
contexts, but perhaps not problematic in others.

Just to pick an often debated example, the word "master" may be 
problematic for some if it's being used to express a control 
relationship (especially in relation to "slave"), but not problematic at 
all if used to indicate its traditional English meaning of "teacher" or 
some degree of expertise (e.g. "master craftsperson").

As for "uncomfortable meanings for specific groups", I wonder how large, 
or significant, or perhaps marginalized, a group needs to be to be worth 
forbidding or discouraging the use of a word.   Or under what situations 
causing such discomfort is considered responsible or even laudable, 
versus situations in which causing discomfort is seen as irresponsible 
or reprehensible.

I have found in the past that some people who insist on policing others' 
language are quite willing to cause distress among people who 
respectfully see things from a different point-of-view, even to the 
point of subjecting them to vituperative public criticism and working 
publicly and privately to malign their reputations, with no apparent 
concern for either the targeted individuals' discomfort or the potential 
reasonableness of the targeted individuals' points of view.

I also wonder why there seems to be a concern for members of specific 
groups who might be uncomfortable, but less so for individuals who are 
so not easily categorized, as if the only thing that matters about an 
individual is the way people use superficial characteristics to 
pigeonhole them.

So while I don't think any of us should be trying to make any RFC 
readers uncomfortable, I wonder about the reasonableness of a standard 
of "must/should not make members of specific groups uncomfortable".

Keith