zlacker

>>GavCo+(OP)
I'm a non-native English speaker. What's wrong with screeching?

>>aflag+jN
"Screeching" in english (at least North American english) is typically a gendered derogative. You generally wouldn't say a man was "screeching", not unless you also wanted to imply he was effeminate.

By avoiding the word, you avoid insinuating the target's gender is part of the issue, and/or avoid insinuating that the target is effeminate when they "should not" be, i.e. you avoid homophobia.

>>DanHul+aO
Is it? I think you have to kind of want it to be gendered.

>>tptace+yO
Screeching is usually associated with high pitched sounds and that is associated with women, to the point men making loud high pitched noises usually gets called "screamed like little girl".

I guess babies also count for screeching.

>>ilyt+nP
Sounds like a train of biases to me. Sure certain words currently have certain connotations, and certain words used to have some too. But isn't language allowed to evolve? If a word was used derogatorilly 100 years ago must we ensure that the word is never allowed to change. Rather than removing the connotation, these changes cement them by removing anyone's ability to change them.

To determine the meaning of every word as they've ever been and attempt to remove any that have ever been used in a way that could've upset anyone ever, just makes sure those words will continue to upset people and be painful. There are words with stronger denotations that would take generations to heal but these are words and concepts that the children of today might not even recognize. Should we attempt to solidify pain by hiding truth? Or would it be better to let the youngins change things the way they always do.

If you take their words, they'll just make more. And those new words will not have the ambiguity of our current language.