zlacker

>>GavCo+(OP)
Here's a good list of changes. Most are about removing any references to ugly or fat. But also other strange things like changing the author's Matilda likes to read to include Jane Austin and John Steinbeck, not calling people crazy, swapping screeching to annoying, removing brothers and sisters to favor "siblings" and using "folks" instead of "ladies and gentlemen"

https://twitter.com/incunabula/status/1626860237104857089

>>bko+h5
Joseph Conrad and Rudyard Kipling wrote favorably about colonialism; they were replaced with more agreeable authors.

Use of gendered language is marginalizing to nonbinary people.

It's easy to figure out why these changes are being made in particular, once you take a position of empathy.

>>bitwiz+IM
> Use of gendered language is marginalizing to nonbinary people.

References to brothers or sisters, or mothers or fathers, is offensive to nonbinary people? In all seriousness, not trying to start a flame war, why is that? Is a reference to hair offensive to a bald person?

>>babysh+6N
Offensive is probably too strong a word.

The reason to replace an aggregate ‘brothers and sisters’ with ‘siblings’, ‘mothers and fathers’ with ‘parents’, or ‘boys and girls’ with ‘children’ is because for all of these the replacement suffices without calling attention to gender when it’s not necessary to do so.

There’s also an argument that the ‘X and Y’ phrasing makes the ‘X’ seem more important than the ‘Y’, or makes it seem like the ‘default’ - just a little, but with repetition the impression is reinforced. If there’s an alternative collective word to use, it avoids this ‘ordering’ issue with no real downside.

Note that all these arguments make sense in even if you consider gender to be a binary thing.