Then I noticed the edit section:
- This article was amended on 4 January 2016. The reference to the new elements being “manmade” was changed to “synthetic” to follow Guardian style guidance on the use of gender-neutral terms.
That thumping you hear is my head banging against a wall. Ironically, in an article designed to enhance the public's education, the exact opposite is happening as well, by banning any term that can be considered "non gender-neutral".
Let's take a look at the phrase "man-made". Its definition is an object made by humans, not an object made by males. The term 'man' is used to refer, collectively, to all humans, as it is a shortening of the word human. It is not sexist to use the term man-made, as the only intention behind the use of the word is to refer to the human race collectively, not only men. It was completely appropriate and non-offensive to use the term man-made in this article, but it was changed to discourage people from pissing themselves off.
To go out of one's way to change problematic wording in an article when there is, in fact, so such problematic wording, is ridiculous. To announce it on the page like it's some amazing feat of consideration, when it's nothing more than a dumbing-down of the general population, is worse. What should have been an informative article became yet another event in the national pity party called political correctness, and in doing so, lost any respect it might have garnered as an informative article. I, for one, will never take the Guardian seriously again.
No comments:
Post a Comment