>Using inclusive language is good.

Is it, though? Using "inclusive" as a terminal value for writing means that other values, such as "conciseness" and "clarity" and "beauty" decrease, for the same amount of effort.

As an extreme example, that front page in the Lancet that referred to woman as "bodies with vaginas".

And for that cost, I don't believe there is any benefit.

Even aside from cost/benefit analysis, I strongly disagree that tech giants ought to nudge the writing I create and consume. People respond to propaganda, and my values don't align with theirs.

>> "As an extreme example, that front page in the Lancet that referred to woman as "bodies with vaginas"."

I haven't read this exact article, but I can near 100% guarantee they were actually trying to be inclusive of trans men, AFAB nonbinary people, and people who have had bottom surgery to flip their bit (not all are women), not refer to women specifically. There are common medical issues that affect all of them and it does no one any good to pretend like cis women are the only people worth including.

Pretty much exactly my point, dunno why you're lecturing me.

You can say "women".

Or you can say the uglier, less clear, less concise "bodies with vaginas", which is more inclusive.

I can't understand why you want a medical journal to use imprecise language that excludes a growing number of patients. Even doctors who don't have a problem with trans people don't realize many trans people deal with the same stuff women do and need the same treatments.

Too many friends have been turned away from (or laughed out of) doctor's offices because people making arguments like the one you make here keep the practice, and the insurance they have to obey, from being able to think about and change policies to be more inclusive.

You picked this example, not me. This is the worst possible example for your point because the lack of precision you argue for gets people killed.

>lack of precision you argue for gets people killed.

Does it? Does it really? Does a single doctor that reads the Lancet not understand what a woman is? One (1) single doctor?

How does that work, exactly?

Does that hypothetical doctor read the lancet, sees "woman" on the cover, and think to himself, "wow, that sure applies to my patient with a penis and disphoria", and then goes on to prescribe a drug that is deadly to men and not women?

> Using "inclusive" as a terminal value for writing means that other values, such as "conciseness" and "clarity" and "beauty" decrease, for the same amount of effort.

Do you have any data that points to this? It's not clear that there is a zero-sum game here, or that conciseness and inclusiveness are diametrically opposite goals with metrics that completely cancel each other out.

>Do you have any data that points to this?

What data could I possibly have here? Even theoretically? What do you want me to give you?

>It's not clear that there is a zero-sum game here

Not necessarily exactly zero-sum, but it's very clear to me - adding a new priority means less focus on the older priorities.

Here is a very clear example of all three being sacrificed for inclusiveness: https://twitter.com/justintrudeau/status/1445200620340842496

> What data could I possibly have here? Even theoretically?

Learning and language researchers have metrics they use to quantify reading comprehension. And in the inverse, reading comprehension skills and performance are tested in law school entrance exams (just as a personal example).

Inclusive language and sterilized business language are probably different beasts. You can also be courteous while using vulgar language in certain contexts. I guess Google employees won't have an option to not use the "inclusive" option. This is nothing else than corporate language policing.