I'm not sure if I am understanding your message. You are trying to say that I should live without dei messages? If so, I live in a country where I basically lived half of my (pretty short yet, tbh) life without those kind of messages. I was too young to be offended by the lack of messages, I'm now grateful that there is a consideration for different backgrounds.
An example might be jobs postings, in computer science the tone used for the post might discourage more women to apply than man. Having a process to ensure this doesn't happen results in more women applying, but more men as well, the increase is just less than woman in %
I also not see an issue with changing a word that has a bleak history with one that hasn't, it doesn't remove anything from people
<< I also not see an issue with changing a word that has a bleak history with one that hasn't, it doesn't remove anything from people
I will be very blunt. You are simply wrong. Not just inaccurate, but wrong. Not technically wrong, but wrong. If it removes word, it removes something. And since "something" is far, far removed from 'not anything'. You are factually wrong. As in, you cannot get more wrong than you just did. Fucking QED.
Friend, if the word is 'changed' from X to Y, then word X ceased to be used in favor of word Y. In other words, word X is removed. I mind my words fairly carefully. The point is what I wrote in previous paragraph. I have only mentioned it thrice..
An example might be jobs postings, in computer science the tone used for the post might discourage more women to apply than man. Having a process to ensure this doesn't happen results in more women applying, but more men as well, the increase is just less than woman in %
I also not see an issue with changing a word that has a bleak history with one that hasn't, it doesn't remove anything from people