The Well-Intentioned, but Flawed, Complicating of Language
Adding words to make things inoffensive, while seemingly effective, is ultimately illogical and silly. It makes language cluttered, poorly structured, and wastes time. Worst of all, it makes language confusing.
Language is ever-evolving, often by chance but sometimes by design.
When language evolves by chance, it is generally for ease of use. Expressions become stand-ins for longer, more complicated meanings. Words and phrases are shortened and simplified. The general natural trend is towards concision. People speak and write in ways that are easier for them to express themselves and easier for others to understand.
When language evolves by design, it is generally made more clunky and cumbersome. Words are added or moved around in a phrase, perhaps for good intentions, but in ways which may be positive for the sake of whom or what is being discussed, but often not for speakers, writers, or for language itself.
Person-first phrasing is a well-intentioned way of structuring language. Saying, “a person with disabilities” puts a person’s personhood at the forefront, whereas referring to them as a “disabled person” puts their disability first. Though a semantic issue that only those affected and word-nerds probably really get and think about, and everyone else follows along or doesn’t in response to sentiment, it is a positive move, from a socially respectable language standpoint. From a functional language standpoint, it’s a bit of a disaster. Syllables were added and words were shifted, resulting in a clunky mess of a phrase. Good in intention, but bad in practice. Hopefully, we are in the rough early stages of this language phenomena and will soon find a better alternative that is both respectful and linguistically sensible.
The move towards person-first language only seems to apply to words and phrases that have negative connotations. Would you refer to someone as a “person from Philadelphia” or would you be a normal person and call them a “Philadelphian”? Would you say that someone is “a person who works in the field of library and information science,” like a weirdo, or would you save yourself some time and call them a “librarian”? It’s not offensive to call someone a Philadelphian or a librarian, despite reducing their identity to where they’re from or their profession. I would like to be seen as a person first, before being identified by my birthplace or my job, but I don’t mind people using logical shorthands, because I trust that it is implied that they recognize me as a person.
In some cases, the person-first shuffling-cluster is done because its original term is antiquated and maybe borders on offensive. “People of color” is currently a common preferred phrase, replacing “colored people,” which almost entirely fell out of use. It is not a direct analogue, because “people of color” refers to everyone who isn’t viewed as white, whereas “colored people” was generally just applied to Black people. On that note, should the phrasing there be “people who are black”? At any rate, the phrasing is clunky, which is why it’s often abbreviated.
On the subject of abbreviations, there needs to be a better way of referring to LGBTQIA2s+ people. Inclusivity is important, but that is too many letters, too many syllables. There needs to be a single word or phrase to refer to the community or someone needs to find a way to turn it into a pronounceable abbreviation. Both “LGBTQIA2s+” and “people of color” are arguably examples of “othering” language. People are essentially being grouped on the basis of what they are not. They are not white and/or they are not cis-gender and/or heterosexual, and so are grouped with every other category of people that may have little or no connection with them other than what they are not. Does an asexual person have more in common with a trans person than a straight person? Not necessarily.
When our society takes stock of how fucked it is and how badly we’ve fucked up, we can sometimes overcorrect. I think that this is one of those cases. As our language evolves, these words and phrases, which are currently considered the most socially appropriate and respectful to use, will, in the future, likely be considered outdated and possibly offensive. Before we get to that point, we can only hope that collective society, and specifically members of whichever groups are being discussed, come up with some better, more respectful, and linguistically sensible, things to call themselves and one another.