Have you ever wondered about the impact of the language we use? In this article we’ll explore how the words we choose can create a safe and inviting environment for everyone.
We’ll delve into the concept of default identities and why they might unintentionally exclude some individuals. We’ll also discuss a thought-provoking shift in perspective: moving from the idea of “typical” to “inclusive.” After all, using the term “normal” can inadvertently marginalise those who don’t conform to a specific standard.
The article will also provide some common phrases that can exclude or offend people. We explain why and provide alternatives.
Our aim is to shed light on the potential consequences of these language choices and to encourage a more understanding and embracing dialogue.
What is normal anyway?
When we use the term “normal,” we often imply that there is a universally accepted way of being, thinking, or behaving. This creates an expectation that everyone should fit into this predefined mold. However, the reality is that human diversity is vast and beautiful.
Labeling something as “normal” suggests that anything outside of that definition is somehow lesser or abnormal. This can lead to stigmatisation and exclusion of individuals who don’t align with that supposed norm. “Normal” inadvertently sends a message to someone that doesn’t fit the mold that they’re deviating from what is considered acceptable.
Moreover, using “normal” as a comparison point implies that there is a hierarchy with those who fit the standard being placed above those who don’t. This creates an environment where people who are different might feel undervalued, misunderstood, or even discriminated against.
Imagine how it feels to be labeled as “abnormal” or “not normal” simply because you don’t conform to a specific standard. It can erode self-esteem, contribute to feelings of isolation, and hinder social acceptance. And the thing is, there’s no singular standard for what it means to be human.
By shifting our language to be more inclusive and acknowledging the diversity within humanity, we build connections and foster an environment where everyone can thrive and feel valued for who they are.
Some guiding principles
We’re not aiming to provide an exhaustive list but a guide to help you get started. As language evolves we need to check whether the words and phrases we’re using include or exclude people.
So some starting principles:
1. Avoid gendered and heteronormative language that assumes there’s a gender binary and that one gender is a “default”
2. Steer clear of culturally important phrases or stereotypes, and
3. Steer clear of ableist language
Principle 1: Avoid gendered and heteronormative language
Both gendered and heteronormative language can unintentionally exclude or marginalise people and make individuals feel unseen, misunderstood, or even stigmatised.
Gendered language refers to words and phrases that tend to lean towards a specific gender, often perpetuating stereotypes or excluding certain individuals. Using gendered language can reinforce societal biases and make people feel marginalised.
Instead, opt for gender-neutral language, which promotes inclusivity and respects all individuals, regardless of their gender identity. This involves using terms that don’t favor one gender over another. For example, you can replace gendered terms like “fireman” with “firefighter” or “policeman” with “police officer.”
Heteronormative language is a type of language that assumes and reinforces the idea that heterosexuality is the standard or “normal” sexual orientation. This can exclude people who identify as LGBTQ+ by not acknowledging or representing their identities.
So use gender-neutral terms. When referring to relationships or individuals, choose terms that don’t assume a specific gender or sexual orientation. For instance, use “partner” instead of “boyfriend” or “girlfriend.”
Don’t assume someone’s sexual orientation based on appearances or presumptions. Use open-ended questions and let people share their own identities if they’re comfortable doing so.
Always respect people’s pronouns and identities. If you’re unsure of someone’s preferred pronouns, politely ask or use gender-neutral language until you know.
Principle 2: Steer clear of racial and cultural phrases or stereotypes
When you delve deeper into business lingo, you might be surprised at how often the phrases are associated with discrimination, racism or colonialism.
Colors have carried contrasting meanings throughout history. Black has often been associated with negativity and shame, while white has been linked to virtue and purity.
When someone is ‘blacklisted,’ they face rejection, whereas being ‘whitelisted’ implies approval. ‘Black hat’ status signifies engaging in undesirable actions, while ‘white hat’ indicates ethical standards.
Take the brown bag session. Did you know this term refers to the ‘Brown Paper Bag Test’ or ‘Brown Bag Test,’ which was a discriminatory practice in the African-American community during the 20th century? It involved comparing a person’s skin tone to the color of a brown paper bag, with darker tones facing exclusion from events, clubs, and businesses.
Be cautious about borrowing elements from another culture without understanding their significance. Cultural appropriation can be disrespectful and offensive. Guru is an example, see below for details.
If you’re unsure about the appropriate terminology or if something might be offensive, ask people from that culture for guidance. Listen and learn from their insights. And whilst you’re making an effort to choose the right language, take time to also ensure you’re pronouncing cultural words correctly. Again, if you’re unsure, ask for guidance.
Principle 3: Steer clear of ableist language
Ableist language refers to words, phrases, or expressions that discriminate against, demean or victimise individuals with disabilities. At the heart of ableist language is a presumption that there’s a “typical” body or experience and that this is superior. Anything else is negative, less or something to be fixed or avoided at all costs.
Ableist language perpetuates stereotypes, reinforces negative attitudes and “others” people with disabilities or different lived experience. And the language is pretty common. Here are some examples:
- “You’re crazy / insane / nuts”
- “Let’s do a sanity check”
- “Have you taken your meds today?”
- “Walk in, take a seat”
- “Please be seated.”
- “It’s like the blind leading the blind.”
To avoid insulting people with disability use plain language alternatives instead, and use phrases that don’t assume a typical. Choose phrases that include everyone. We don’t need to say “walk in” when “come in” or “enter” works. We can say “find your spot”, or “make yourself comfortable” instead of “please be seated”.
People with disability may also prefer person-first language rather than be identified by their disability, illness or impairment. Examples include saying “a person with schizophrenia” rather than “schizophrenic”, or saying “person with a vision/hearing impairment” instead of “blind/deaf”. Though this can differ from person to person. Some people see their condition as part of their identity.
Words and phrases to reconsider
Avoid
Alternate
Why
Addict (also applies to alcoholic)
Person with substance use disorder
Addiction is a disease and we shouldn’t equate a person’s identity with their disease. This can perpeptuate stereotypes, judgement and discrimination.
Chairman
Chair
When referring to a person’s position, professional title, or occupation, use non-gendered language to avoid implicit bias that one sex is the default or norm for those roles
Disabled toilet / Disabled parking
Accessible toilet / Accessible parking
Disabled “facilities” focuses on limitation whereas, “accessible” focuses of the functionality and purpose of the facility. It’s a broader and more accurate term that encompasses a wider range of needs and follows the principle of person-first language which places the individual before their disability. By using accessible, you acknowledge that the space is designed to be accessible to people with various needs, and recognise that many people have varying accessibility requirements, including those with mobility impairments, sensory disabilities, or other conditions.
Eskimo
Inuit or Yupik
This term was used to refer to a group of indigenous peoples in Arctic regions and is considered derogatory and insensitive, as it was often used by non-indigenous people and has colonial origins. The preferred terms are now specific to each group, such as “Inuit” or “Yupik.”
Grandfathering/ grandfather clause
Existing exemption / Legacy provision
Not only is this a gendered phrase, but the term is tied to a racial discrimination and voting rights in the US. (See our cultural discussion for the details).
Gypped
Use plain language
Derived from the word “gypsy” or “Gypsy,” which historically refers to the Romani people. “Gypped” has been used to mean “cheated” or “swindled.” This association with dishonesty perpetuates negative stereotypes about the Romani community and reinforces harmful biases.
Guru
Expert or Authority
This is culturally insensitive. In Buddhist and Hindu religions, Guru refers to a spiritual guide or leader, and is a title of high esteem. Using it out of that context trivializes the importance of the title and its origins.
Handicap (in context of people)
Person with disability
The term “handicap” originally referred to a game of chance or skill in which a competitor was given a disadvantage or advantage in order to equalize the chances of winning. This concept was later applied to horse racing, where horses of varying abilities were assigned different weights to level the competition.
Over time, the term began to be used to describe individuals with disabilities, implying that they were somehow at a disadvantage or facing challenges that others did not have to deal with. This usage reinforces the idea that people with disabilities are inherently “less than” or require special measures to be on par with others.
Homeless
Person experiencing homelessness
A person is more than one trait. Using this phrase perpetuates the stigma associated with homelessness.
Indian giver
Use plain language
This phrase, used to describe someone who gives a gift and then takes it back, is offensive and inaccurate. It perpetuates a stereotype about Native Americans breaking agreements which isn’t true.
Insane (or crazy)
Use plain language
Mental illness already has significant stigma, and this term perpetuates negative stereotypes associated with those who have mental illnesses. The negative stigma is also why many don’t seek help.
Lame
Use plain language
Originally used in reference to people with reduced mobility, now often used to mean “uncool” or “weak”. This is an example of ableist language.
Long time no see
Use plain language
While this phrase may seem harmless, its origins are believed to come from a pidgin English phrase used to mock Native American speech patterns.
Master / slave
Parent- child / primary – replica
“Master ” anything should be avoided because of the ties to slavery.
Minority
Under-represented or marginalised
Firstly, not all under-represented or marginalised groups are minority groups. Using minority frames individuals solely in terms of their numerical representation within a population and overlooks the power dynamics and systemic inequalities marginalised people face. Marginalised emphasises that that certain groups have been pushed to the margins of society due to systemic factors like discrimination, unequal opportunities, and social prejudices. It highlights the structural issues at play.
Many individuals belong to multiple marginalized groups due to intersectionality. Using “marginalized” recognizes the complex ways in which people’s identities and experiences intersect, influencing their treatment and opportunities.
Mum test
User test
Used to imply that if a ‘mum’ can do it, anyone can. This is sexist language that perpetuates a negative stereotype.
Normal / non-disabled
Person without a disability or typical
Using the term “normal” implies that people with disabilities are somehow “abnormal” or deviating from a standard. This can be judgmental and stigmatizing, reinforcing the idea that having a disability is undesirable or less acceptable.
Opposite sex
Plain language
This term presumes there is a gender binary and excludes anyone who doesn’t identify as male or female or identifies on a gender continuum.
Peanut gallery
Hecklers
This phrase has origins back to the 1920s and refers to the back section of a theatre, which happened to be the only place people of color were allowed. The phrase intended to poke fun at people of color engaging in intellectual activity.
Piece of cake / take the cake
Plain language
In the early 19th century, it referred to a dance style performed by enslaved African Americans on Southern plantations. Over time, the term evolved and became associated with a contest or competition where participants imitated the elaborate dances of white slave owners in a satirical and often exaggerated manner. The winner was awarded a cake, hence the term “cakewalk.”
Tribe
Group
“Tribe” has ties to colonialism and is associated with primitiveness or savagery offensive to African peoples. For Native American (First Nations) peoples, the term “tribe” is a bureaucratic word assigned by the U.S. government
Sanity check
Plain language
Using the word “sanity” might offend someone with a neurodiversity or mental illness.
Sexual preference
Sexual orientation
Avoid heterosexual bias. “Preference” insinuates a degree of choice.
Slaving over …
Working hard
Avoid any phrases that tie back to slavery.
Third world
Developing
Originally coined during the Cold War, this term categorized nations as either “First World” (capitalist) or “Second World” (communist). “Third World” referred to countries seen as less developed, which perpetuated a hierarchy of power and resources. It’s now considered an outdated and potentially offensive term, as it can imply a sense of superiority.
Tribe or tribal
Group or circle
“Tribe” has ties to colonialism and is associated with primitiveness or savagery offensive to African peoples. For Native American (First Nations) peoples, the term “tribe” is a bureaucratic word assigned by the U.S. government.
Uppity
Plain language
The term “uppity” has its origins in the United States and was historically used as a derogatory term to belittle and demean African Americans who dared to assert their rights, show confidence, or challenge racial hierarchies. It was often used by white people in positions of power to put down Black individuals who were perceived as “getting out of their place” in society.
The term “uppity” carries a strong racial connotation due to its historical usage. It was used to enforce racial segregation and maintain the status quo of racial oppression. As a result, “uppity” is widely considered offensive and disrespectful.
Whitelist / Blacklist
Safelist – denylist / allowlist – blocklist
These terms equate “black” with “bad” and “white” with “good” which is racist.
The same applies to white hat / black hat and whitewash etc.
History behind some words and phrases
Curious and want to learn some more? Below includes some of the history behind phrases and explains why the phrase can be offensive to some people.
Cakewalk / piece of cake / take the cake:
The cake walk was a dance and social event that originated in the United States during the 19th century, particularly among African American communities. It was both a form of entertainment and a way for enslaved people to express their creativity and push back against the dehumanizing conditions they faced.
The cake walk involved participants, often in couples, performing a choreographed dance routine in a manner that combined formal dance with exaggerated and humorous movements. These dances were often inspired by the mannerisms and movements of the white upper class. The dancers would compete in showcasing their skills and creativity, with judges evaluating the performances.
The most distinctive aspect of the cake walk was the prize awarded to the winning couple or group: a cake. The cake, often elaborately decorated and sometimes even tiered, symbolized luxury and indulgence that were typically associated with the upper class. For enslaved individuals, who were subjected to harsh conditions and had limited access to such luxuries, winning a cake was a coveted reward.
The cake walk was significant in its subversive nature. Enslaved individuals used this form of entertainment to subtly challenge the power dynamics of their society. They parodied the formal dances of white slave owners in a way that both mocked and imitated them, while also expressing their own creativity and joy.
Over time, the cake walk evolved and became a popular form of entertainment outside of African American communities. It was even incorporated into minstrel shows, where white performers would imitate the dances with exaggerated stereotypes. This appropriation and commercialization contributed to the fading of the cake walk’s original cultural context.
In essence, the cake walk was a multifaceted cultural expression that combined dance, music, creativity, and resistance, while the prized cake represented a tangible symbol of luxury and social status that was often out of reach for the enslaved individuals who participated.
Grandfather clause: The term “grandfather clause” has a historical background tied to racial discrimination and voting rights in the United States. It emerged during the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a means to prevent African Americans from voting while allowing white voters to maintain their voting privileges. The clause was implemented primarily in the Southern states as a response to the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which granted African American men the right to vote.
The intent of the grandfather clause was to create a loophole that would enable white individuals to circumvent voting restrictions that were being put in place. These restrictions included literacy tests, poll taxes, and other requirements that were designed to disenfranchise African American voters. By including a grandfather clause in voting laws, legislators could exempt individuals from these new requirements if their ancestors had been eligible to vote prior to a certain date.
In practice, this clause allowed white citizens whose grandfathers were able to vote before the Civil War to be exempt from the new restrictions. However, because African Americans were largely enslaved and disenfranchised during that period, their ancestors did not have the opportunity to vote. This created a discriminatory and racially biased system that effectively barred African Americans from exercising their right to vote.
The grandfather clause was eventually struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Guinn v. United States (1915). The Court ruled that such clauses violated the Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting practices.
Due to its historical association with discriminatory practices, the term “grandfather clause” has become sensitive and potentially offensive. As a result, many efforts have been made to replace it with more neutral and inclusive language in modern contexts where exemptions are discussed.
Peanut gallery: This refers to a section of inexpensive or general admission seating in a theater, often located in the upper balconies or at the back of the venue. This section was associated with rowdy and sometimes disruptive behavior from the audience members.
The term “peanut gallery” suggests that the audience members in this section might have been so financially constrained that the only snacks they could afford were peanuts. The behavior of this audience section was often characterized as noisy, opinionated, and eager to provide comments or heckles during performances.
The term has classist overtones as it associates rowdiness and lack of decorum with lower-income audience members. And because this section was the only place for person’s of color, the phrase also has racial overtones as well.
Committed suicide: Our language is always evolving. In recent times this phrase has caused much divide on social platforms where some people want to hold firm. However, the use of “committed” to describe suicide not only perpetuates stigma and negative connotations, it’s now plainly inaccurate.
The term originated because death by suicide was once considered a criminal act. People who attempted suicide risked imprisonment, fines, forfeiture of property etc. In any country where suicide is no longer a crime, it’s wrong to imply a criminal act by using “committed”. The better option is to say death by suicide or took their own life.
On the social platforms, the main arguments for continuing to use “committed” related to perceptions and judgements about the person’s commitment and determination to the act. For example, one family member described how their person had tried many times before finally taking their life, demonstrating commitment, so they refused to use anything but “committed suicide”.
The phrasing though, ignores the complex emotional and psychological factors at play and perpetuates the stigma associated with mental illness and suicide.
