You are assuming so much about what I said. Writing inclusively is not for everyone all of the time, it’s when you’re writing to the broadest possible audience and clarity, ease of understanding, and accessibility are paramount.
> Is your idea of perfect communication something that omits every daily experience…
No, what? It’s about avoiding terms where the context for understanding them are experiences not everyone has — “temba his arms wide” only makes sense to the Darmok.
> How is it "violence" to someone in a wheelchair to talk about walking to the store.
It’s not what are you even taking about? You should not presume that your reader can walk by saying things like “when you are out walking to the store” but there’s literally nothing wrong with mentioning walking.
> Policing every bit of language to cater to every potential group robs the language of its color
So this isn’t true, nobody is trying to force this on all language. But you have to take a step back and reflect on this. Given a hypothetical world where the choice was language color and including groups different from your own experience you really picked the former?
>> Given a hypothetical world where the choice was language color and including groups different from your own experience you really picked the former?
The real choice being presented is between a world where language has many colors as used by many groups when talking within and between groups, and one where everything is supposed to be "inclusive"... an idea based on the feelings or hypothetical feelings of some person, somewhere. You think we should all adjust our language and it's worth removing any color to accommodate that hypothetical person's feelings, and I think that's not only insane, it's an attempt to use phoney virtue to dictate to and feel power over others.
You may as well ask whether I'd choose a world where everyone spoke English rather than one which excluded people by some groups speaking their own language. There are, in fact, linguistic supremacists who think like this, and can frame it as an argument for "inclusivity"... e.g. the Chinese government. What it really amounts to is cultural imperialism.
> Is your idea of perfect communication something that omits every daily experience…
No, what? It’s about avoiding terms where the context for understanding them are experiences not everyone has — “temba his arms wide” only makes sense to the Darmok.
> How is it "violence" to someone in a wheelchair to talk about walking to the store.
It’s not what are you even taking about? You should not presume that your reader can walk by saying things like “when you are out walking to the store” but there’s literally nothing wrong with mentioning walking.
> Policing every bit of language to cater to every potential group robs the language of its color
So this isn’t true, nobody is trying to force this on all language. But you have to take a step back and reflect on this. Given a hypothetical world where the choice was language color and including groups different from your own experience you really picked the former?