The University of North Carolina has a guideline that 'discourages' the use of subtle microagressions.
This includes the term "christmas vacation" as it centers around Christianity and nudges people of other faiths, "husband, boyfriend, wive, girlfriend" because it assumes that the subject is a non-LGBTQIA++. Instead, the use of "partner" is encouraged.
Staff members are alsoprohibited to invite others for a golf game because it assumes the subject has the means to blablablabla.
And the list goes on.
We should all just zip our mouths and use sign language.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/26/university-of-north-carolina-saying-christmas-vaca/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

I read through that article and it said

An editor’s note later amended to the University of North Carolina guidebook makes clear that it “does not represent University policy.”

I don't really get why they have to point out all these micro aggressions if they are going to say that it doesn't represent them. This entire microaggression topic is a little sensitive too because it's difficult where to draw the line. Personally I think a degree of sensitivity is needed when we use terms that could be categorized as a 'microaggression' but I think taking it to this level and even having a University discourage their use is a tad outrageous.

>>2
"A little" is an understatement. It's not even a matter of sensitivity anymore. Present-day Americans are basically overgrown toddlers.

I have to agree that everyone, not just American's, have grown to be sensitive to certain terms, "he" "she" "it" "thing" "girlfriend" "boyfriend". But if you think about it, it's a set up from where we were fifty years ago, when same sex couples were looked down upon and thought as sinners. In the state I live, Christmas vacation has always been called Winter vacation, since it just seems polite for those who don't celebrate the holiday. [Christans to atheist ]

What the university of North Caolina is doing is simple a suggestion. Not something they plan on enforcing 24/7, just as being kind to those around you in merely a suggestion and not something one can truly enforce. It's something that they would like to see happened but will not punish you if you don't do. Yet I do believe that "mircoaggression" is stepping a little out of the ball park as it's not aggression but rather the way one speaks. And all American's have their right to freedom of speech. So on that, I can agree that we are a tad to sensitive. But that is my own opinion. Forgive me if it seems like I'm just rambling.

A few notes,

1. Sign Language is a very blunt language with lots of non-pc signs. Especially for ethnic signs.

2. Winter break here technically ends while the Christmas season is still going on (at least on the Catholic calendar) which is why I always call it winter break.

3. Ironically, people who are preoccupied with being pc need to be more tolerant. If you want to have a "partner", you have to let her have a "boyfriend".

These, of course, are just my opinions.

I like this, I like inclusion and the effort being made here by this school. Banning is going too far, I think, but bringing the open ended alternative to simple and yet specific terms is a good thing. It's good to expand language and introduce these terms to more people by the school. I think their meaning is there, but very poorly executed. Banning the other, more exclusive terms is too much for an entire school, or any facility.. or group of people anywhere, to execute in such a short amount of time. Actually, the fact that it's restricting language is really harsh already. It's not like these terms are inherently derogatory, and if used as such (e.g. intentionally using wrong pronouns to offend a trans person) , the perpetrator should be dealt with seperately. Rather than straight out banning, wouldn't it be better to teach why broader terms should be introduced and used in daily conversation? I don't see any point in complaining about being politically correct, or why being such would be a problem. I don't know if it's right, but I use "they" and it's following pronouns when I dont know someone, and I haven't run into any trouble for it. Just be kind to one another when they aren't being mean to you I guess.

>>6
Psychologically speaking, this is a huge peoblem. It's called babying. Basically, because people can just claim that something non-offensive someone said is a microagression because he/she was, say, traumatised from being chastised by their parents, they can just not hear it instead of working to settle their inner turbulence.
Yes, it may be harsh for them, but strictly speaking, terms like penis or vagina is not a problem for the public. It's their personal problem. Asking for sensitivity is fine, but do that only to the people who know you and your problem.

If one person asks people not to use these words, and another person asks people not to use those words, there would be no end of the words not to be use. Think about the people who have to mind their every word to avoid being disciplined. Eventually it would take a LOT of effort just to hold a 5 minute conversation. And as you know, Americans, compared to other countries, can't stop yapping so I don't think it'd sit well.


>>5
If everything we say are considered insensitive, wouldn't it be better to use a blunt language in the first place? At least they can't sue for that.

Private institutions can do what they want, but I'd hate to see shit like this getting federal.

Even with >>7, these aren't traumatic triggers or anything to that affect. They're just words people find offensive. It's bullshit.

And on the topic of triggers -- yeah, they're important to be aware of and respect on an individual basis. But blanket trigger warnings are nonsense. Every trauma victim has different triggers. Some are common (like amongst veterans or rape victims), but you're ultimately neglecting countless victims by stereotyping a few to slap on PC warnings.

Micro-aggressions are the same. Everything offends somebody. You're just showing a bias and protecting only the stereotype of people you like by discouraging the words that offend them personally.