Table of Contents
Tierin-Rose Mandelburg
Tierin-Rose grew up in a large Christian family on the coast of Connecticut. After high school she moved to Alabama to dance with a professional ballet company while attending Liberty University. She served as an MRC Culture intern in Spring 2021 and became staff shortly there after. Her main focus is on pro-life issues and is committed to exposing the lies of the left and to defending babies in the womb.
The British charity group Oxfam recently released updates to its Inclusive Language Guide in order to pander to the leftist narrative. The group focuses on ending poverty and claimed that these updates will help do that. Sure.
“We are all organizations with a legal responsibility to create an inclusive environment within our own workplaces.” Oxfam CEO Dr Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah explained to Good Morning Britain. The guide stated, “Oxfam’s aim is to prevent and relieve poverty and suffering and to promote human rights, equality and diversity. We cannot end poverty unless we take a truly inclusive approach to tackling the root causes, the systems and structures, that keep people in poverty.”
Sure, we should be inclusive but the word “inclusive” has gone from adapting the environment to facilitate access for those with physical or mental handicaps to accommodating someone who identifies as all 97 supposed genders at one time.
“Inclusive” doesn’t mean that businesses or organizations are going to accommodate specific needs anymore, it means that they’ll pander to whatever arbitrary claim the silliest among us might make to validate a delusional sense of self-identity. And all for the sake of ending poverty might I add.
Reclaim the Net reported that the new 92-page guide discouraged staff from using terms like “mother” and “father” and suggested they “avoid assuming the adoption of gendered roles by transgender parents.”
I can’t imagine how confusing interactions must be with these people. “Hello, er, uh, parent? Here’s your child, I hope you like, er … it?”
Forget the moral and ethical implications of … doing whatever the opposite of idiot-proofing is to the language. It’s also pretty futile: people who need Oxfam’s help have real problems. Day-to-day survival isn’t generally conducive to worrying what flavour of weird they feel like today.
Reclaim the Net also pointed out other changes in the guide.
The guide also advises staff to avoid other offensive words and phrases, like “sex worker” instead of “prostitute,” “social norms,” “social beliefs,” or “collective beliefs” in place of “attitudes” or “behaviors,” “humankind” in place of “mankind” and “AFAB” and “AMAB” (assigned female/male at birth) instead of “biological male” and “biological female”
Good Lord. I’d need a freaking cheat sheet just to remember all these.
The guide encouraged employees that the English language was “the language of a colonizing nation and discouraged the use of “mankind.”
Here’s a page from the guide’s “sexual & reproductive health rights” section. Try not to laugh too hard.
The funniest one I read was that employees should no longer use the word “headquarters” because it “implies a power dynamic that prioritizes one office over another. In the context in which we work the implication is very colonial, reinforcing hierarchical power issues and a top-down approach.”
Can’t make this stuff up, y’all. Perhaps, if Oxfam wants to overcome poverty, it should focus on that instead of wasting money and resources learning how to feed a delusion.
