What is the deal with the word "homeless" being a bad thing to say now?

[u/DerelictDevice]

Every article I see talking about people who are living on the streets calls them something like "unsheltered persons" or "people experiencing homelessness" or "unhoused individuals" or something equally awkward like "persons who are temporarily without residence" instead of simply "homeless," as if its somehow offensive to say someone is "homeless" now. Why? How and when did this become something we aren't supposed to say, and how is saying someone is homeless offensive? All of the other terms sound weird and unnatural. I genuinely don't understand, there is no ill intent here, I just don't see how that word is particularly egregious or disrespectful to anyone. Please help me understand. Here is an article for an example of what I'm talking about.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DexlYC5mvbV/?xtok=c2V5ZTZjMm40azcw

[u/tyuiopguyt]

Answer: Oooo, one of these I can actually answer! Cuz I'm a social worker.

Let it be known that the use of "unhoused" or "person experiencing homelessness" instead of "homeless" is far from universal. I've never worked in a place that mandated it, I've never gotten in trouble for saying "homeless", and now that I'm in a leadership position, I don't mandate my employees not use the word "homeless"

The general idea is two-fold:

One - "Home" is a broad concept that doesn't necessarily mean a building. If some believes the community they live in is their "home" rather than a physical building, then they might object to the term "homeless" 

Two - "Person experiencing homelessness" is just an outgrowth of the broader movement of "people focused language". The idea on that, as I understand it, is to focus on an individual's fundamental personhood rather than defining them by factors they can't control like race, sex, orientation, or, in this case, housing.

Now, I'm not a fan of either idea, personally. If you call me a "person experiencing autism" instead of just saying I'm autistic, the best thing that'll happen is that I'll roll my eyes. 

Both of these paradigms are often imposed by well meaning people who have never experienced homelessness or oppression of other kinds who don't dig deep enough to realize that fucking around with the words we call things instead of examining and equalizing systems of privilege is much like rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.

Hope this helps!

[u/Significant-Mud-7198 → u/tyuiopguyt]

Got out of homelessness two years ago. Can’t speak for all homeless, just for my own experience and what I saw around me.

Most homeless people I was around would rather be called homeless. It’s not an insult, just the bare truth. There are so many reasons beyond the most stigmatized ones that someone could end up homeless.

The whole “what should we call it to avoid offending” is kind of bullshit, it does nothing to help get homeless people off the street, it doesn’t build affordable housing, it doesn’t do anything except make the people using the term feel better. Put that energy into real action if you care. Or avert your eyes and call it something else, but don’t pretend it’s about a desire to help. You can give homeless people dignity in ways that aren’t performative.

[u/LittleBunInaBigWorld → u/Significant-Mud-7198]

There's a similar thing happening in the disability industry. All the disabled people i interact with refer to themselves and each other as disabled, but when I'm training new support workers, I'm expected by the department to refer to them as "person/people with a disability". I dont mind, but it's a mouthful and I'm always having to watch what I'm saying, making sure i'm using the right one for the audience I'm speaking to. There's a client who regularly crashes my classes, and when she leaves, she jovially shouts to one of my students: "I'm disabled as fuck, can you get the door for me, love?" That always catches people by surprise

[u/tealccart → u/LittleBunInaBigWorld]

I’m disabled, and I was just going to mention this. It’s ridiculous, almost euphemistic.

[u/yngsten → u/tealccart]

In my country disabled people are titled "service-users" by the system as to not offend, people who find themselves using thst system find it annoying and more degrading than being defined as what they are.

[u/Buffy-boo12 → u/tealccart]

Yep, I'm disabled. It's not a bad word

[u/Homomorphism → u/LittleBunInaBigWorld]

I once had someone tell me off for saying "the Disabled Students Program"...which was the actual name of the office at the university! I don't know how any disabled people felt about it but I suspect they didn't care.

[u/Clown_Wheels → u/Homomorphism]

I’m disabled and I know that I for one wouldn’t care at all.

[u/DeafeningMilk → u/LittleBunInaBigWorld]

Even worse are there are some people trying to get disabled changed to "differently abled" which is moronic to say the least.

It's always those who don't have disabilities who do it just like the whole homeless/unhomed thing

[u/notastreetlamp → u/DeafeningMilk]

Yeah it's like a verbal equivalent of a pat on the head. Funnily enough, the rebranding of other people's problems mostly serves the people not experiencing them, like glad YOU feel better talking about my disability!

[u/walc → u/DeafeningMilk]

Thank goodness nobody combines that with the people-focused language to say “people who have different abilities.” Like what, they can teleport or something?

[u/Few_Item4327 → u/DeafeningMilk]

That’s up there with handi-capable, (I don’t know if this one was ever a real thing, but I wouldn’t be surprised)

[u/__Severus__Snape__ → u/LittleBunInaBigWorld]

I think its really cool that people are more sensitive to people's differences these days but I do think some people take it too far.

Theres a podcast i listen to and there was an episode where they covered Gypsy Rose Blanchard and they kept apologising for saying Gypsy. Guys, its literally her name, no one is offended by that! I wonder if they accidentally said an outdated term once and people called them out so much that theyre scared of having that happen again - people on the internet can be needlessly cruel whilst trying to be inoffensive at times. Or theyre just trying to virtue signal too much. Who knows. But, in my humble opinion, I think some people take it too far in their quest to tell us their a good person.

[u/Feral_Cadence → u/LittleBunInaBigWorld]

I work in human services, and I generally agree. However, I also recognize the euphemism treadmill is a problem. Any time there's a label that defines an othered group, the label ends up being used reductively eventually, and the word itself becomes hurtful. "Idiot" used to be a medical term until it became an insult, and then the clinical term was changed to "retarded", which eventually became the insult instead, and on and on.

Person-first language attempts to make the treadmill a bit harder to run, even if it ends up in a kind of uncomfortable word salad. It's an attempt to get people to stop grouping all these different people into one category, because the category is so often used to other people, even when there is so much variety of circumstance that the category becomes kind of meaningless as anything but an insult.

There's another layer to it too if you work in the field. Because of HIPAA, we can't directly name clients in conversation unless it's to someone within the circle of support, so there have been all kinds of labels that people invent instead.When I started (admittedly only a handful of years ago) the term was "individual", but before that it was "client", or "one of my guys", or, "kiddo" (which is one I hate with every fiber of my being). These terms keep being used by employees to other the people they're supposed to be helping, and while the real solution is to get people to see people as people, but how do you educate someone with that much exposure to someone who still sees them as "other"?

[u/useratl → u/LittleBunInaBigWorld]

In a world that overvalues speed of whatever and efficiency, that seems ridiculous. Thanks to all who answered here for the clarifications and common sense.

[u/antidense → u/LittleBunInaBigWorld]

I think there is a spectrum between people who grow up with a disability and its part of their self accepted identity versus someone who grew up without that disability and later become disabled and prefer it not to be their identity and something that happened to them

[u/CoasterThot → u/LittleBunInaBigWorld]

I HATE person-first. My autism and my blindness are fundamental pieces of who I am. You CANNOT separate the disability from “me”. It IS me.

[u/Elemteearkay → u/LittleBunInaBigWorld]

I'm always having to watch what I'm saying, making sure i'm using the right one for the audience I'm speaking to.

Stop doing this.

Pandering to their nonsense just enables them to force more nonsense onto people.

Speak up instead, and say "actually, 'disabled person' is fine, so I won't pretend it's not, thanks".

[u/jack2bip → u/LittleBunInaBigWorld]

used to be "bumb" before homeless. Bumbs are looked down on, so I think homeless is a better word than bumb. Would you argue that bumb should still be used, too? I agree it doesn't help them durectly, but it does help with how people perceive who you're talking about, which could lead to getting more support publicly..

[u/I_Like_Quiet → u/jack2bip]

Bum also became a derogatory word to describe someone lazy, not necessarily homeless. So i can see why people got away from that word.

Edit: I'm assuming you meant Bum, I've never seen it spelled bumb.

[u/MissLadyLlamaDrama → u/Significant-Mud-7198]

As someone who has been homeless before, I can confirm, this distinction means absolutely nothing to anyone I've ever met or camped with. Also gonna second the whole performative thing. People who do nothing to help homeless people want to virtue signal online while continuing to do nothing other than share posts of other people helping.

They attack people for not using these words, undermining the entire excuse that they're doing it to make these people they're being condescending dicks to more empathetic or understanding. Its just insulting.

[u/StretchLoud8844 → u/Significant-Mud-7198]

It's to make people feel better about themselves without needing to put in any effort to better the problem. They've absolved themselves of the guilt by pretending they care more than other people.

Doesn't help the homeless population, doesn't put them on anything other than a slightly different, but equally shitty pedestal.

I was sleeping on couches and in my car for about 2-3ish months, and I didn't even parse that I was "homeless" until my best friend told me. If someone stopped to correct him to "Um actually, you're unhoused" I'd probably have punched you in the face. There is nothing to gain and nothing to lose by pretending that someone isn't without a home, and changing the nomenclature of it does nothing for the person effected. It's entirely for your personal benefit, not to the benfit of the actual party that needs help.

[u/FreeStall42 → u/StretchLoud8844]

That just sounds like taking offense at words changing over time

[u/SkiMonkey98 → u/Significant-Mud-7198]

The whole “what should we call it to avoid offending” is kind of bullshit, it does nothing to help get homeless people off the street, it doesn’t build affordable housing, it doesn’t do anything except make the people using the term feel better. Put that energy into real action if you care.

This sums up a lot of my complaints with the American left the last several years (obviously not everyone) -- it feels like people think if we just use exactly the right language and police others to do the same, we won't have to deal with the reality that it's gonna take time and money and knowledge and effort to make our problems better

[u/porkchop_d_clown → u/SkiMonkey98]

Heh. I had a redditor call me a pedo and threaten to dox me and follow me around reddit denouncing me because I said that hating people for their beliefs makes you feel good but it only makes them double down on those beliefs.

The topic had nothing to do with pedos, btw.

[u/aRabidGerbil → u/Significant-Mud-7198]

From my experience, the idea behind calling homeless people unhoused isn't because of concerns over how the homeless people will feel, but because of how some segments of the population react to hearing the word "homelss". For a certain (unfortunately very large) section of the American population, "homeless" is synonymous with "violent psychotic drug addict who did this to themselves", and homless advoctes are trying to get around that immediate reaction.

[u/Single-Donut8903 → u/aRabidGerbil]

This is very true. I work in law enforcement and the second a victim is described as a prostitute or homeless, people stop giving a shit. Police used to use “NHI” - “no human involved”, as shorthand for victims who were sex workers, transient, etc. to literally let the agency know that they didn’t need to act with urgency or use their resources because…who cares? Language does matter. Maybe not in everyday conversation, but people are fooling themselves if they believe certain words don’t come with stigma.

[u/garbage-bro-sposal → u/aRabidGerbil]

My understanding as well is that the term is both working to move around that reaction, and seeks to include people who have roofs over their head, but no stable or consistent house. Like couch hoppers and the like.

Just “housed” enough that they may be denied access to resources, but the housing situation is tenuous at best.

[u/Eureka22 → u/aRabidGerbil]

Yeah this is something people often get wrong about language changes. It's usually more about societal views towards that thing. Or how that language/behavior effects the people using it rather than the subject of it. Often the actual group members have accepted and/or internalized the old language just because that's what they are familiar with, like anyone else. But the wording is a reflection of a past viewpoint that leads to incorrect assumptions, confusion, or negative stereotypes.

Even words that are perfectly fine can become weaponized over time and so the language just has to change no matter what. People will call that patronizing, but it's not. The effected group can just as easily internalize negative stereotypes about themselves, individuals can't always see how a word can influence all of society. That's why sociology exists. You'll even see in-group individuals rebel against that change because humans don't like to change about anything.

We should be better about accepting that we can't always understand the full picture. It's hard when so many people use this dynamic to further themselves. Think of how many hack comedians or anti-sjw commentators make a living off of complaining about new language that has very little impact on their actual lives. They take advantage of the fact that people don't want to admit that something they have been saying their entire lives is being recognized as (or has become) harmful. They'd rather get angry.

[u/DisappointingPoem → u/aRabidGerbil]

Exactly

[u/clubby37 → u/Significant-Mud-7198]

The whole “what should we call it to avoid offending” is kind of bullshit, it does nothing to help get homeless people off the street

Amen to that! I get so frustrated when we see a problem, and choose to address it by periodically renaming it, usually in a way that diminishes urgency. And then we act like terminology is the main problem, and are aghast when someone uses a phrase we were fine with using last month. And of course, the people who actually need help gain nothing from the terminology situation.

[u/praguepride → u/Significant-Mud-7198]

what should we call it to avoid offending

I don't think the push for personhood has anything to do with offending (at least not at levels beyond social media) and everything to do to separate the people from the economic.

By just referring to them as "homeless" it becomes easy to "other" them and it is very common when talking to moneyed individuals that poor people and homeless quickly become subhuman in their eyes. This contributes to the modern US conservative movement that sees being poor as the natural state of those "others" instead of victims of an economic system that benefits them a little by hurting everyone else a lot.

tl;dr: It's a way to remind people that homeless aren't some Morlock subhuman, but victims who are people too.

[u/saltyjohnson → u/Significant-Mud-7198]

I visited Portland, OR, recently, which has a significant population of folks without a permanent street address, and I saw many instances of "unhoused" on their panhandling signs. So, like many social preferences, this one is likely very regional.

[u/Wunjo26 → u/Significant-Mud-7198]

Exactly. At best it’s a euphemism to make people feel better about themselves when talking about people that they may or may not be doing anything tangible to actually help out

[u/inertant → u/Significant-Mud-7198]

I agree with you and I think often the current usages of Unhomed People and whatnot are impractical.

However, I do think this personhood focused language is more useful in historical contexts. Slaves is a term usual used to a diaspora of enslaved peoples brought to the Americas.

[u/safeness → u/Significant-Mud-7198]

I’m glad to hear you made it out of that!

Correcting people’s language like that is just a super low effort way to appear helpful. It’s not a pejorative like “bum.”

What kinds of things did people do for you that were most helpful?

[u/paisleyhaze → u/Significant-Mud-7198]

Really appreciate your honesty here

[u/FreeStall42 → u/Significant-Mud-7198]

Aren't you just acting offended by people calling them by a.different word?

[u/Significant-Mud-7198 → u/FreeStall42]

This question confuses me. Are you asking if being called unhoused would have personally offended me while I was homeless? Or whether it would personally offend me now? Neither offend me, I have a lot more concrete things to worry about than the words people use to talk about the situations I’ve been in.

Just sharing that when I was homeless I preferred homeless, as did most of the homeless I was around. No acting offended here.

[u/WomanOfEld → u/Significant-Mud-7198]

I think you kind of touched on it with "what should we call it to avoid offending" - but the thing is, I think that's how people are thinking about this, but I'm of the opinion the truth is in the in unsaid part of that question: "what should we call it to avoid offending people like me"

[u/SaintNutella → u/tyuiopguyt]

Well said! To add on my experience -

I worked at a homeless shelter for a year and definitely second that nobody really made a fuss about whether you used homeless vs unhoused.

However, how it was explained to me and how I still understand it is like this:

A home generally refers to a physical place you stay in long-term/you have some ownership over whether financially or emotionally. It's your place.

A house is just shelter, in this context. Being unhoused basically means being unsheltered.

This was kind of reflected in our paperwork, too, in order to give priority cause there are different degrees of homelessness (e.g., couch surfing vs living in a car vs on the streets).

For example, someone couch-surfing at a friend's place may be categorized as homeless, but they're not unhoused.

Someone who is on the streets and seeking shelter is both homeless and unhoused.

Generally, all unhoused people are homeless, but not all homeless people are unhoused.

Not sure if that's how linguists or experts on homelessness actually use this term, but it's the meaning I was explained in my experience.

[u/Ambitious-Trust5113 → u/tyuiopguyt]

As an autistic person, I fully agree. Also, if the purpose of saying "a person experiencing autism" is to make the point that I am not defined by my autism, my counter to that is that being autistic is actually a stable and directly relevant part of my identity. It affects my life every single day. I have been autistic since the moment I was born and will be until I die. So no, actually, I'm not just "a person experiencing autism", it is indeed a big part of who I am as a person.

[u/worrymon → u/Ambitious-Trust5113]

As a not-autistic person, I think "a person experiencing autism" makes it sound like it's a temporary condition.

[u/insertbrackets → u/worrymon]

Which it is not. Unlike homelessness, which ideally should not be permanent.

[u/jupiterLILY → u/Ambitious-Trust5113]

The person focused language for autistic people is just person with autism, not person experiencing autism btw. The phrase sounds extra weird because it doesn't make sense.

And OC picking autism was a bit of a niche example because a lot of autistic people reject the pathologisation of autism and don't think it is possible to separate themselves from autism in a way that you can separate someone from the state they are in like you can with homelessness.

[u/tyuiopguyt → u/Ambitious-Trust5113]

Yes! Exactly this!

It's why Autism Dpeaks makes my skin crawl.

If a "cure" for autism was ever forced on me, the person who walked out of that medical facility would not be the person who walked in. Autism is fundamental to who I am. There is no corner of me not touched by it.

[u/Hungry-Western9191 → u/tyuiopguyt]

If a treatment became available how many people do you think would refuse it.

For the sake of argument, lets posit zero side effects or other issues - just a magical, not autistic anymore pill.

I know many in the deaf community have this issue with cochlear implants.

Rude question I know - if you dont want to answer thats fine.

[u/FreeStall42 → u/tyuiopguyt]

And if others with autism disagree and do want a cure?

[u/Lowelll → u/Ambitious-Trust5113]

"As an autistic person" is already people focused language, no?

[u/smashablanca → u/Lowelll]

It's not. The goal of person focused language is to put the person part of the statement first in the structure of the phrase, so it would be person with autism, person with a disability, person experiencing homelessness, etc.

[u/Quom → u/Lowelll]

No, "as a person (living/diagnosed) with autism" would be. The person isn't defined by their circumstances.

Although there is also a focus on adopting the way the person describes themselves (for instance an orgs newsletter would use "people living with autism" but if a client preferred to be called autistic or an autistic person the worker/s should use that to describe them rather than 'correcting' them).

My personal take is that we'd never feel the need to refer to someone as a person who is male or a person who is heterosexual so I think it's more a way for people to feel less bad about social issues (by making social disadvantage seem temporary or not something that defines a person) rather than actually anything to do with the people impacted.

[u/Kandiru → u/Ambitious-Trust5113]

Hey, where did we go?
Days when the rains came
Down in the hollow
Playin' a new game
Laughin' and a-runnin', hey, hey
Skippin' and a-jumpin'
In the misty morning fog with
Our, our hearts a-thumping and you

My girl experiencing brown eyes

[u/soganomitora → u/tyuiopguyt]

Former teenaged homeless gal here. When people started telling me i couldn't describe myself as homeless any more it was really wild, lol, it felt very performative.

Someone told me that the intention behind "unhoused" was because homeless had negative connotations, and they wanted to change public perception of homeless people with a new word. But it just annoys me because:

• the meaning of unhoused and homeless is exactly the same, unhoused is just grammatically weirder.

• homelessness is a terrible thing to happen to someone, and i don't appreciate people trying to make it sound "less worse"

• my ex friend's dad once told me that i, a 16 year old girl at the time, should be shot for being homeless. People like him are not going to become sympathetic and kind to the homeless community just because we use a slightly different word.

A lot of the progressive youtubers i watch have started using unhoused, and it just makes me go "oh shut up" out loud every time it comes up. No one i've heard use the word has ever been homeless themselves.

[u/thekawaiislarti → u/soganomitora]

Thank you. I am homeless. Person experiencing homelessness sounds like something quirky I'm doing for fun it's not fun being homeless but it is what is happening.

[u/subversivepink → u/soganomitora]

I was homeless in my early 20s. I also worked with the homeless for a decade. Everyone preferred "homeless". You can add as many frills as you like. A turd is still a turd. Frankly, trying to say a turd isn't a turd is downright offensive.

[u/GandalfTheGay_69 → u/soganomitora]

People do this with common terms all the time and it's incredibly annoying. Changing the phrasing doesn't change the meaning or perception at all. Trying to force people to change their vocabulary in an unnatural way does nothing but breed resentment.

Where I'm from the term "immigrant" is wrong now, we have to say "people with an migration background". If you actually have time to sit around and come up with bullshit like this you have way too little going on in your life.

[u/ericph9 → u/GandalfTheGay_69]

It's called the "euphemism cycle," and is, in my opinion best exemplified by how culture equates mental disability with low intelligence. The terms get used as insults, new terms are made, those new terms get used as insults, etc. The problem isn't the words; the words are just a symptom of how society views neurodivergent people.

Even as a progressive, I roll my eyes at a lot of the "more inclusive" terms and neologisms that get introduced. The vast majority of people in the marginalized communities (that the terms are intended to help) could not care less about the vocab when they can't get healthcare or can't walk through a mall without being followed by security.

[u/praguepride → u/ericph9]

When it comes to this language, nobody is seriously doing this to avoid offending people. It's to get the wealthy and the law makers to actually give a shit by reminding them these are people first, and economic victims second.

It is a lot easier to sell a program to help the "unhoused" then the "homeless" because modern conservatism and liberalism both are sociopathic.

[u/exceive → u/GandalfTheGay_69]

Hey, I have an immigration background, and I live in the country I was born a citizen of.

Immigration is not always permanent. I have an immigration background because I immigrated and then I went back. I used to be an immigrant someplace else, I'm not an immigrant where I am now.

{It's a complicated situation but far from unique.}

[u/GandalfTheGay_69 → u/exceive]

Sure but the term is meant to refer to current immigrants because that term is "too harsh"

[u/fuckyou_m8 → u/exceive]

I have a Mario background because I was playing Super Mario 64 last night

[u/Pitiful-Addendum1671 → u/soganomitora]

Why would anyone be surprised they haven’t consulted with OR care about what actual homeless people think first, before demanding they describe themselves more “appropriately”

[u/dtmfadvice → u/tyuiopguyt]

Copywriter here, and this is the correct answer. The whole thing is a kind of clunky way of trying to focus on the person rather than the condition.

For another example: you don't say "junkie" because that's disparaging. "Addict" is better but it still conflates the person with their disease. So the best way to say it is "person with addiction" or "person with a substance use disorder."

But 90% of this is for formal/professional written communications. Like I'd expect a hospital to say that, not a regular person in everyday speech.

A lot of the "social justice language" that became common over the past 20 years, to me, feels like nonprofit comms style guides reaching social media and people reading them as moral instructions rather than tone guidelines. That's probably not how it actually happened but that's the vibe it gives me.

[u/Katsudont → u/dtmfadvice]

Public health data person here and I agree with all of this but have one thing to add. There are some people who are literally living on the street and there are some who not have a permanent home but are still sheltered (couch surfing, etc). As a result, its hard to get a real count of how many people are in this situation which makes it hard to understand how big the problem is. So a lot of these terms are trying fo be inclusive of all of the ways people can be unhoused so we can organize, get funding, etc.

[u/License2Troll → u/Katsudont]

Finally! How are people so dense? It can describe a completely different situation.

Sure, it's easy to group people together when we don't care about them, but whining about the word "unhoused" is like whining that you can't call people with ASD "retards" anymore.

It's not about being "sensitive," it's about accuracy.

[u/OGbigfoot → u/tyuiopguyt]

I can't say I've ever met a homeless person describe their situation as any thing other than "I'm homeless". The only time I have heard read the other terminology for homelessness is from news outlets or advocates for the homeless.

Edit: my favorite one I overheard a social worker say "Less than housed" TF?

[u/tyuiopguyt → u/OGbigfoot]

Yup. My experience as well

[u/praguepride → u/OGbigfoot]

"Less than housed" could refer to people with informal or temporary shelter (couch surfers, squatters, people taking up beds at a shelter etc.)

[u/jackruby83 → u/OGbigfoot]

Someone can refer to themselves however they want and should never be corrected, but at least from a professional perspective when referring to others, it's better to not define/label them by their situation/illness.

In healthcare, we say a person with diabetes, or a person with alcohol use disorder, or a person with schizophrenia. But the patient can (an often do) refer to themselves as a diabetic, an alcoholic, a schizophrenic.

[u/FreeStall42 → u/OGbigfoot]

Have you met any offended by being called unhoused?

If not who cares?

[u/Repulsive-Shape-9279 → u/tyuiopguyt]

I appreciate this but as a social worker as well our population couldn’t care less about the language. They want services and somewhere to stay. This includes people couch surfing, in hotels, whatever. Language definitely matters but I think when it doesn’t change the impact on our clients it’s useless if it doesn’t impact outcome. If it helps with assessment, placement, and empathy I get it. But saying it to say it is almost reducing their experience. Maybe a hot take

[u/tyuiopguyt → u/Repulsive-Shape-9279]

I mean, it was also my take, so it can only be so hot

[u/FreeStall42 → u/Repulsive-Shape-9279]

So why complain about people changing their language?

[u/agathaseahag → u/tyuiopguyt]

I worked in shelters for about 9 years. On the part of the actual people experiencing homelessness or mental illness or what have you, I found that it’s important to let people identify themselves however they want to. For instance, the people that I worked with really did prefer to call themselves addicts.

On the part of the support professionals, however, there is significant-enough research out there that shows thar the language that professionals use affects the way that they perceive and treat their clients or patients. When professionals use person centered language they are more likely to treat people better. When they use the older language regarding homelessness and mental illness, they are more likely to dismiss or stigmatize them.

When we were mandated to use person centered language, I facilitated a group to talk about it. It was super interesting to hear the client’s perspective versus the professional’s. In my opinion, there is really good reason for clinicians and other support workers to say person experiencing homelessness, but as a lay person you can kind of do whatever you want. The affected population gets to define themselves.

I do think calling somebody a person with autism is stupid because it’s not a disease or condition that’s ever going to change. I can get behind a ‘person who is autistic, though, If that means I might get even marginally better care.

[u/cellocaster → u/tyuiopguyt]

Bless your good sense and way with words. Thank you for wielding compassion and sanity together as equals.

[u/tyuiopguyt → u/cellocaster]

Eh, I'm just a loudmouth with a reading addiction, which is easy to mistake for eloquence when it's written down. 

[u/Toros_Mueren_Por_Mi → u/tyuiopguyt]

You're like my cousin, you're a loudmouth but you fight for what you see is wrong, and I salute you for it 🫡

[u/DerelictDevice → u/tyuiopguyt]

Thanks for an insightful response. I feel like a lot of it is performative like "look how inclusive I'm being by saying unhoused individual instead of homeless." We don't do this for things like sexual orientation or gender indentity. Like we don't say "a person experiencing being gay" or "an individual that is trans." I think a lot of the language used is very awkward though, you can just say "yeah, my friend lives in their car" or "I've been living on the streets" when talking about a living situation. "Unhoused people" just sounds weird.

[u/TheCloudForest → u/DerelictDevice]

Something the commenter's excellent answer missed is that unhoused can be used for ideological reasons, to emphasize that society has a duty to house its vulnerable citizens (indeed housing is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and if they are unable to secure housing on their own for whatever reason– poverty, mental illness, addiction– then they are not being housed, i.e., they are unhoused.

[u/grixxis → u/TheCloudForest]

There's also a distinction between someone who's homeless but couch surfing or living in a hotel/van vs someone who's got literally nothing and occupying public spaces. "Homeless" would accurately describe either situation, but there's a difference in terms of what resources are needed to assist them.

[u/Goresplattered → u/TheCloudForest]

This.

Homeless ascribes fault to the individual. Unhoused etc. places the fault on society as a whole.

Someone may also choose to use a newer way of describing things simply as a virtue signal, which I personally believe isn't always the bad thing that people make it out to be. The simple act of you saying unhoused while in conversation with me lets me know that you sympathize with the unhoused population and probably have a better idea of the statistics that show how being unhoused is usually not a personal failure. We can have a productive conversation.

A person who immediately reacts by pushing away any new ideas when you first hear them it let's me know that your brain no longer has any neuroplasticity. I know that I need to dumb it down for them and explain how housing these people actually costs them way less in the long run than leaving them unhoused. They can still understand the societal benefit thru selfishness instead of empathy. 

[u/likejackandsally → u/Goresplattered]

How does “homeless” place fault on the person? As a former homeless person, it’s a morally neutral descriptor. I did not have a home. I was less a home. Homeless.

“Unhoused” in my opinion is pretentious and if I hear someone say that it signals to me they care more about how “homeless” makes them feel and less about what they can do to improve the situation. Same people who feel bad for the homeless but would rather they stay hidden because it brings down property values.

[u/blacktickle → u/Goresplattered]

I’m a formerly HOMELESS person who thinks the “unhoused individual” stuff is silly. I have actual lived experience with this issue, but you’re telling me you’re going to immediately view me as stupider than you because I don’t agree with you? Who’s the unempathetic person here exactly?

[u/Smorsdoeuvres → u/DerelictDevice]

Over the last few years I’ve learned that there are different degrees or stages of homelessness and that might be a reason why the language is shifting. I moved around a Lot as a kid and there were times when my mom and I were living in someone else’s home, like in a basement bedroom and that is described as a version of housing instability. You’re not out in the street, but you’re not in your own family’s home either. https://www.comicrelief.org/posts/what-are-the-four-types-of-homelessness

[u/IamNotPersephone → u/Smorsdoeuvres]

Yeah, and, in addition, a lot of people think homelessness is street-sleeping, which is really the worst, most vulnerable and most obvious homelessness.

An absolute TON of homeless people are foster teens aging out of foster care. Most counties don’t have plans in place for teens once they are no longer supported by foster families. Because their family of origin situation is so chaotic (or non-existent), they often don’t have supports in place that a lot of older teens do even for co-signing on apartments or networking to find roommates.

I, myself, was quasi-homeless for a year of college. I was a first generation college student, who had no family support going to school. I worked to pay for the incidentals that most people had family for, but couldn’t juggle demands on my time enough to maintain the gpa I needed for the academic scholarship I had. I lost a percentage of it and opted to “live at home” to save on room and board fees and slept in my car, at friends’ dorms, or in the library. My family life was chaotic and oppressive and honestly it was easier to do all that than it was to manage my family.

I didn’t consider myself homeless until a social worker friend used me as an example of a hidden homeless youth (from your example). I still have people fight me on whether I’m “allowed” to say I was homeless because I had (two!) mailing addresses, or because I could have lived with my parents and chose not to.

I mean, if sleeping in a car in January in Minnesota doesn’t seem like an extreme enough condition to convince someone that no, there was no “home” that was a reasonable option, then I don’t know what will.

[u/IamNotPersephone → u/DerelictDevice]

unhoused individual instead of homeless." We don't do this for things like sexual orientation or gender indentity. Like we don't say "a person experiencing being gay" or "an individual that is trans

But we do use a personal identifier/noun with those words and we don’t when we talk about “the homeless.” If we spoke about “the blacks” or “the gays” people would have a problem.

There’s a point to be made in person-centered identity and a middle ground that doesn’t require clunky language. That’s speaking of people by their identity as people and not just the adjectives that describe a situation they’re in: homeless person.

[u/Syssareth → u/IamNotPersephone]

But we do use a personal identifier/noun with those words and we don’t when we talk about “the homeless.”

Uh.......yeah we do, because we don't say "the homeless," we say "homeless people," and that's how it's been since at least the 1990s because I have literally never heard anybody say "the homeless" who wasn't actively trying to be offensive. "The homeless population" maybe, but not just "the homeless."

[u/inkstud → u/Syssareth]

Seriously? I hear it a lot. There is a big homeless population where I live and people constantly refer to “the homeless”. It may often be used pejoratively but others use it as a shorthand.

[u/IamNotPersephone → u/Syssareth]

It is so common AND the previous poster literally used it.

I quoted them. I literally have the receipts in my response.

[u/--Chug-- → u/Syssareth]

We DO say the homeless. Well maybe not you or I but people DO say "the homeless."

[u/SartreCam → u/DerelictDevice]

There’s something called the euphemism treadmill in linguistics. Accepted (often clinical) ways of describing a person or a person’s situation starts becoming used pejoratively by the general public to the point that that it causes people to look for other ways to describe the same type of person or same living situation because it becomes rude to use those terms to describe them. Nowadays, the accepted term is often, but not always, set by the community themselves.

Also, you should interrogate what you mean by “awkward phrasing.” It only seems awkward because you didn’t grow up with it. Language changes, and realizing that is part of growing up.

[u/otterparade → u/SartreCam]

This was basically how I saw it described years ago. And just words becoming ubiquitous to the point of losing a lot of their actual meaning and a slightly different word leading to “hey we’ve lost the plot here and this is still a marginalized group of people that need attention”

[u/DCAmalG → u/SartreCam]

Sorry, no. It should be obvious that what OP meant by clunky is that several awkwardly phrased words are needed to replace one. That’s all.

[u/ggPeti → u/SartreCam]

Out of "unhoused" and "homeless" I'd say "unhoused" is more direct and accurate, and "homeless" is the euphemism.

[u/bossabossabossanova → u/DerelictDevice]

The "experiencing" stuff is there to signal that homelessness is not a fundamental aspect of a person; it's (hopefully) a temporary state. You see that sometimes with "person experiencing addiction" as well.  So there's no reason to do that with a fundamental part of someone's identity like queerness.

I would ask you not to be so quick to assume some kind of cynical "performativeness" on the part of people using these terms. (See also "virtue signaling", the right LOOOOOOOOOVES accusing everybody who's not an absolute sociopath of "virtue signaling".)  People who care about other human beings sometimes come up with awkward terms, sure.  But sneering at it is pretty shitty. Like, why not try to be kind? Why not think about the language you're using and change it if there's good reason to? Why be defensive about things you're still learning about? Why dismiss new ideas out of hand? Maybe you won't eventually choose to use the word "unhoused" and that's fine, but I recommend not assuming everybody who DOES choose that word does it for bad reasons.

[u/teddy_tesla → u/bossabossabossanova]

Yeah idk how they are a social worker and missed this part. You're born autistic and are autistic to the day you die. It's a fundamental part of your identity. But claiming the same for homeless people makes it easier to designate them as an "other". Like they were destined for homelessness and are inferior. I'm not saying that that means the term should be changed but that's more of the thinking behind it. There's a similar movement with "enslaved people" instead of "slaves" because they weren't destined to be slaves, it was done to them

[u/blahblahgingerblahbl → u/DerelictDevice]

as terminology changes it feels weird because it’s a change in what we usually expect. our brains are used to repetition so notice things that are different.

people in general don’t like change, and some are more flexible and incorporate new things than others, especially as we age we tend to become more rigid.

this isn’t just performative/politically correct/wokeism/sjw whatever, it’s acknowledging that language is powerful and can carry all sorts of psychological repercussions and labelling people can be damaging.

even though some of the changes might seem trivial, it’s often just making things more consistent. it’s not like there was a huge protest about the word “homeless”, its just people in the field have thought “hmm, maybe we can improve the terminology here to better reflect that we’re dealing with individuals and not just the concept of homeless.

[u/Bridgebrain → u/DerelictDevice]

So the idea, outside of performative word policing, is to increase friction for being dismissive. People hear the word "homeless" and instantly have very strong opinions about whatever the topic is, usually quietly eugenicist ("well sure I care about the homeless, I just wish they wouldn't exist anywhere where I have to acknowledge or interact with them even tangentially").

If you play a bit of corporate speak, you can usually dodge the knee-jerk reaction and have an actual conversation about stuff like housing programs, at least until people catch up and you have to change terms again

[u/obooooooo → u/DerelictDevice]

i don’t think the gay and trans comparisons are apt. homelessness is objectively a terrible thing to experience, and being queer isn’t, so you wouldn’t hear someone express queer identity as something someone has to get through.

[u/bunnyguts → u/obooooooo]

I don’t disagree with your general point but there are cultural considerations. for some, houselessness isn't the same as homelessness. Some First Nations people living in parks or "the long grass" see those places as home and don't think of themselves as homeless. With connection to Country, home isn't always a building. So your ‘objectively bad’ is more nuanced than you might think.

[u/aurordream → u/DerelictDevice]

It's a phenomenon which really bugs me as an autistic person. The number of times I've been lectured by someone neurotypical for describing myself as autistic rather than a "person with autism" is unreal

Not only is it clunky and awkward language, it inherently implies there's something wrong with being autistic, that its something I'm suffering with rather than it just being the natural way my brain works. My autism is me, it's not some separate terrifying thing I'm afflicted with!

But some HR type decided that "person focused language" was soooo important and now it seems its affecting many areas of life

[u/Rappig → u/aurordream]

Well, nobody should lecture you on self-identifying. That's just bananas.

I work in a service org and we use people-centered language. "We serve people with disabilities." We do not say "we serve the disabled."

As a blanket we use "person with x." And that could be hearing loss, a physical disability, diabetes, cerebral palsy, autism, etc. People are obviously able to self identify however they want, but the neutral language keeps things descriptive without assigning any weight or emotion to it when we talk about our programs.

[u/WorriedRiver → u/Rappig]

But what about the wording "we serve disabled people?" That's the structure most disabled people I've met prefer and view as neutral, including the person you're replying to who describes themselves as an autistic person. 

Really, I think there's more stigma attached to the "person with condition" structure than the "condition-adjective person" structure. We use "person with condition" structure for diseases like cancer, because hopefully eventually they will become a cancer survivor. Notably, the "person with condition" structure in this case denotes a condition that will hopefully change/be cured...

[u/laurpr2 → u/aurordream]

Reminds me of the iconic "people experiencing Frenchness" moment lol

[u/stankdog → u/aurordream]

You are a person with autism, that is literally what that phrase means.

You thinking it means something completely different may just speak to the autism you have. You are a person first and the autism is a trait. Your personhood doesn't begin and end with the autism, or Adhd, we can all have a slew of things and be people first.

Indigenous people is similar. They are literally native peoples, is interchangeable with, "they are a person who is indigenous." But it depends on the context of the sentence. I think you're upset more over grammar and less over the definition of the word.

": not housed: such as a : not having a dwelling place, shelter, or permanent place of residence : homeless" MWD... They're really not that different of descriptions to say they're dehumanizing by changing the language. 

[u/Pegafree → u/stankdog]

As opposed to an alien with autism, or a pet with autism?

Of course we know that someone who is autistic is a human being, and not some other entity. So it is awkward.

If someone is a minority, do you call them a "person with blackness" or perhaps more technically, "a person with higher concentration of melanin in their skin"? No.

[u/rogermay78 → u/aurordream]

It all dates back to the overall pride movement a decade ago which resulted in more and more people trying to be as inclusive and tolerant as possible toward everyone except those with opposing opinions and it has spawned things such as unalive, unhoused, birthing person, neurodivergent and whatnot.

Makes me wonder what the day to day life of such people must be like. Because as someone with a job, a household of his own, health problems and a small array of hobbies to pursue, I really don't have the time or energy to focus on something as meaningless as that.

[u/Ryutso → u/rogermay78]

"Unalive" is algorithm speak, specifically on platforms that monitor audio for monetizable words and consequently, words that advertisers try to stay away from.

Saying someone "died" or "killed someone" or "committed suicide" isn't advertiser friendly and so the creators on platforms adopted different languages to mean the same thing but sounded better to ads. Hence unalive, or the opposite of being alive, matching its counterpart "grape" for rape and expanding to the verb "unalived" for the act of killing someone. There's also the not as often used one I've seen "sewer slide" for well "unaliving" yourself.

And before someone asks why not use a censor beep, well the platforms found that out too and considered a censor beep to be as bad as the actual advertiser unfriendly word, because the presence of a censor beep meant you weren't very ad friendly. There was a reported Youtube update a couple of years back that if someone swore in the first 4 minutes of their video, it would get wholly demonitized.

If you hear someone use it or type it, it's often a product of them watching these videos from creators trying to cover "sensitive" topics but still get paid.

It's ultimately a drop in the bucket because even as a non-creator I'm sure the platforms have adapted and identified these new words as matching the old ones and adjusted their pay scale accordingly.

[u/FreeStall42 → u/aurordream]

So you decided to be a hypocrite and lecture others?

[u/tyuiopguyt → u/DerelictDevice]

I think we're on the same page about this concept, honestly

As an autistic man, it largely just frustrates me.

[u/Decimus-Drake → u/DerelictDevice]

"Beverly Graham was sitting in an executive leadership class in Seattle in 2006 when she first recalls using the word “unhoused”.

The director of OSL, a non-profit that provides meals to food-insecure Seattle residents, Graham hadn’t planned on speaking up. But her classmates – two dozen regional business leaders – were discussing the number of homeless people in the area, and their perspective felt very different from the one she had gained after years of helping vulnerable Seattleites. She had to pipe up.

“I said, ‘They’re unhoused,’” remembered Graham. “They have a home: Seattle is their home.” OSL has used the word ever since to describe people lacking a fixed abode, feeling that “homeless” had gained discriminatory, ugly connotations."

From https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/20/homeless-unhoused-houseless-term-history

[u/north_bright → u/DerelictDevice]

It's an ongoing process in many topics.

Negative thing is described by word X -> people start using word X to be offensive -> word X becomes more and more questionable for the society -> word Y emerges to replace it in "professional" setting -> society starts using word Y -> yet again it becomes offensive -> ... and so on.

Example: idiot -> mentally defective -> mentally retarded -> intellectually disabled -> special needs -> etc.

[u/mootxico → u/DerelictDevice]

same energy as saying "people of color" or "african american" when just saying "black" will suffice

[u/EunuchsProgramer → u/mootxico]

I don't think we should necessarily discount the power language has shaping our perceptions. I remember a study comparing languages where you would typically use the phrases. "Jon broke the vase." Or, "The vase broke from Jon." There was dramatic difference in the level of blame dual language speakers assigned to Jon, depending on what language they read Jon's story in...and their ability to recall if Jon even broke the vase.

The entire English language is basically a historic tome of oppression. All the consumption words are French: Beef, Pork, ect. All the labor and working words are Saxon, Cow, Pig, ect. To this day, in England, people with Norman/French last names are far more likely to own land than "Saxon named people."

Or, think about the 50% opinion change you see in polls asking about the exact same thing: Death Tax v. Estate Tax.

What we name things deeply affects our subconscious views of them.

[u/callisstaa → u/tyuiopguyt]

In the UK at least there is a difference between homeless and unhoused. A homeless person may be sofa surfing or staying temporarily with family despite being of no fixed abode whereas an unhoused person is living on the streets or in their vehicle.

[u/Tao_of_Ludd → u/callisstaa]

Sweden has a similar distinction. In our statistics we include people who may not be able to provide their own housing, but are provided housing by the state, as well as people who have housing now but have uncertain housing in the near future (the oft cited example being people nearing release from prison who have not yet arranged housing for post release). Then a minority are people actually sleeping rough.

I was thinking about this this morning as I was traveling into work and saw someone sleeping rough - the first person I have seen doing so in a long time. (Though tbf that probably is partially due to me being out earlier than normal.)

[u/tyuiopguyt → u/callisstaa]

Odd. I was an exchange student in the UK twice and never heard that.

[u/Throseph → u/tyuiopguyt]

You didn't hear it? Must be bollocks, then.

[u/solojones1138 → u/tyuiopguyt]

Thanks for your perspective. A friend of mine who just finished working a shelter for 4 years after experiencing homelessness herself also says "homeless". And actually prefers it personally to "unhoused". So I kinda follow that

[u/tyuiopguyt → u/solojones1138]

Most homeless people or people who have been homeless (guilty!) prefer to just be called "homeless".

It often comes across as very condescending to see people mucking about with semantics as if that's gonna solve anything.

[u/solojones1138 → u/tyuiopguyt]

Yeah that's basically what my friend says. That sanitizing it actually does nothing or at worst hurts the honesty of it.

[u/tyuiopguyt → u/solojones1138]

Or, worst of it, it is an either conscious or unconscious attempt by the person speaking to maintain distance from the concept of homelessness so they don't have to personally confront the privilege they benefit from.

[u/SlowMotionOfGhosts → u/tyuiopguyt]

I work in a sector where we work a lot with homeless folks, and I've seen 'unhoused' talked about as flipping the discussion - rather than "this person doesn't have a prerequisite for being part of mainstream society" it's "this person has a core need that's not being met."  Which, like, I agree about talking in terms of the second, but I actually don't think the way we handle terminology is much good for that kind of teaching.  It's more likely that it would just be a matter of social pressure and pushback to that pressure.

[u/ShotFromGuns → u/SlowMotionOfGhosts]

This is the explanation I've seen: specifically focusing the language on the idea that it's a simple problem with a simple solution: just fucking ensure everybody has safe, stable housing.

[u/jepatrick → u/tyuiopguyt]

I don't think that's entirely right.
I had this discussion before with I shit you not, 2 domestic violence advocates, a LGBTQ+ group home program manager, and a local HUD employee. The conscious among them it had more to do with accurately.

For example someone who purchases an RV and lives on a camp ground is homeless, but not unhoused. Someone who is fleeing domestic violence is unhoused, but technically not homeless.

Ultimately has service providers that these two people need are very different.

There is also difference in how these people are counted for grant programming.

[u/Normal-Ear-5757 → u/tyuiopguyt]

I get the strong impression that society plans on keeping the homeless unhoused forever, since we seem more concerned about the terminology used to describe those who are suffering than actually alleviating the suffering.

[u/stonk_frother → u/tyuiopguyt]

Fellow autistic person here, I agree. My mum had a physical disability and hated “person with a disability”. More than once I heard her retort “I’m disabled!” (Fully aware of that it was an IT Crowd reference)

[u/lrish_Chick → u/tyuiopguyt]

Meh I dont mind person experiencing homelessness as someone whose experienced it.

I was homelessness for 18months as a teenager. I lived in a homelessness hostel

It did define me for a very long time tbh - i like the new terminology l, its shows it is can be a transitory experience and doesn't have to define you

Like the person above doesnt speak for all people with autism, Im just oen person this applies to. 

Everyone going through it is different

[u/mavetgrigori → u/tyuiopguyt]

Every time I see someone using "houseless" or whatever that isn't homeless, I want to slap them. Been homeless, thankfully for a rather short period, but enough to know you don't mess with an established term that rather accurately describes the brutality of it.

[u/tyuiopguyt → u/mavetgrigori]

Yeah. I think it is often truly well-meaning, but extremely misguided

[u/NEBZ → u/tyuiopguyt]

George Carlin's opinion on the matter.

[u/BrieBelle00 → u/NEBZ]

Ha! My immediate first thought was his "shell shock to post traumatic stress disorder" routine. I'd completely forgotten about this "houseless" bit!

Edit: I think it's notable that his political stuff from 30/40 years ago is still a battleground today. I also love that it's turned out to be Bill Burr who picked up Carlin's torch.

[u/danwoop → u/BrieBelle00]

Saudi Bill Burr? Nah. He will never compare.

[u/nuvati → u/tyuiopguyt]

so this is just first world problems, got it. all that energy just for the name to be politically correct, as if the situation of the homeless person was changed

[u/tyuiopguyt → u/nuvati]

Yeah, more or less

[u/delorf → u/tyuiopguyt]

I thought the difference between homeless and unhoused was that one group could include couch surfers and the other group were people living outside. It helps to know who is in the most dire situation when a cold front hits, for example. 

 People who don't view other groups as worthy of respect and dignity aren't going to change their views because of people focused language. I call groups what they want to be called but it doesn't sound like homeless people had any say in this. 

Edited to add: I never thought of myself as homeless but when I was a teenager my family lived in a hotel for a few months. It wasn't a fun experience and I remember my mother telling us to stay in the room because we were in a bad neighborhood 

[u/Lucosis → u/delorf]

So that's the second part of it.

The first part, which I don't think is necessarily bad, is an attempt at softening the language to try and make it feel less like an value statement on the person.

I know people roll their eyes, but "enslaved person" instead of "slave" does recenter the person instead of their state. It does absolutely nothing for someone that is enslaved, but it does give better context when speaking historically. 

The part you're talking about is the problematic part of it.

Homeless and Unhoused are two different academic terms. Homeless includes people sleeping on the street, hotel rooms, on couches, and generally anywhere that is not a permanent domicile. Unhoused is strictly people who are sleeping on the street. It is actually a problem to structurally shift the language because it misses an entire population of at risk people, and when we have decades of data measuring homelessness switching everything to the unhoused screws up our data collection.

Here is a pretty solid journal article on the topic.

[u/MikeyBat → u/tyuiopguyt]

I think the idea isnt so much about hurting homeless peoples feelings by being referred to as homeless. It feels more like an easy way to subtly humanize the homeless to people who aren't homeless.

[u/ImTheguyYouBuy → u/tyuiopguyt]

Can you ELI5 on how people focused language became popularized? Pros and cons?

[u/wisenedPanda → u/ImTheguyYouBuy]

It is the difference between saying 

'You are a mean person' and 'you are being mean'.

One is a label and defines you, the other is what you are doing. One says that is who you are and the other doesn't.

[u/ninja542 → u/ImTheguyYouBuy]

It's supposed to remind people that there's a person, example is people with disabilities vs disabled person. When "disabled" is the first word, it seems like there is more importance on the disabled part. Hope that makes sense 

[u/tugboatnavy → u/ImTheguyYouBuy]

I'll take a shot.

Basically the majority group in our culture controls language whether on purpose or not. Bigger number of them = more influence on language. Because of this, language gets shaped to be from their perspective. Example:

Take the word "American" for instance. Many people take the "American" identity as default to be a white person living in the United States. Other people get their ethnicity stuck before the word American - like African American, Mexican American, Italian American etc... Example: If a person is not white and they get asked "what they are" by a white person and they reply "American", the trope is that the white person might be confused because they were asking about genetic ethnicity and not birth country.

Now the people focused language camp take issue with this because they argue that all of these things are simply American and modifying language to specify "what type" of American they are is marginalizing because it breaks them away from the default and instead puts them in a sub group. To them it's like you're going out of your way to say they're not part of the main group.

They also take issue with the order of the words - the language literally puts the sub group name first so it's what people hear first. Before being "American" you are [insert whatever ethnicity]. The same thing goes with "homeless person". Before you are a person, you are homeless. The language is constantly making sure that if you're part of a sub group, that it's the first thing heard/read.

Their camp is going to say that the "pro" of untangling the majority perspective is that it destroys the idea of there being a "default" type of person and it builds language to be inclusive. Basically they're of the opinion that the more inclusive society is, the kinder it will be and it will generally benefit everyone a lot more.

But for the "con" of it... Well, I can't really think of an objective way to put it so I'll flag this part that it's my personal opinion. I think it's all very good intentioned and there's a lot of validity to the argument. However... From what I've personally seen the argument often breaks down into a lot of unproductive quibbling and infighting that undermines the whole purpose because it reaches levels of absurdity and ridiculousness that alienates the average person. I think at a certain point when you dissect and cut up language to try to clean it up, you end up creating the exact same problem - the language becomes so modified and hyperspecific that it alienates people who don't have the academic knowledge or cultural context to understand it. In an attempt to not marginalize people you have marginalized people

[u/Useful_Cockroach4875 → u/tyuiopguyt]

My favourite question is, how many people were able to find safety and support as a result of the change of nomenclature?

None? Ok then. Great job solving the actual problem.

[u/thewongtrain → u/tyuiopguyt]

Thank you!

I always thought this was just some performative crap to virtue signal how progressive you are. Real progressives just treat people as equals instead of policing language.

[u/Commercial-Decision8 → u/tyuiopguyt]

I’ve never used “people experiencing homelessness” but I’ve definitely used “unhoused” as it feels slightly more accurate language than “homeless”. “Home”, as you said, is a broad concept, whereas “house” addresses the central issue.

[u/WhoRoger → u/tyuiopguyt]

The 'person with/of X' language is silly, you just shuffle the words around but at the end still just define the person by the one trait and that's it.

I suppose maybe the difference is whether the person has no agency over their situation, or if they may want to own it as a trait. But even then, it depends on who prefers what. I've seen people with disabilities prefer that term, while people of color, or with autism etc tend to think saying it like that dumb.

And homeless/unhoused/whatevs people have other problems to worry about than what the language police calls them.

[u/draperf → u/tyuiopguyt]

So helpful--thanks!