Word Police?

We are disappointed to find the following edict in a UUA pamphlet that is available on a table in our sanctuary, headed "10 Things Your Congregation Can Do To Become More Welcoming : “Avoid using words which are necessarily gender specific. Use the word ˜children’ instead of ˜boys and girls’ and ˜people’ instead of ˜women and men.’ (It’s Item No. 8 in an updated version of the pamphlet; an earlier version is on the UUA website.) We live in a time when misguided, however well-meaning, people try to wipe out prejudice by sterilizing the language. Do they expect to prevent sexism or homophobia by stamping out awareness of sex or gender? Once that step has been taken, will someone next perceive speciesism in the use of “people and demand we say “creatures instead? Must “creatures then be replaced by “life-forms; next, by “things ? Will any of these measures add the tiniest spark of kindness to the world? In George Orwell’s famous essay, “Politics and the English Language, he laments a trend for prose to move “away from concreteness. He writes that “Orthodoxy, of whatever color, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style. . .The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. Citing vagueness as a tactic in propaganda and exploitation, he makes the case for “language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought. Orwell might turn over in his grave. But at least we are not being stopped at the door and given instructions not to say “women, “men, “boys, “girls, etc. Not yet. How “welcoming would that be? Chris Edwards and Robin McNallie