In defence of Political Correctness

I have a fondness for PC language, I always have. I think it comes from my political ideology, firmly encamped on the left. Here is the definition from Wikipedia:
Political correctness (also politically correct, P.C. or PC) is a term used in various countries to describe real or perceived attempts to impose limits on language, terms, and viewpoints in public discussion in order to avoid potentially offensive terminology. While it usually refers to a
linguistic phenomenon, it is sometimes extended to cover political ideology or public behavior.
In several English-speaking nations, the term often has a pejorative or ironic meaning—typically connoting an excessive attempt by social or political liberals to alter language and culture. It is also sometimes used to describe attempts to respect marginalized groups (e.g., the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (Oxford University Press Canada 2001) defines political correctness as "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that exclude, marginalize, or insult certain racial or cultural groups").
According to predominantly conservative critics of what they call the "political correctness movement," PC involves censorship and social engineering, and has influenced popular culture, such as music, film, literature, arts and advertising.

Language is a powerful tool: it can be used to generate hate; it can be used to heal and create bonds. Just because it is an ability most people tend to share, it doesn’t mean that we instinctively know how to use it wisely. Parental and school influences strongly come into play in the formative years and many beliefs and prejudices can be picked up without qualms and most of these will be expressed verbally.

The “freedom of speech” argument is a powerful and almost sacred Get Out of Jail Free card: once played, people tend to bow out respectfully, not wishing to curtail what everyone believes is a Basic Human Right. But we need to analyse what “freedom of speech” actually entails. We know that a child who is called “stupid” repeatedly will grow up believing they are stupid. If they are told they are worthless and will never amount to anything, this is emotional abuse and they are in as much danger as any other child who is abused. A fist was never raised, they never went hungry but with the power of words, they were sold a lie that could harm them for the rest of their life. That is the power of words and that is a freedom we are not prepared to allow to the extent that if that happens there are legal sanctions that come into play.

The boys that killed Stephen Lawrence weren’t at liberty to call him “nigger”, David Irving isn’t at liberty to deny the holocaust and Ayman al-Zawahiri is not at liberty to commend terror strikes. We have laws against incitement to racial hatred and we have laws against slander and we have laws against emotional abuse.
But language is a beautiful, subtle thing; the boundaries are not clearly marked and meanings aren’t static. Take the word “gay”: 100 years ago, it meant happy, cheerful; 20 years ago it meant homosexual. What does it mean in the present day? Well it could mean homosexual but common usage especially with young people is to indicate that something is lame, rubbish, ineffectual. Could it be that language is being fluid again and is moving on to a new meaning? Well possibly but the word “gay” is a good example of unpolitically correct terminology. If the accepted meaning of the word “gay” is to mean homosexual, using that word to indicate something negative transfers the negativity to homosexuals too. So by using “gay” as an insult you are saying “That’s lame just like homosexuals are”. Personally, I don’t believe that homosexuals are lame, rubbish or ineffectual so I wouldn’t say it. By not saying “gay” in that context still gives the young people I work with a free reign to say it. I believe that in my role as an informal educator that I need to open young people up to new concepts and ideas and this is done by introducing new ways of thinking through conversation.

YP 1: “Oh that film is so gay!”
YP 2: ”I know!”
Helen: “Well, what do you mean by “gay”?”
YP 1: “Well it’s rubbish”
Helen: “A gay person might not want you to call a rubbish film “gay”.”
YP 2: “Are you gay then?”
Helen: “No, does it matter?”
YP 1: “Yeah, of course it matters if you’re gay. Don’t want you here if you’re gay!”
YP 2: “Yeah you might try it on with me!”
Helen: “Well not every boy fancies you do they? Why would every gay woman?”
YP 2: “I don’t know!”
Helen; “Do you know anyone who’s gay?”
YP 1: “Yeah, there’s this boy in yr 11 who talks like this…(does effeminate impression)”
Helen: “It doesn’t automatically make him gay if he talks like that. And what if he was, does it matter?”
YP1: “Yeah of course it does!”
Helen: “I’ve got lots of friends who are gay- they’re still my friends whoever they go out with, it makes no difference to me. Why should it? And they might be offended by you using the word “gay” as an insult.”
YP 2: “Well yeah I see what you mean but we don’t really mean it like that. It just kinda means rubbish. Everybody says it”
Helen; “Well I don’t and I’d prefer it if you didn’t too, if that’s OK.”
YP 1: “OK”

It gets to the stage where the young people say it on automatic pilot and then immediately apologise! I don't really mind but I like them to have an alternative view point so that they are able to think about the choices they make.

In my mind it’s about thinking about the hidden power in words and what they can convey. When I was asked if I could “man” the stall, I replied that I could “staff” it. I guess some people would think that’s just picky but it makes me feel less uncomfortable. I also try and pick language that might allow others to feel comfortable too like using the word partner instead of husband/wife.

I'm interested in the way that humour pushes boundaries in order to get laughes but I'm thinking that that is another post entirely. What do you think of PC language?