> (You) to tell users that 'landlord' is 'inappropriate' is way crossing the line.
> (Me) It does not. It says "This word is gendered.
> (You) No, and you've made my point for me.
What is that "no" referring to?
The feature does not tell you that a word is "bad" or "good". It provides context, the same context that a dictionary or a professional editor will provide.
In this example, it enters the realm of etymology. The word is made up of "land" + "lord".
The appellation "lord" is primarily applied to men, while for women the appellation "lady" is used (which in itself is dated). The tool does not know the identity of the people who you are writing about. So proposing "landlady" is a not a good option. It would simply shift the issue across. Instead, it will proposes "proprietor" which is an accurate title for someone who owns a building or piece of land and rents it no matter what their identity is.
Another example would be if you write "policeman" and it proposes "police office". The tool there would not be saying that "policeman" is wrong and should never be used. It hints you that if you do not know who you are talking about, you might want to use one of the alternatives. Emphasis on "might", since the feature is presented as a suggestion.
Even your example of "latinx" could be included under such a feature. What you did here was the same thing as what the hint does.
Did you censor me by explaining to me the historical context of "laninx"? No. Even if your explanation means I will never use the word, it does not censor me.
It simply provided me with added information so that I can make an enlightened choice when it comes to my vocabulary.
'Landlord' is a perfectly reasonable word, and there's not reason to try to correct it, or get into the etymology of it.
You're down an crazy rabbit hole of splitting hairs and lack of contextualization, which is why you're having trouble understanding why it's an absurd kind of 'correction'.
If I wanted to take apart anything you ever wrote with such fine grained and pedantic inanity, I could, and you could never write anything.
'Landlord' is an accepted term - there's no reason to correct it.
"The tool there would not be saying that "policeman" is wrong and should never be used"
Again, no. It's a more complicated term, but it has it's use.
This is 'Social Justice Fascist Authoritarianism' - unhinged ideological moralization, perniciously and hypocritically pursuing an aggressive agenda through all vectors i.e. corporate, private.
If you want to be corrected by Social Justice Fascists at every turn with an ever increasing number of ridiculous claims on language - it's your choice. You can buy that plug-in and for it.
The rest of us do not want to have our language corrected in an ideological manner.
I have no problem if the city council stops using the term 'Policeman', that's fine, but I also don't care if anyone uses the term otherwise, and nobody else does either.
> (Me) It does not. It says "This word is gendered.
> (You) No, and you've made my point for me.
What is that "no" referring to?
The feature does not tell you that a word is "bad" or "good". It provides context, the same context that a dictionary or a professional editor will provide.
In this example, it enters the realm of etymology. The word is made up of "land" + "lord".
The appellation "lord" is primarily applied to men, while for women the appellation "lady" is used (which in itself is dated). The tool does not know the identity of the people who you are writing about. So proposing "landlady" is a not a good option. It would simply shift the issue across. Instead, it will proposes "proprietor" which is an accurate title for someone who owns a building or piece of land and rents it no matter what their identity is.
Another example would be if you write "policeman" and it proposes "police office". The tool there would not be saying that "policeman" is wrong and should never be used. It hints you that if you do not know who you are talking about, you might want to use one of the alternatives. Emphasis on "might", since the feature is presented as a suggestion.
Even your example of "latinx" could be included under such a feature. What you did here was the same thing as what the hint does.
Did you censor me by explaining to me the historical context of "laninx"? No. Even if your explanation means I will never use the word, it does not censor me.
It simply provided me with added information so that I can make an enlightened choice when it comes to my vocabulary.