In “Let’s abolish ‘inclusive’ writing”, a text published in The duty November 29, Philippe Barbaud protested against the new inclusive guidelines issued by the federal government’s Translation Bureau. Mr. Barbaud proudly displays his title of linguist as an appeal to authority, but he completely misses the definition of the word “guidelines”. Indeed, it is quite common for directives to have… a directive tone.
The analysis moves away from the real and tangible world from the end of the first paragraph, when Mr. Barbaud refers to the conspiracies that the greatest wokophobes of Quebec use to lather their platform. Indeed, according to him, the objective of the Canadian government would be “the in-depth reformatting of the culture and the collective conscience of the French-speaking population”. An affirmation worthy of the work of Aldous Huxley.
The purpose of the guidelines is very simple and just as clearly stated: they “are designed to help the federal public service and any other institution interested in adopting writing that avoids all forms of discrimination”.
You have to be particularly daring to seriously assert that minorities govern us. People from diverse backgrounds still suffer from a great deal of discrimination. All they ask is to exist and be recognized in this way. It is to be represented in their language. It is to be heard. Mr. Barbaud denies them this basic dignity by indicating that their sincere appeal to human empathy is a “manipulation of minds”.
You have to be delirious to believe that a retrograde vision of the French language fights valiantly against a “totalitarian approach”. It’s the most classic savior complex, it’s Don Quixote attacking the mills. Mr. Barbaud accepts the feminization of job names, but he arbitrarily draws a line where other people humbly ask to be considered. He proudly claims this posture. “I have the right to respect whoever I want. »
In fact, giving respect only to certain people is disrespecting the whole population. It is to postulate that the value of people is intrinsically linked to their adherence to the ultraconservative paradigm of wokophobes.
We are always responsible for hurting others when we willfully refuse to listen to their requests, no matter how small. Integrating “iel” into our language is as easy as the taming of the word “email” was in the 1990s. Fighting against such advances is psychorigidity.
“But what am I getting involved in? Mr. Barbaud should also be politely reminded of the definition behind the concept of society.
The teaching of French will not become “toxic” simply because new practices come into force. The apocalypse announced by the plural “horses” never arrived (this spelling is still absent from dictionaries). We will have to adapt, however, and the teaching staff will indeed have to show openness.
The masculine is not an offense to the feminine. Invisibilizing the feminine is an offense to the feminine. Gender is not an offense to non-binary. The denial of reality is.
Inclusive writing does not erase men, it does not censor them. Mr. Barbaud acts like a child whose toy has been snatched away, but, concretely, he will lose nothing by integrating new habits. Aside perhaps from his carelessness and flippancy. It will only contribute, with less effort, to more than half of the population (i.e. women and people from diverse backgrounds) leaving their mark in written French. Any linguist worth their salt understands that a language is constantly evolving.
Finally, you have to be deeply egocentric to victimize yourself in the face of inclusive writing, to shout loud and clear in one of the biggest media in Quebec that diversity is a defect.