Language is dependent on the people being referred to. In the essay “Bias-Free Language:

Some Guidelines,” Rosalie Maggio lists some common examples of different groups and the language

that could be considered offensive to them. Whether or not the people in the groups being talked

about agree with Maggio’s claims about offensive language there will more than likely be a few people

who do, and because it is human nature to not want to anger people language used when referring to

different groups can be altered to not come across as biased or offensive in any way. As it goes down in

history, people always side with the people who are few in number.

“Biased language communicates inaccurately about what it means to be male or female; black

or white; young or old; strait, gay, or bi; rich or poor; from one ethnic group or another; disabled or

temporarily able-bodied; or to hold a particular belief system” (269). With word like these, how could

biased language not be considered communication gone awry. Obviously Maggio spent many hours

contemplating this topic. If only she had actually found proved her point further than just stating that

“it reflects the same bias found in racism, sexism, ageism, handicappism, classism, ethnocentrism, anti-

Semitism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination”, I almost believed what she was trying to

say. A dictionary would have also been of use to Maggio as handicappism is not even a real word.

“Watching what we say” in terms with biased language cannot be considered similar to proper

grammar and spelling. One is a respectable discipline, whereas the other is dependent on the people it

pertains to.

For the most part Maggio’s essay was “fun” to read, relatively speaking of course, but I don’t

particularly agree with Maggio in nearly every way. Some stuff I did because that is common sense, but

most of it just seems like a hypothetical conversation I would have with my roommate.