See how long it takes you to decode the jargon this website is written in!
Now, I’m a pretty PC dude. I’m also a little bit of a “mental health consumer,” I may be a “survivor”(?), you might even consider me “mentally ill”: I have Major Depression, Social Anxiety, and who knows what else. But sometimes PC obscures communication even for me, and I have the equivalent of two Master’s Degrees, a couple years as a caseworker, several years as a journalist, and a lifetime as an aware, reading person!
Some use of PC seeks to improve how people – especially those not involved in whatever industry is being talked about from time to time – think about, or at least speak about, and treat, each other. But if they don’t have Clue One what you’re referring to in the first place, you’re wasting your breath and their time, and not making any inroads at all… and probably p’ing them off too, which helps no one.
I’d rather PC were called something more common: politeness. Would that simple politeness were “politically correct”!!! (Maybe the American people could have their airwaves back, then!) It’s also nothing new, as much as “conservatives” would have us believe that it is. Human beings have been opposing being called names probably as long as they’ve had the power of speech!
But please, submit your website to a good technical writer for translation, OK?!
Speaking personally, I AM DISABLED. I’m not “differently-abled,” or “minority-abled.” One of the first things alot of people need to know about is me what I can’t be relied upon to do for them, so they don’t expect the impossible of me, disappointing us both. Maybe I feel this way because most of my Disabilities aren’t “visible,” so people do expect the impossible of me sometimes, even family who should know better! Maybe it’s different for the “visibly disabled,” when people try to do everything for them and think they’re totally helpless. But I will defend my right to use language I deem appropriate in my own regard, and their right to do the same.
Speaking of Canadian “visible minorities,” first off, sure, some Aboriginals – Indians (“First Nations”), Inuit, and Metis – aren’t visibly so, because of the traditionally pale skin and/or plain features of some communities; but to call us all White is insulting, OK? Second and ironically, some of the groups considered “visible” in the pie chart include members who also aren’t visibly so. This is a case where O Canada sought a more PC term, but it falls short, and confuses. Technically, for the same reasons, “people of color” as used sometimes in the States may fall short. So how about “European Canadians,” “Aboriginals of Canada” (though I still think “Indigenous” is better: Metis aren’t aboriginal but are indigenous!), “African Canadians,” “Latin Canadians,” “Asian Canadians”? Of course, then you run into the question of Other Indigenous of the Americas, not all of whom (like me!) qualify as “Latin” or “of Canada”! (That’s not so bad though: In Irish Gaelic we still have to be called Red Indians, to differentiate from Asian Indians!! Why not “American Indians”?… “America” in the bi-continental sense, that is!!! OH it’s so frustrating sometimes! 😉 )