> What is often overlooked about Jordan Peterson’s views on the subject is that he is totally on board with using inclusive language in a private context. He just doesn’t want it to be legally enforced. This is an important distinction.
I much appreciate the author emphasizing this point, because I think it's crucial and often missed. It's perfectly fine for people to use language that they feel is more inclusive, but not so fine when they try to enforce the boundaries, particularly at the point of a gun, which all laws imply.
But I think that distinction should extend to non-legal "policing". If I say "guys" or "mankind" in a sense that is meant to be inclusive, but someone else interprets that as not inclusive, I don't feel responsible for their interpretation, any more than I would feel responsible for someone's misinterpretation of "niggardly". They can choose to be offended, but if that clearly was not my intent, I don't feel the need to accommodate them. I've found that some people have a desire, even a mission to feel offended, and don't feel that it helps either of us to tiptoe around their neurosis. Because of the seemingly infinite flexibility of their offense taking, I couldn't fail to offend no matter how much I tried, and I've learned that by trying and trying and trying.
If I say a phrase that has long meant "all of you", but you have now decided means "all of you males", then I don't think I'm responsible for your offense taking. I think you're responsible for purposely redefining the clear meaning to score some kind of points.