i was training a young person at work, and she referred to sexual assault as "SA" out loud, and i immediately was like, "no, it's sexual assault, call it what it is," bc idgaf if the algorithm overlords have taught y'all that you should fear direct language, how tf do any of you expect to ever address real issues with any amount of seriousness if you can't even say the words? imagine an advocate looking a sexual assault survivor in the eyes and asking "did he grape you?" it's absolutely fucking absurd, but these young interns and new hires are coming into an environment where we deal with survivors of all different kinds of abuse, and they're coming with the mindset that the words are as bad as the actions, and that makes them shitty at the job and look juvenile af
i HATE self-censorship for a lot of reasons, but being in crisis work makes it even more frustrating. who are you censoring for? like i am being so fr, WHO are you censoring for? have you even thought it through? people who have been raped know that they have been raped. if someone attempts suicide or is grieving someone who did, saying "sewer slide" isn't going to protect them from any of the feelings. a murder victim's family isn't going to feel better bc you said "unalived" instead of murdered. if anything, it's just extremely invalidating and othering. it's saying "what happened to you is so bad that i won't even say the word," which is NOT trauma-informed care. you are not protecting survivors/victims when you self-censor. the ONLY things you protect when you self-censor are the puritanical ideologies that are being encouraged by rich fascists who want your money and obedience
say the fucking words, guys. just say the goddamn words before i go insane!!!
there are a handful of responses to this (some just obvious rage bait, but several genuine and well-meaning) pointing out that "sa" isn't the same as the other terms i highlighted, which i think is a valid criticism, so let me give more context. i did clarify this already in the replies, but just to put it somewhere slightly more public, in the incident i was specifically referring to, my problem was less with "sa" being used, than the fact that she was extremely uncomfortable when i asked her to clarify and say the actual words. acronyms are not inherently evil. social service/non-profit workers speak in acronyms constantly. i say "dv" instead of "domestic violence" a lot, just because it's faster. but! these acronyms are mainly used to communicate with each other, not with clients, and they are said for ease, not for censorship. you'll hear us say "dv" and "domestic violence" in the same breath sometimes, because it has nothing to do with being afraid to say it. my trainee--whom, for the record, i liked a lot and who was a very capable young woman, but who also did not have a lot of experience in the field--did not say "sa" that way. she said it in an undertone voice, like it was a secret or shameful, and clearly wasn't comfortable saying the words in full, which simply cannot happen in the job position i was training her for. hence why i likened it to self-censorship
(also, side note, mb it's different elsewhere, but i pretty much never hear "sa" said aloud. written, yes, but not spoken. i had no idea wtf she was even talking about at first, that's just not something we tend to shorten when speaking)
the thing is, there is a difference between the type of self-censorship i'm referring to, and being able to read the room and know when softer language is needed. english has plenty of euphemistic language built into it already, that softens things without censoring it. like saying to someone, "i heard your mother died" vs "i heard your mother passed away," or "he took his life" rather than "he killed himself"
it works with triggers, too. at work, we might ask a survivor, "did they harm you," or, "did they ever make you perform sex acts you were uncomfortable with" instead of "were you abused" or "were you raped," bc those terms carry a lot of connotation and weight that survivors might not be ready to accept yet. but there's still a directness there that doesn't lessen the impact or shame the survivor
the dumbass algorithm terms are not like this. they aren't the natural evolution of language, as i've seen some people claim. if a term is conceived to first and foremost appease advertisers and corporations, it is not a term that exists to help someone. "unalived" is not compassionate and direct. "sewer slide" "grape" "pdf" whatever the fuck--these are not compassionate or direct. putting a weird slant rhyme on a word so an algorithm doesn't flag it is not "protecting survivors." you're using those terms because you think you're not allowed to say the real ones. that is, by definition, censorship. and when this happens to the point that the terms enter people's every day lexicon, you get people like my trainee, who are so used to thinking they're not allowed to say certain things, that they get uncomfortable and embarrassed saying the thing in a place that exists specifically to deal with that thing
ultimately, it comes down to this: if the purpose of your vocabulary is to promote fear, then your vocabulary is dangerous and should be reevaluated. language is such a big component in a society's belief system. do not let them control yours
