>> "She continued: "Nothing demonstrates this better than the recent phenomenon of 'sensitivity readers' in the world of publishing, people whose job it is to cleanse unpublished manuscripts of potentially offensive words."
That's such a gross misrepresentation. Does the article improve at all past this?
According to quick googling, this is exactly on the spot. Here's a Guardian article that talks positively about those roles and describes them in exactly the same way:
> A sensitivity reader is an additional editor [...]. This individual will conduct a very specific read of the manuscript, and offer notes on characters from marginalised groups, or elements which may cause offence.
What you react negatively to is not that the description is inaccurate (it's perfectly accurate), but that it omits the ideological justifications. Many proponents of sensitivity readers would probably answer the question "what is a sensitivity reader?" with something like: "a sensitivity reader is someone who protects marginalized people from systemic oppression and etc...", which is not just a description but also a justification with a whole lot of ideological baggage. If it makes you uncomfortable to see a phenomenon like this explained in a simple, factual manner, consider why that may be.
> If it makes you uncomfortable to see a phenomenon like this explained in a simple, factual manner, consider why that may be
That you think the phrase "cleanse unpublished manuscripts" is a purely factual statement, but "a sensitivity reader is someone who protects marginalized people from systemic oppression" is not, simply reveals your own politics.
Both are statements of fact and ideology. Both are deliberate framings meant to push a certain narrative.
"Cleanse" invokes ideas of removal and censorship, centering on specific outcomes.
"Protects" instead emphasizes the needs of marginalized groups, centering on intent.
Both are value-laden statements.
So let's not pretend one is more "objective" than the other.
Which part do you think it misrepresents specifically?
Also some other HN comments here mentioned regurgitating of opinions on social media and how that influences this issue; so in the spirit of that, I recommend reading the article and forming your own! Not trying to be snide btw.
The function of a sensitivity reader. A sensitivity reader would, for example, remind a writer that "Eskimo" isn't actually a tribe, and suggest a much improved story by representing an actual northern tribe like Inuit or Yupik. They're there to help writers see past stereotypes, and that makes for better writing.
I don't disagree with your main point but your example is perhaps not so good. There are people who describe themselves as "Eskimo" and "Eskimo" is a reasonable name for the category that includes Inuit and Yupik. Of course there are also different kinds of Inuit and different kinds of Yupik. There's a tree diagram here (referring to languages rather than directly to people and this particular diagram uses the term "Eskimoan" rather than "Eskimo"):
so Eskimo is an offensive word and has to replaced by one that's appropriate. So I don't see the difference with the description offered in the article
No it does not. Just another generic "person with huge public reach complains about being criticized for their bigotry" article from the BBC. Somehow these people never see the irony about articles like this being in the biggest news outlet in the UK.
That's such a gross misrepresentation. Does the article improve at all past this?