TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
>I have long wondered about this: politically correct words may not match
>words in current medical or scientific usage. Is the trend changing in this
>area also, despite some diehard authors insisting on the old terminology?
>Example: deaf-mute, deaf-mutism, (medical term for early hearing impairment
>in excess of 85 db ISO) as opposed to: deaf, hearing-impaired(the general
>PC usage).
>Other terms that could be questioned: Negro, Negroid
>(anthropology/archaeology/pathology); retarded
>(psychometrics/engineering/medicine); tainted, blighted
>(genetics/botany/cytology).
I don't think the question is relevant, except in that it may create a
heated thread about political correctness. If you are writing for the
scientific community, use the current, standard language for the
audience. If you are writing for a lay audience, use the current,
standard language for the audience. (See the trend?)
