Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG
Sincerely Ceoli, I do not mean this as a challenge or any type of attack. I simply don't understand the resistance to defining words and terms. To use this example, the majority will define what homeschooling will ultimately mean. Through majority understanding the term will be defined and come to have meaning. Without majority understanding the idea of homeschooling means nothing. The same can be applied to any word. Some people will feel excluded, that is inevitable in all areas of life. All inclusive is a myth.
I don't see it as a resistance to defining words or as an attempt to be all inclusive. I'm simply speaking to differentiating between the actual
definition and the assumptions
attached to a definition. If we had always let people's identities and the definitions attached to those identities be governed by the false and often uninformed assumptions of "the majority", we would probably be still be considering many people as second class citizens and people in Australia would still be classifying the indigenous people there as fauna.
In fact, I see the approach of allowing assumptions to govern defining of terms as fairly resistant to the idea of defining terms.