Use ‘parent’s sibling’ instead of ‘uncle’: Biden’s Department of the Interior releases ‘Inclusive Language Guide’

Obtained by the Daily Wire, the guide suggested using inclusive, bias-free language and provided a list of over 100 terms as alternatives to gender-specific terms. For instance, it recommended replacing "husband" and "wife" with "spouse," "partner," or "significant other," and using "flight deck" instead of "cockpit." It also suggested referring to the "different sex" rather than the "opposite sex" and describing a "gay" person as an "LGBTQIA+ person."

The guide emphasized "identity-first" language, advising against terms that identify a person by a characteristic, such as "blind person" or "autistic person." Instead, it suggests using "a person who is blind" or "a person who has autism."

For individuals whose pronouns are unknown, the guide recommended using the singular "they" to avoid making assumptions about gender.

“When referring to individuals whose identified pronouns are not known or when the gender of a generic or hypothetical person is irrelevant within the context, use their name or a singular ‘they’ to avoid making assumptions about an individual’s gender,” the document said. “It is recommended to use ‘they,’ ‘them,’ ‘their,’ for example. In informal writing, such as emails, plural pronouns may be used as a shortcut to ensure gender inclusiveness.”

The guide also advised against using the term "preferred pronouns" because it implies that gender is a choice, emphasizing the importance of using "pronouns" or "identified pronouns" instead.

“Pronoun use requires specificity and care on the user’s part, and staff should always use the person’s identified pronouns,” the document added. “Staff should refrain from the term ‘preferred pronouns’ because it implies a choice about one’s gender. Use ‘pronouns’ or ‘identified pronouns’ instead.”

The initiative is part of the Biden administration's ongoing efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within executive agencies. Critics have continued to point out that such policies may impact free speech for those who do not subscribe to these beliefs.