Few people are ready to correct others' grammatical or vocabulary errors. It's too bad, actually, because the language is being butchered by people who received more self-esteem support in school than education. But grammar and vocabulary aside, everybody's ready to leap on anyone who uses a word or phrase they think has offensive racist or sexist connotations. This readiness poses problems: it interferes with ordinary conversation and it involves a prejudicial ethical judgment.
Well, we don't want sexist and racist language used, do we?
The trouble is knowing when language actually is racist or sexist. Unfortunately, the ignorance that made the useful phrase "begs the question," which means "assumes what's at issue," now mean "raises the question," is also at work in "corrections" of supposedly offensive language-use. The ignorance is not knowing the difference between racist language and language about race.
Sometimes we need to talk about race; racial diversity won't just go away; but too often when we refer to race someone jumps down our throat for using offensive language. The ethical issue this raises--aside from one about simply not listening and so obstructing conversation--is that failing to distinguish between racist and merely referential use of race-names and descriptions means unfairly assuming that recognition of racial differences is itself racism.
There are those who envisage a society in which everyone would be oblivious of race and gender, but this is greatly unrealistic; and it's a questionable ideal, anyway. But certainly to assume that noticing racial difference is racist is more than unrealistic; it's ethically prejudicial because it assumes an unethical attitude on the part of others without proper evidence.
Some medical conditions, for instance, affect particular racial groups more than others. Sickle-cell anemia is one such case. And some social conditions apply disproportionately to one or another racial group: poverty or imprisonment, for example. Is it racist to say so? How could there be discussion about these matters if race can't be mentioned?
Oh, well, some will say, that's different.
Is it? How's it different? Just because of good intentions towards racial groups that otherwise must remain invisible and unmentionable? Assuming that race is unthinkable for non-racists except when there's a problem looks very like hypocrisy; it's like thinking: "Oh, yes, we have to do something about the plight of certain people that I really can't identify and are just like everyone else only different!"
