I know someone who failed their university dissertation presentation recently because they did a study on teenagers and did not use inclusive language. I don't know if they can re-do it or whether that's five years of study down the toilet. I also don't know the extent of the language, whether it was offensive or not. Still, I found it very concerning because the universities are really becoming a one-sided thing. Anyone without a far left tilt (I mean batshit crazy side of the left) will increasingly be shut out.
A recent post on a FB group about an Italian to English translation for a corporate magazine was unanimously in favor in taking out the adjective "black" in reference to an African newborn's head that popped out from the colorful mother's vest (they were describing some donation made to an NGO in Africa, probably).
Everybody seemed to agree that the adjective black was uncalled for' and 'should be left out'. For me, it should be flagged but included until the client agrees to take it off.
And, it could have been used to described the visual (was the head more visible because it stroke against the colorful pattern of the textile? Or was it the opposite? Anyway... was the visual effect being discussed? Would they have written 'pale head' in relation to a white newborn? If we call it a 'bald head' are we insulting the baby's appearance? Where ones draw the mark?
However, it seems that 'preventing the (unconscious?) spread of racist language' was a priority and a duty of translators, whereas I think about it very differently. If interpreters left out racial slurs during a hearing, it could hinder a case. So why a translator should 'fix' politically not correct texts?
There are some texts I wouldn't accept translating and I understand that we only skim through the text when we decide to accept the job or not, and this details came up only during the actual translation, after accepting the job. However, even thinking of removing a word because it doesn't sit well with my value is a disservice to the author's voice. I am not there to judge the author and I can make a suggestion on a copy based on my knowledge the target market/audience.
For example, in the US it is customary to speak about 'ethnicity' of a person, whereas in the EU the GDPR prohibits to ask such detail. So whenever I translated market researches from the US, I had to flag the question about the respondent's ethnicity as possibly in violation of EU regulations. However, I still translated it. The client had the last word. Not me.
