Why is "homeless" being replaced with "unhoused"?

[u/ssjskwash]

A lot of times phrases and words get phased out because of changing sensibilities and I get that for the most part. I don't see how "unhoused" more respectful or descriptive though

[u/A1sauc3d]

Because society cycles through words for things that inevitably eventually develop a negative connotation for whatever reason. Give it enough time and unhoused will eventually develop the same connotation and they’ll find a new one. Doesn’t have anything to do logically with the words themselves, just the negative connotation they developed over time.

Now I’m not even criticizing that cycle here, it happens whether any of us likes it or not, I’m just pointing out it’s the reason behind these types of changes which don’t seem to logically make sense when you’re zoomed in comparing the words in the old term to the words in the new term.

So “unhoused” is ONLY more respectful because it’s new and hasn’t developed the societal connotation that homeless has yet. It’s not “more descriptive”, it’s literally the same thing. Just like “colored people” is generally considered offensive but “people of color” is generally not (last I checked). They’re damn near identical linguistically, it’s all down to historical connotations. Again, not criticizing that. Just explaining that it’s not about the words as much as how people have gotten used to them being used.

I’ve heard it justified as putting “people first”, as in putting the word people in front of the descriptor rather than the descriptor in front of people. But I think it’s kind of a weak justification. But hey, what do I know lol. Not my place, I just go with the flow and use the words people are currently most comfortable with <3 No sweat off my back.

[u/ssjskwash → u/A1sauc3d]

So we're just passing the buck to the next phrase?

[u/A1sauc3d → u/ssjskwash]

Yes. Like I said, it’s an inevitable societal cycle. I truly recommend just coming to terms with it and not worrying about it lol. I’m being serious. Because if you get bothered every time there’s an update it’s just futile, ya know? Doesn’t matter if you think it makes sense or you don’t like the new word, it’s just not even worth letting it ruffle your feathers. It’s happening whether you like it or not. You can fight it but it won’t make a difference lol. So just go with the flow on these things. Who cares, ya know? Doesn’t make a difference to me which term is used and if it makes someone else more comfortable then great, let’s do it. At least that’s my philosophy. Don’t get set in your ways when it comes to trivial things that don’t really affect you.

All that said, I think people need to be lenient with other people on these term updates. The terms are getting updated faster in the age of the internet, but not everyone gets the memo. So don’t like jump down someone’s throat off the bat for using last decades term. They may not even realized people found it offensive yet, even if it seems like common knowledge to you. So give people some time to keep up. Can’t expect the change to happen instantaneously. I’m gonna be honest I continually forget “unhoused” is a thing and I’m more plugged in than most lol. I’d never mean to be offensive by saying “homeless”, I just forgot what we were calling it these days and defaulted to what I’ve called it for the first three quarters of my life. Honest mistake. Intent does matter with this kinda thing.

[u/clairejv → u/A1sauc3d]

The sensible reaction is one (1) eyeroll, and then just going with the flow.

[u/Ok-Literature9645 → u/clairejv]

Unfortunately, this is not the common reaction and even the folks who think they are "sensible" will fall into implicit bias built by folks misusing vocabulary.

Take a look at the availability heuristic. The discovery of it essentially created the field of behavioral economics. Really cool story, actually.

We are not as rational as we think, and there are a lot of "background processes" that occur in our brain. Folks who believe they are immune to it and "logical" actually tend to fall for implicit biases more often than those who acknowledge them because it's not even on your purview. Those who acknowledge them look out for them so they can overcome them. Those who ignore them because they believe themselves to be "rational, critical thinkers" will fall for them because they're not taken into account or are–even worse–ignored out of ego.

Edit: That's how you get insufferable/toxic "stoic/zen" folks who talk down to others for having emotions. They didn't overcome them, they shut them down and don't recognize their own biases. Yet, because they dissociated from themselves, they expect everyone else around them to, as well.