Revealed: Google VP told employees to stop using the word FAMILY after staff complained the term was 'offensive, homophobic and excluded unmarried people without children, animals and those with multiple trans-feminine partners'

Google was forced to backtrack on its use of the word 'family' after staff at its California headquarters kicked off because the term was used in the context of having children, it has been revealed. The tech giant experienced a backlash from its own employees in March 2017 after a presentation about a product aimed at young people seemed to replace the term with the word 'family', leaving out various groups.

Far-right publication, the Daily Caller News claimed on Wednesday to have viewed internal communications from an insider in Mountain View where one employee stormed out of a meeting and called the company's poor choice of wording 'offensive, inappropriate, homophobic, and wrong'. According to the website, approximately 100 people in Silicon Valley showed they agreed with the person's views by up-voting a statement they posted to the company's board.

'This is a diminishing and disrespectful way to speak. If you mean 'children', say 'children'; we have a perfectly good word for it. 'Family friendly' used as a synonym for 'kid friendly' means, to me, 'you and yours don't count as a family unless you have children',' the employee is said to have written. 'And while kids may often be less aware of it, there are kids without families too, you know'.

The member of staff explained further that while their intention was not to completely obliterate the word at the Google HQ, it should not be used when specifically referring to parents.

Google's employee added that it conjures up reminders of organizations that use the word 'family' to suggest anyone who isn't heterosexual may not be included.

'The use of 'family' as a synonym for 'with children' has a long-standing association with deeply homophobic organizations,' the person continued. 'This does not mean we should not use the word 'family' to refer to families, but it mean we must doggedly insist that family does not imply children.

'Even the sense, 'suitable for the whole family', which you might think is unobjectionable, is totally wrong too. It only works if we have advance shared conception of what 'the whole family' is, and that is almost always used to mean a household with two adults, of opposite sex, in a romantic/sexual relationship, with two or more of their own children.'


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6605539/Google-staff-complained-word-FAMILY-offensive-homophobic-referring-children.html

I did used to wonder what David Cameron meant by "hard-working families". Did he mean that little kids go out to work? Did he mean that anyone who was single couldn't possibly work hard?

Oh God, another word that the meek will be scared of using and the less meek will be criticised for...for fear of upsetting someone who has no kids (or dogs) .

So if every conceivable possibility of describing human groupings or single status isn't accounted for and acknowledged in every utterance made, someone somewhere is going to feel left out?

They have a point though. If a product is aimed at children, say so. "Family" could mean a group of relatives which doesn't include any children.

Syl wrote:Oh God, another word that the meek will be scared of using and the less meek will be criticised for...for fear of upsetting someone who has no kids (or dogs) .

Yep. We live in a world where someone will be offended by something and don’t they love being offended? Makes them feel righteous and right on!

Very true Eddie.

Being a bit of a chocoholic I sometimes buy family sized bags of goodies, or family favourites, being that there are no kids now at home....should I boycott them in future?

What about mini treats?? I am 5'8''....thats sizeist imo.
Meals for one....why not just call them Billy No mates meals and have done with it?

If you are looking for things to get upset about there will always be some straw to clutch at.

A little off topic but replying to Syl’s post.

I really don’t like chocolate much...I keep trying to but I just find it too sweet and too sickly. It’s weird because I love doughnuts and cheesecake, but chocolate makes me feel a little nauseous.

eddie wrote:A little off topic but replying to Syl’s post.

I really don’t like chocolate much...I keep trying to but I just find it too sweet and too sickly. It’s weird because I love doughnuts and cheesecake, but chocolate makes me feel a little nauseous.

It's not really weird, I dont eat cakes or biscuits much, but I can eat chocolate every day.. I can even replace a meal with a bloc of choc and a coffee.....love it.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:A little off topic but replying to Syl’s post.

I really don’t like chocolate much...I keep trying to but I just find it too sweet and too sickly. It’s weird because I love doughnuts and cheesecake, but chocolate makes me feel a little nauseous.

It's not really weird, I dont eat cakes or biscuits much, but I can eat chocolate every day.. I can even replace a meal with a bloc of choc and a coffee.....love it.

I don’t like biscuits either, they taste like cardboard and cheap ones are even worse.

Biscuits - chocolate ones especially, food of the gods - forbidden to me.

Syl wrote:
Meals for one....why not just call them Billy No mates meals and have done with it?

 

HEY!!! I've bought those

gelico wrote:

Syl wrote:
Meals for one....why not just call them Billy No mates meals and have done with it?

 

HEY!!!  I've bought those

I bet everyone has when they cant be arsed to cook.

I buy meals for two but eat the whole lot myself.