It definitely strikes me as an odd phrasing. If a phrasing is going to make someone uncomfortable, is it such a bad thing to shift the discomfort to people who are offended by phrasing they’re not accustomed to? Not saying you’re offended by it, but it’s definitely a thing that people aren’t shy about expressing. Are there any unintended consequences I’m not thinking of?
No, but with would have made more sense to me. Sometimes person first language sounds clunky to the ear test even though it is grammatically fine. The use of in vs with separates the subject from their body. I guess as a materialist (mostly. probably. Not orthodoxically except for the sake of argument) separating the mind and body in text seems odd, especially when the specific (and terrible, like, telling a kid they are too big to sit anywhere but the back in front of the class is fucked up) lived experience is a focus of the article.
I think creating the distance between the subject and the experience, by using in vs with, weakens the sentiment. It creates for the reader an unnecessary distance by predistancing the kid from the abuse. The idea that this kid suffered abuse vs the idea that the body that this kid is in suffered abuse is, I think, a useful distinction for the victim/subject but less necessary and a distraction for the reader.
To me, I’m not uncomfortable with the phrasing but it diminishes the impact. I think saying fat kids, or obese kids or big bodied kids would also be a problem in this situation, where person first language is indicated. I found the choice distracting, clearly lol.
It definitely strikes me as an odd phrasing. If a phrasing is going to make someone uncomfortable, is it such a bad thing to shift the discomfort to people who are offended by phrasing they’re not accustomed to? Not saying you’re offended by it, but it’s definitely a thing that people aren’t shy about expressing. Are there any unintended consequences I’m not thinking of?
No, but with would have made more sense to me. Sometimes person first language sounds clunky to the ear test even though it is grammatically fine. The use of in vs with separates the subject from their body. I guess as a materialist (mostly. probably. Not orthodoxically except for the sake of argument) separating the mind and body in text seems odd, especially when the specific (and terrible, like, telling a kid they are too big to sit anywhere but the back in front of the class is fucked up) lived experience is a focus of the article.
I think creating the distance between the subject and the experience, by using in vs with, weakens the sentiment. It creates for the reader an unnecessary distance by predistancing the kid from the abuse. The idea that this kid suffered abuse vs the idea that the body that this kid is in suffered abuse is, I think, a useful distinction for the victim/subject but less necessary and a distraction for the reader.
To me, I’m not uncomfortable with the phrasing but it diminishes the impact. I think saying fat kids, or obese kids or big bodied kids would also be a problem in this situation, where person first language is indicated. I found the choice distracting, clearly lol.