Can someone explain to me “homeless” vs “unhoused”?

[Anonymous]

If you’re cool with language never changing, don’t be a hypocrite; when you go to work tomorrow, be sure to ask your boss to call you “doll,” or “broad,” or “girl,” or even “baby.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you’re cool with language never changing, don’t be a hypocrite; when you go to work tomorrow, be sure to ask your boss to call you “doll,” or “broad,” or “girl,” or even “baby.”

I'm fine with being called "employee" or by my title. But it would be weird being called, "person who works here." Language can change, but changes should make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re cool with language never changing, don’t be a hypocrite; when you go to work tomorrow, be sure to ask your boss to call you “doll,” or “broad,” or “girl,” or even “baby.”

I'm fine with being called "employee" or by my title. But it would be weird being called, "person who works here." Language can change, but changes should make sense.

To many men, the change in language away from doll, broad, girl, etc. didn’t make sense, they were fine with continuing to use those terms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re cool with language never changing, don’t be a hypocrite; when you go to work tomorrow, be sure to ask your boss to call you “doll,” or “broad,” or “girl,” or even “baby.”

I'm fine with being called "employee" or by my title. But it would be weird being called, "person who works here." Language can change, but changes should make sense.

To many men, the change in language away from doll, broad, girl, etc. didn’t make sense, they were fine with continuing to use those terms.

Oh come on. It's pretty easy to articulate any an adult woman being called a girl or a doll is offensive.

How is "homeless" offensive, or less offensive, than "unhoused?" Again, people don't understand what "unhoused" means, as evidenced by this thread, so how is it better/different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lot of pages on this and most of the answers are wrong. It’s not about person-first or identity. The issue is that some people who do not have a house consider the place where they are residing to be a “home” that they consider themselves to have an attachment to and want that to be recognized by others. So someone that lives in a tent city in Franklin Square may consider that to be their home and want some recognition of that fact, even though they don’t have a house.
In my experience, this is something of a minority of the unhoused/homeless community—most of them want an actual residence, be that a house or apartment, and do not consider their alternative lodging to be a “home” and therefore do not object to the term “homeless.” It’s the radical fringe like the “homeless homeboy” that used to live on 16th street that viewed himself as having some property rights on that corner.

That is a valid view but the homeless/ unhoused are not monolithic. I agree with you for the single mom families group, which is large subsection.

And there is a large group of mentally ill/ substance dependent homeless who probably don’t care what terms you use.

I also agree with the OP that actions speak louder than words. We need more affordable housing and child care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re cool with language never changing, don’t be a hypocrite; when you go to work tomorrow, be sure to ask your boss to call you “doll,” or “broad,” or “girl,” or even “baby.”

I'm fine with being called "employee" or by my title. But it would be weird being called, "person who works here." Language can change, but changes should make sense.

To many men, the change in language away from doll, broad, girl, etc. didn’t make sense, they were fine with continuing to use those terms.

The problem is that the changes are never ending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re cool with language never changing, don’t be a hypocrite; when you go to work tomorrow, be sure to ask your boss to call you “doll,” or “broad,” or “girl,” or even “baby.”

I'm fine with being called "employee" or by my title. But it would be weird being called, "person who works here." Language can change, but changes should make sense.

To many men, the change in language away from doll, broad, girl, etc. didn’t make sense, they were fine with continuing to use those terms.

The problem is that the changes are never ending.

Welcome to language; that’s the way it works and always has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re cool with language never changing, don’t be a hypocrite; when you go to work tomorrow, be sure to ask your boss to call you “doll,” or “broad,” or “girl,” or even “baby.”

I'm fine with being called "employee" or by my title. But it would be weird being called, "person who works here." Language can change, but changes should make sense.

To many men, the change in language away from doll, broad, girl, etc. didn’t make sense, they were fine with continuing to use those terms.

The problem is that the changes are never ending.

And if you don't use the right term, you are unclean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re cool with language never changing, don’t be a hypocrite; when you go to work tomorrow, be sure to ask your boss to call you “doll,” or “broad,” or “girl,” or even “baby.”

I'm fine with being called "employee" or by my title. But it would be weird being called, "person who works here." Language can change, but changes should make sense.

To many men, the change in language away from doll, broad, girl, etc. didn’t make sense, they were fine with continuing to use those terms.

Oh come on. It's pretty easy to articulate any an adult woman being called a girl or a doll is offensive.

How is "homeless" offensive, or less offensive, than "unhoused?" Again, people don't understand what "unhoused" means, as evidenced by this thread, so how is it better/different?

Unhoused is a broader term encompassing people who expierence housing instability but aren’t yet on the streets. The change is 100% performative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Words get retired because of stigma and a new term is adopted until it also eventually becomes stigmatized.

Hobo, bum >>>>homeless>>>>unhoused>>>>???

Yes. Congratulations. Welcome to language.

moron --> retarded --> learning disabled

Same thing happened with the "n-word" and other combinations of letters and sounds that had or took on derogatory meanings. That is what language does, then the people who use it care about the effects of words.

Moron, retarded, idiot are all medically conceived words.

Sure. And there was initially no stigma to them, because they were technical terms only. But then there was stigma, and language changed.

I'm not sure how much you want me to spell out the analogy to "homeless" and "unhoused" without sounding like I am being condescending.

You should really think about that statement (bolded); it's an intelligent one. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps it is because your very position on the topic is condescending?

Oh, I'm trying my best. My deepest apologies for insulting your feelings.

You didn't insult me. But then, I don't live my life looking to conduct performative actions that are pretend solutions for real problems, and judging other people for not "caring" as much as I do.

This right here. It’s so effing annoying. Changing the language is literally helping no one.

It is also hurting no one to change the language. Quit being precious about having to learn to use a new term. You are an adult - theoretically it’s not the first time you’ve experienced there being a new term in use for a familiar thing.

It is so effing annoying that people like you and your PP comrades get extremely worked up when asked to use language geared toward inclusivity and sensitivity. I myself don’t entirely agree with the hair-splitting terminology evolution going on here and it’s fairly clear from existing in the world that there isn’t total agreement on this particular issue. But it’s not that far off from asking folks to call other folks by their preferred pronouns. You’d think folks were being asked to gouge out their own eyes with the “so can I just identify as anything I want now?” red herring arguments. Language changes. Often to be more respectful. It’s only a big deal if you make it a big deal.

How much money did you give to your local unhomed person with testicles this week

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re cool with language never changing, don’t be a hypocrite; when you go to work tomorrow, be sure to ask your boss to call you “doll,” or “broad,” or “girl,” or even “baby.”

I'm fine with being called "employee" or by my title. But it would be weird being called, "person who works here." Language can change, but changes should make sense.

To many men, the change in language away from doll, broad, girl, etc. didn’t make sense, they were fine with continuing to use those terms.

Oh come on. It's pretty easy to articulate any an adult woman being called a girl or a doll is offensive.

How is "homeless" offensive, or less offensive, than "unhoused?" Again, people don't understand what "unhoused" means, as evidenced by this thread, so how is it better/different?

Unhoused is a broader term encompassing people who expierence housing instability but aren’t yet on the streets. The change is 100% performative.

The above. Unhoused is a term used in the care for the homeless industry. It is the PC term for homeless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Words get retired because of stigma and a new term is adopted until it also eventually becomes stigmatized.

Hobo, bum >>>>homeless>>>>unhoused>>>>???

This. In the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's the male unhoused would have been called hobos and bums.

Generally they drifted through towns looking for day labor work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re cool with language never changing, don’t be a hypocrite; when you go to work tomorrow, be sure to ask your boss to call you “doll,” or “broad,” or “girl,” or even “baby.”

I'm fine with being called "employee" or by my title. But it would be weird being called, "person who works here." Language can change, but changes should make sense.

To many men, the change in language away from doll, broad, girl, etc. didn’t make sense, they were fine with continuing to use those terms.

The problem is that the changes are never ending.

Welcome to language; that’s the way it works and always has.

Don’t care. I’m old and have FU money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re cool with language never changing, don’t be a hypocrite; when you go to work tomorrow, be sure to ask your boss to call you “doll,” or “broad,” or “girl,” or even “baby.”

I'm fine with being called "employee" or by my title. But it would be weird being called, "person who works here." Language can change, but changes should make sense.

To many men, the change in language away from doll, broad, girl, etc. didn’t make sense, they were fine with continuing to use those terms.

The problem is that the changes are never ending.

Welcome to language; that’s the way it works and always has.

Partly. But it also is the way the supposedly "woke" try to trip up everyone they think is "unwoke." Hear us, please: we're getting tired of the games. You aren't two any longer. This isn't cute. We want you to understand that changing the verbiage doesn't change the problem and it doesn't result in a ... result. To achieve change, you youngun's are going to have to get off your tushes and do some actual work. The time for your endless talk is done. Now we want to see some action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re cool with language never changing, don’t be a hypocrite; when you go to work tomorrow, be sure to ask your boss to call you “doll,” or “broad,” or “girl,” or even “baby.”

I'm fine with being called "employee" or by my title. But it would be weird being called, "person who works here." Language can change, but changes should make sense.

To many men, the change in language away from doll, broad, girl, etc. didn’t make sense, they were fine with continuing to use those terms.

The problem is that the changes are never ending.

Welcome to language; that’s the way it works and always has.

Partly. But it also is the way the supposedly "woke" try to trip up everyone they think is "unwoke." Hear us, please: we're getting tired of the games. You aren't two any longer. This isn't cute. We want you to understand that changing the verbiage doesn't change the problem and it doesn't result in a ... result. To achieve change, you youngun's are going to have to get off your tushes and do some actual work. The time for your endless talk is done. Now we want to see some action.

Oh but this is so much easier, leaves time for Tik Tok videos and is a measure for judging other people too!