"a fetus is a person"
"Mike is a racist"
"calling something stupid is ableist"

And so we argue and debate when there is no reason to do so. Describe the observations instead of expressing the labels you've chosen for the subject.

"It seems to me that sometimes fetuses act like people"
"Mike said something that, to my ear, signal his support for systemic discrimination on the basis of nonwhiteness in another human"
"describing an inanimate object using a phrase that has been used to discriminate and oppress people, often hurts those people's feelings by the comparison"

Hard to argue with the latter. They act as personal observations and factual, operational statements, rather than labels.

It seems to me that speaking in this way could avoid a lot of reactionaries and reply guys. Maybe we shouldn't have to change how we speak, I don't know.

But I know that my impulse to discuss nuance and delineate clearly reduces by at least half when the speaker/writer uses operationalist language.

Mehhhhh
#eprime