Other people not doing everything right doesn’t change whether something someone did was callous or vindictive or wrong. I’m not sure why it’s relevant to you.

You’re ignoring that some employees will no longer be able to afford to buy birth control, or will choose not to in favor of spending what they have on something else, and also not placing enough emphasis on how drastically different the cost of a thing can be when it’s no longer subsidized.

Speaking of precise language, this comment could be interpreted as saying that the problem with the article is your opinion of it.

So, do you see your employer as “paying for your groceries,” the same way you would if they kept your salary the same and started offering a monthly stipend that could be used at the grocery store?

OK, so you don’t like the changes proposed. That’s fine! That’s not what your initial argument seemed to be about.

Didn’t make it to the conclusion, eh?

She’s not arguing for a law against the word. You’re making the faulty assumption that the status quo is neutral, when it isn’t. You don’t have to agree with her argument, but “the way things are” or “the words we usually use” aren’t thus by accident, and criticizing them and making the case for new ones isn’t a…

See also: our president. This dude is sexist and dumb.

It’s not that they CAN’T say it—I’m not sure where you’re getting that. It’s that she’s proposing it would be a better thing to say than what is currently the status quo.

Yeah, agree to disagree on everything you said here. Not all opinion or choices or perspectives are equally valid or vital.

She didn’t argue for the headline you’re proposing. She argued for “X Number of Women Say Harvey Weinstein Assualted Them.” It’s pretty much the entire conclusion. You can’t see the difference, or you didn’t bother to finish reading?

“Woman Says Harvey Weinstein Did X” doesn’t meet that goal?

Thank God someone’s here to defend the status quo simply for being the way things are! Nobody should ever argue to change anything.

What is it you think Diana argued journalists should say instead of “alleged,” exactly? Where in this article did she say they should use words that place blame?

They probably could normally, but then she went and said “women.” The nerve!

I’m guessing all on his own, given that he’s responding to an argument nobody made.

It’s amazing how many of you guys believe “Woman Says Man Did X” is some sort of all-powerful accusation that leads to an immediate conviction. It’s almost like all of human history disproves that, and yet...

How does the language she suggests as an alternative fail to accomplish these things?

OK, that I can see. But she does explain why she thinks “as things have been for hundreds of years” is less than ideal, and how the word isn’t universally applied. In that context, her argument makes sense to me—language is important for lots of reasons and in lots of ways.

Explain how the alternatives she proposes don’t do what you want “allegedly” to do, though.