A study from MacEwan University in Canada and Stetson University in Florida found that replacing so-called "harmful" words with suggested alternatives does not necessarily improve well-being or reduce anxiety. The research involved 616 US adults rating pairs of terms flagged as problematic by academic and professional guides, along with their recommended replacements. Surprisingly, many participants preferred the original terms; for example, they favored “master bedroom” over “primary bedroom,” and “pipeline” instead of “pathway.”
Written locally by qwen2.5:14b on 2026-09-17,
using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the
same event (that is the story summary below).
Why this leaning score
The model judged this article politically coded and scored it -0.65, but every quote it verified points right, so the score is not published.
Written under an earlier scoring contract, which gave a paragraph
rather than checkable quotes. Re-analysing this article replaces it.
Leaning score withheld for article 16655: score contradicts its own evidence · logged 2026-09-17
But new research suggests there’s little evidence that the swap actually improves well-being — and in some cases, people prefer the originals.
uncertain
people → suggest → originals
In the study, scientists from MacEwan University in Canada and Stetson University in Florida recruited 616 US adults and asked them to rate 175 pairs of words and phrases.
asserted
scientists → recruit → words
Each pair included a term flagged as “harmful” by language guides from academic and professional groups, including Stanford and the American Psychological Association, along with a suggested alternative.
uncertain
pair → include → alternative
Most were everyday words and phrases that the guides considered potentially offensive because of their history or associations, rather than outright insults or slurs — though a few of those made the list, too.
asserted
few → consider → list
For example, some guides recommend swapping “master bedroom” for “primary bedroom” because of the former’s alleged ties to slavery.
asserted
guides → recommend → slavery
Others suggest replacing “pipeline” with “pathway” over concerns about the term’s association with companies transporting crude oil through tribal lands and polluting local water supplies.
asserted
Others → suggest → supplies
There were also some everyday expressions you might not think twice about.
uncertain
you → be → ?
Some guides flag “blind review” in favor of “anonymous review,” arguing that the former could be viewed as ableist toward visually impaired people.
uncertain
former → flag → people
“Unenlightened,” meanwhile, was offered as an alternative to “tone-deaf,” because the term uses a physical disability as a metaphor for a lack of knowledge or awareness.
asserted
term → offer → knowledge
In the study, the participants read each of the “harmful” terms in a sentence and rated how familiar and acceptable it was, as well as how much anxiety it caused them.
asserted
it → read → them
Scientists found that most of the supposedly offensive words were rated as highly acceptable, with some even beating out the recommended replacements.
asserted
some → find → replacements
A closer look at language
Here are some of the words deemed potentially “harmful” by language guides and their suggested alternatives.
Guru (replacement: expert)
Crazy (replacement: wild)
Ballsy (replacement: bold)
Master list (replacement: list)
Seminal (replacement: groundbreaking)
Rule of thumb (replacement: standard rule)
Blacklist (replacement: denylist)
Sold down the river (replacement: betrayed)
Trigger warning (replacement: content note)
Master bedroom (replacement: primary bedroom)
Pipeline (replacement: pathway)
Stand-up (replacement: quick)
Normal (replacement: ordinary)
Powwow (replacement: meeting)
Pull the trigger (replacement: give it a try)
Black sheep (replacement: outcast)
A cakewalk (replacement: easy)
Elderly (replacement: older)
Abort (replacement: cancel)
Whipped into shape (replacement: put in order)
Guys (replacement: folks)
Slave labor (replacement: overworked)
“Pregnant woman,” for example, ranked among the top 10 “harmful” terms that participants preferred over the recommended alternative, “birthing person.”
uncertain
participants → deem → alternative
The same went for “breastfeed” over “chestfeeding” and “Hispanic” over “Latinx.”
asserted
same → go → Latinx
The participants also preferred “addicted” to “hooked” and “victim” to “person who has been impacted by.”
asserted
who → prefer → person
“Participants view the harmful language as generally acceptable and are willing to use them so long as they are not pejoratives,” the researchers concluded.
asserted
researchers → view → them
The team then put the findings to a second test to gauge just how harmful these words actually are.
asserted
words → put → test
They randomly assigned another 334 adults to read one of two versions of a short story — one with the “offensive” words, and one with the recommended alternatives.
asserted
They → assign → alternatives
After, participants completed surveys that measured their reading comprehension, anxiety, positive and negative emotions and feelings of social inclusion.
asserted
that → complete → inclusion
Again, the supposedly harmful language failed to produce the psychological effects the guides warn about.
asserted
guides → fail → effects
The scientists found no measurable difference in well-being between the two groups.
asserted
scientists → find → groups
Reading a story filled with terms flagged as harmful didn’t increase anxiety, reduce feelings of belonging or dampen positive emotions.
asserted
Reading → read → emotions
“We also find no evidence that participants from marginalized groups are more negatively impacted by exposure to harmful language than participants who are not from marginalized groups,” the authors wrote.
asserted
authors → find → groups
In fact, they added, the only people who showed any negative reaction to the harmful language “were those with higher levels of moral elitism and need for recognition.
asserted
who → add → recognition
The results suggest that most of the terminology flagged by the language guides was viewed as acceptable and didn’t produce measurable psychological harm in the experiments.
“As such, there is little need to cast those who use terms such as pipeline, master bedroom, breastfeeding and blind review, as seeking to cause harm and hence needing to be punished socially,” the study authors wrote.
asserted
authors → suggest → harm
The scientists did, however, highlight an important caveat:
asserted
scientists → highlight → caveat
“The results of this study should not be used as an excuse for those who seek to use racial slurs, ethnic epithets, taboo language, or other pejoratives,” they cautioned.
asserted
they → use → slurs
“Our findings do not apply to that category of words or phrases.”
asserted
findings → apply → words
The Aporia
