Language itself is not racist, sexist, etc.

• However, people use particular works or expressions to express group affiliation. When there is a group that holds a minority position on race relations, proper treatment of animals, etc., some people may use particular "code words" to identify themselves as sympathetic to that group's views. So then you see offensive language getting used with intent to offend.


• Much more common is that majority norms about acceptable behavior change faster than the linguistic forms themselves; and so "offsensive" language gets used without the speaker realizing that they could be offending someone. Idiomatic expressions and placenames are especially slow to change.

In both cases, someone could get offended, but the differences is in the heart of the offender. Language is recognized as "offensive" once enough of the speech community has agreed that "we don't talk that way." You can have a medley of the two dynamics, too: a minority group (PETA in this example) wishes to consciously shift norms about what kinds of behavior is acceptable (hunting birds, etc.), and they start trying to push certain usages into the second box. But it's usually the other way around: first people agree that certain practices are wrong; then they adjust their language slowly afterwards.

To be fair to them, though, getting the majority group to start to reflect on what they are saying is often a first step at getting some recognition for minority rights. I think the tactic has been deployed successfully by feminists and other civil rights groups...and unsuccessfully by countless others.

I think it's an uphill battle indeed for PETA, since humans have been hunting and domesticating animals for over 10,000 years.We have even domesticated cats to kill rodents for us, enslaving the cat and multiplying the slaughter of pests. They may as well also start demanding celibacy across the board. You will know that PETA is successful if we stop using words like "husband", which, etymologically speaking, are doubly sexist and speciesist.

A close analogy to an agenda-driven revision of a shared body of literature, either oral or written, would be the the revision of Christian hymnody to reflect contemporary language and the theological/pastoral concerns of a particular age.

Each denomination has taken a slightly different approach to hymnal publishing, but many are striving to remove what they think is racist and sexist language.

Young said The United Methodist Hymnal, published in 1988, includes ''Joy to the World'' but has changed the words.

The second stanza of the Christmas carol now reads ''Let all their songs employ'' instead of ''Let men their songs employ.''

''Have Thine Own Way, Lord'' now reads, ''Wash me just now, Lord, wash me just now'' rather than, ''Wash me just now, Lord, whiter than snow.''

Beyond removing language viewed as racist and sexist, the Methodist hymnal also notes hymns that could be offensive to the disabled.

For example, the stanza stating ''leap, ye lame, for joy'' in ''O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing'' has an asterisk by it and a footnote stating it may be omitted. — Adelle M. Banks, “Old Hymn, New Words May Not Mix,” Orlando Sentinel, 28 Apr. 1990.

Later in the article, Banks points out what a Presbyterian discovered about hymn texts:

''When we were looking at a text, we had sometimes as many as eight parallel texts of the same hymn from all of the other hymnals . . . so we could see that it was not outlandish to think about changing because everybody else had,'' said Jane Parker Huber, a member of the 18-member committee that worked on the Presbyterian book.

While a given generation of church-goers might think of hymn texts as unchanging and invest a given text with particular personal meaning, throughout history hymn texts have quite often been updated to conform to social or theological trends. Both Christian and Jewish theologians heavily influenced by the European enlightenment eschewed anthropomorphic or zoomorphic imagery of God and revised hymn texts accordingly. In the 18th and early 19th centuries, this met with limited success because worshippers had often memorized all the verses of a particular hymn and they would simply belt out the old version. Contemporary worshippers are much more book-dependent, so “smolder and sing,” as the chief editor of the Methodist hymnal noted, may be the only strategy available.

These efforts, beginning roughly a half century ago, have for the most part been successful as long as those responsible for the revision are sensitive to melody and text — and especially careful with the first verse.

PETA does not have the authority of denominational hymnal committees. Proverbs, maxims, and similar idiomatic sayings eventually die out because they become trite or the message they put forth is no longer valid; they are hardly susceptible even to the same gentle revision as hymn texts, but pretty much frozen. The proof of the pudding, for instance, preserves a meaning of proof as ‘test’no longer current, but the maxim has never been updated. A better strategy, then, would be to ask people to refrain from using them at all.

I can't recall the last time I used any of the expressions you listed. Perhaps PETA is just...uh...beating a dead horse.

• 
  

  "Why are the idioms listed speciesist?"

  
  
  

  All the examples on the left column describe some sort of violence or otherwise negative action on an animal. The right column removes those. Violence against bagels is a perfectly accepted act nowadays.

  
  


• 
  

  "How likely will we be seeing or hearing anti-animal idioms being replaced with the ones suggested by PETA in the future? Why/why not?"

  
  
  

  Likelihood in the future about things like this is an extremely opinionated judgement. I can imagine "bring home the bagels" working because that's not an uncommon thing to actually do. In the US however, 'scones' aren't as commonly fed to birds. Some of these may work and some of them won't. We could attempt to assess each one but each one could be a distinct very opinionated discussion. 'Feed a fed horse' sounds good to me, but 'be the test tube' doesn't sound like anything (at the moment; of course when we first heard 'be the guinea pig' surely that was opaque at the moment out of context).

  
  


• 
  

  "In the history of English have there been any similar campaigns to replace or remove racist or ableist proverbs or idioms, and how successful were they?"

  
  
  

  Explicit campaigns by government agencies or individual NGOs or commercial organization and specifically for racist or ableist proverbs? That's very specific, to ask for all those criteria. Surely there are some but I just can't think of any. 'Ms.' magazine popularized that (existing) term to avoid female marital status. But the NAACP has never renamed itself even though 'colored' has gone through the cycle of what it's called (by whites) to disparaging to old-fashioned to silly to who knows what now, but still acceptable in that institution's name.

  
  
  

  Beyond that, the euphemism treadmill has been a very strong influence in an organic, non-official manner.

  
  
  

  Not to feed a fed horse or anything, but I see articles about 'word prohibition' all the time: don't call girls 'bossy', don't use the word 'just' (but also some pushback). These aren't organizational programs for questionable/taboo word avoidance/replacement.

  
  
  

  I mean, this ain't China (PRC) where similar sounding words to Winnie the Pooh (in Chinese of course) were banned by the government because something something used something describe something something current President Xi.

  
  

I'm not a linguist or language historian, but I've read a bit about evolution of the English language, so take this with a grain of salt.

Language generally changes organically, I think it's pretty rare that intentional campaigns have the desired results. Euphemisms arise and change due to general societal attitudes. For instance, the advent of the civil rights movement led to derogatory terms for races and ethnicities becoming mostly taboo. "Mailman" became "letter carrier" as more women entered the occupation and American society became less sexist.

But there were no organizations waging public campaigns to stamp out the N-word and sexist language, for instance. In fact, I think such campaigns are likely to backfire, as people tend to resist being told what to do. Negative reactions from peers are likely to be much more effective. Some countries have organizations dedicated to maintenance of the language (like L'Academie Francaise); they exercise some control, but you can't stop people from talking the way they want to talk.

These particular replacement idioms seem pretty ridiculous. The originals are clear metaphors that make sense, the replacements were chosen simply because they sound similar. That's not to say they can't catch on, as many euphemisms are also sound-alikes (e.g. "Crikey" for "Christ").

PETA in particular has a history of going to extremes. For instance, while the organization probably officially denigrated such acts, people aligned with them have been known to throw blood on people wearing animal fur. And they've put up billboards that many have found offensive. They're a very polarizing organization, and this is likely to bias many people against this latest campaign.

This PETA campaign reminds me of when a faction in the US government attempted to rebrand French fries as Freedom fries because France opposed our invasion of Iraq after 9/11. The change was made in the menus of the Congressional cafeterias, but it never caught on more widely, and 2/3 of respondents in a poll at the time thought it was silly. The cafeterias changed their menus back 3 years later.

Perhaps if they could have convinced McDonalds to go along, it might have been more successful. But there's no analogous organization PETA could turn to to try to get their phrases popularized, so it's likely even more doomed than that was. It will probably be the butt of a joke on Weekend Update this week (as the Freedom fries attempt was 15 years ago), and then promptly forgotten.

Why are the idioms listed speciesist?

Each one conjures a fairly specific mental image of harming an animal. The theory goes that if the phrases are normal, so too are the notions of harm to animals. PETA laments that animals are treated less well than humans, and these idioms illustrate only harm to animals. Perhaps there is a counterpoint such as, "threw him under the bus", which is also pretty grim.

How likely will we be seeing or hearing anti-animal idioms being replaced with the ones suggested by PETA in the future? Why/why not?

They are reasonable and kind of cute in their own way. People aligned with PETA or who like them might use them. As a native English speaker; they are definitely close enough to the originals that I would know what someone was talking about should they use the alternatives. "Feed two birds with one scone", is my favorite of the bunch. (brunch?)

Referring to question 3, the mentioned changes in the usage of "offensive" expressions appear to have an old history as the following extract notes:

1.1. The protective euphemism — to shield and to avoid offense

• Euphemisms are characterized by avoidance language and evasive expression. We create them when we are faced the tricky problem of how to talk in different contexts about things that for one reason or another we would prefer not to speak of unrestrainedly in the prevailing context. In this primary function, euphemisms are verbal escape hatches created in response to taboos. These include the usual suspects — private parts, bodily functions, sex, anger, dishonesty, drunkenness, madness, disease, death, dangerous animals, fear, God and so on — as Adams and Newell [1994: 12] describe ‘an infinite variety of things that go bump in the night’.




• There will always be significant differences between individual societies and individuals within those societies with respect to the degree of tolerance shown towards any sort of taboo-defying behaviour — much will depend on the values and belief systems at the time. Taboo is also dynamic, and notions about what is forbidden will change, sometimes dramatically, across cultures and across time. The Bowdlerites of the 19th century targeted profanity and sexual explicitness and this triggered the progressive sanitising of a range of works, including the Bible.

As for question 2), with all due respect, I really doubt that PETA will be able to exert any real influence on the usage of the above mentioned idioms. I do love and respect animals, but if I need to “take the bulls by the horns”, I’ll say it without any sense of being guilty.

Question 1, Why are the idioms listed speciesist?

The problem I see in PETA's attitude is that they've simply begged the question from the get-go. First they say "Here's how to remove speciesism from your daily conversation", then list a number of phrases that it implies are speciesist without any explanation as to why.

First of all, I think it's true that the actions described in these metaphors/expressions can indeed be seen as speciesist insofar as that in their most literal sense they describe things that humans do and have done to animals which may be seen as unjust. If you accept the proposition that animals are equal to humans in all rights (a proposition which itself may be dubious), you have denied the animal its rightful treatment. The analogy made seems to be one drawn from humans to animals. So for for example saying "off the reservation" can be racist because it harks back to a time when native Americans were legally confined to specific areas of land. Equally they claim it's speciesist because these phrases reflect the supposed maltreatment of animals. But there are so many disparities between the two that the comparison seems a silly one. Just to take one point, saying "off the reservation" may well offend people, but what animal are you offending by uttering these expressions? Also, it seems they have taken it for granted that killing animals is universally wrong. I stand with them in their quest to change human attitudes towards animals, however their logic is all over the place.

Having put that technical part side, they still in no way have shown how the utterance of these phrases is speciesist of itself. I take it most people love horses. Saying to beat a dead horse doesn't, in my opinion, show any disregard for the welfare of horses. Nor do I think it necessarily lowers our respect for horses as a species. Also, a bleeding-heart, vegan, animal-loving birdwatcher may use the expression "Kill two birds with one stone" without degrading one's respect for such creatures.

Question 2. How likely will we be seeing or hearing anti-animal idioms being replaced with the ones suggested by PETA in the future? Why/why not?

I have no idea. But I get the impression that this idea is not finding favour with the majority of people, and perhaps with even with the majority of animal-lovers. I read this story first on CNN, and here are a few tweets from people which may give you some perspective:

Hi, @peta. As someone who has had homophobic slurs shouted at him and
seen individuals physically threatened and beaten while anti-LGBTQ
epithets were hurled, your stupidity is not even laughable— it is
offensive to equate common animal idioms to racism, ableism, or
homophobia.

Do you ever wonder if PETA is a false flag set up by Big Meat to make
everyone hate vegans

I feel like PETA’s actual mission is to ensure that vegetarians and vegans are never taken seriously. I mean, they go onto compare this language to sexist/racist/homophobic slurs.
Link to CNN article

Question 3, In the history of English have there been any similar campaigns to replace or remove racist or ableist proverbs or idioms, and how successful were they?

I'm not sure how to answer this, because you refer to "similar campaigns", and I hesitate to say that most ideologically driven actions like this are very organised. I see them as general social phenomena.

Here are a few examples:

Since at least 1990 there has been pressure from groups to change the Canadian national anthem. One controversy has been to change "our home and native land" to "our home and cherished land" for reasons that, well, most people aren't REALLY "native" are they? Another one was about the lyrics "in all thy sons command", which many people wanted changed to gender-neutral language. Just this year, through legislation, the Canadian national anthem has had that part replaced with "in all of us command".

The title Ms in addition to Miss and Mrs goes back a while. It's tried to be revived and brought into common use a number of times. However this attempt only really succeeded and became widespread in around 1972 according to the Wikipedia article. Throughout its early days different commentators and style guides took differing opinions on its use. Needless to say this is a form language advocacy, to a greater or lesser extent organised by authoritative sources or just the general public.

In various municipalities/councils there has been a bit of controversy over referring to humans as "owners" of our pets. Suggested alternative are "guardian", "companion", "caretaker". Legally, however, they are property in most cases.

Various LGBT organisations who fight for equal treatment advocate for correct use of words. One example can be seen in this Guide to Terminology. Here you can see recommendations and cautions such as:

Terms to use:
gay (adj.)
lesbian (n. or adj.)
bisexual, bi (adj.)
Terms to avoid:
homosexual

Terms to use:
transgender(adj.).
Terms to avoid:
transgendered
a transgender (n.)
transvestite
tranny

Terms to use:
transition
Terms to avoid:
sex change
sex-change operation”
pre-operative / post-operative

Sometimes things like gender pronouns are specifically mentioned in legislation. One case of this that caused a bit of a stir was the Canadian C16 bill which became law. Although the bill itself doesn't create crimes or acts of discrimination out of refusing to use a person's preferred gender pronoun, I believe the concern of some is that that is exactly the effect it would have because the legislation does not stand alone, but rather is interpreted within the framework of the definitions of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I don't want to get into this as it's controversial, and I'm not very knowledgeable about this legally. But this is another example.

I would like to correct something that the asker concluded:

It's tempting to think that this might be some sort of hoax but PETA is deadly serious.

I'd hate to ruin the magic trick for you, but PETA isn't actually serious. They say things they know are controversial as a way of getting attention. They say so themselves.

Unfortunately for PETA, the new crusade was not received well by Twitter users, and many Tweets have since been issued mocking the animal protection society.

This is not actually unfortunate for PETA. In fact, it's exactly what they want. Twitter users tweeting about PETA, whether out of outrage or not, is the sort of thing that has kept them relevent for nearly 40 years. Even now, we're giving free advertisement for PETA on Stack Exchange. In comparison, there are countless other animal welfare organizations and I bet you haven't heard of any of them.

PETA, just like Donald Trump and the Westboro Baptist Church, knows they can say incredibly stupid, outrageous things because it will give them attention.

So to answer your first question, the idioms are listed a speciesist because it will make lots of people angry.

Not a native english speaker, but the proposed alternatives don't make any sense, the simplicity and universality is lost and are therefore doomed.
It's like asking some not-so-bright (but right-thinking) guy to rewrite Dickens for some reason: What do you expect? That people will stop reading the original?

"Kill two birds with one stone"

A 5 year old kid immediately understands the meaning of this so I don't need to explain.
Imagine you are in a discussion and you want to illustrate the fact that if we do it your way you are gonna solve two problems in a single and elegant action at almost no further expense:

• "Well Joe, we are gonna feed two bird with one scone!"

Okay... Who feeds birds in the first place? And who feeds birds scones? There are rocks everywhere on earth and humans have been hunting birds since we learned to. Every single human on earth can picture the idea of the original. The PETA version is limited to Starbuck clients.

"Be the test tube"

The important bit in "be the guinea pig" is the guinea pig itself because as a human you have empathy for the poor guy and you can identify yourself as being the expandable living creature in the process.
Maybe at PETA they aren't smart enough to have figured that out or maybe they are blinded by their ideology (or both).

Anyway, you can take each one of them and you will do the same observation: the power and the universality of these centuries old expressions is completely lost and therefore will end in the limbo.

This has already made me lose more time than it deserves...