Steve, don't get me wrong, I do understand what you are saying and where we are all coming from. What I am saying is that we should learn to reframe our way of thinking about such matters in general. As you may have gathered, I am not a huge fan of the whole political correctness phenomenon anyway, but it is interesting on how it has always been there, and how our language changes. This is an age old problem because even now, we see in the UK parliament that the houses of Lords and Commons are describing each other as the “other place”.

As you alluded to, Steve, you and I went to school in the UK in “different times”, which we both remember as being somewhat less sensitive than now. The use of racial slurs were based not just on the colour of our skin, but about which part of England, let alone Scotland, Ireland and Wales we came from. From memory my part of the world was described as being Southern Softies! In fact, we all had jokes, especially those that went along the lines of An Englishman, Irishman, and Scotsman, Etc.

 

Now the point is that it is, that if we are trying to not be derogatory, then we should use names and phrases that are not made up by us, but by the people who they are applied to. For instance, we would rather our beaches be called Naturist Beaches, or Naturist areas of the beach, as we consider ourselves naturists. We would not want it to be called “Pedo Hangout”, or “Nutty Nudist Area”, or whatever people on social media would want to call it. Thus, we must accept that in our published articles we can look at the bit we use as being a naturist beach, and other places as non-naturist areas. Most other “regular” beaches, particularly in Spain and the UK do not have laws that prevent nude bathing, however it maybe frowned upon, and this we understand and for the most part accept.

 

Now this is where our good friend Ken does a fantastic job, because he is challenging our (or should I say my own), acceptance. Why should it be that we cannot be nude there too? Is it a society problem? In which case we want to change society’s view of naturism. The issue there is that we want to change hearts and minds, which in recent times means using attractive conciliatory ways, rather than a battering ram approach. If people who want to have an area where nudity is not tolerated, and call themselves temperance movement, conservatives, or modest, then that is the term we should adopt.

Similarly, if that is how they wish to define their claimed area, then that is fine terminology too. Notice I am not saying I agree that they should have their own area, as that is a completely different debate, to which I would not subscribe to their view. All I am saying, is that we should use their term when discussing the issue or telling our friends to avoid areas marked as being for the “modest” people.

 

We should not be so bold as to label all non-naturist areas as “Textile” or clothed people as “Textiles”, because that is our word. That is as bad as calling a Welsh person, “Taff”, or a ginger haired person “Ginge”. We do not necessarily mean those as negative terms, and I have made this mistake many times myself. This is not to say people are necessarily bad because they are using those terms, but a reflection of how we ought to be inclusive rather than exclusive.

 

In my younger days, my own best friend Richard, got labelled as “Tricky” or “Tricky Dicky”, which was a term people picked up from me, to my own disgust now. When he pointed out some years later that this was not to his liking, I was all defensive about my terminology. “Oh, it’s just in jest, and I don’t mean any harm by it”, I would say. But that was not the point, because had he of said to start with, “I use the name ‘Tricky’” to start with, then that was his to own.

 

Going back to a couple of your points, ‘We all arrived clothed then some of us went to the "textile" area while others went to the "naturist" area’, can be reframed. Perhaps a better way of saying this would be “We all arrived clothed, whilst we headed for the dedicated naturist area, others went to the end where naturism is not tolerated”. Now your counter argument to that would be along the lines of “We can’t put that on a sign”, however traditionally now we see signs that say “Nude bathers may be seen” or “nudity prohibited”. There may even be a helpful simple symbolic way of showing this point too, which is language neutral, but personally I haven't come across one that said "Textiles this way"! Like you said, it seems a pretty pointless thing to be discussing when really, we would want it to be acceptable to be nude/unclothed, or dressed as we felt it appropriate.

The term "textile" is just as messy as clothed, because the traditional dictionary definition is "a cloth made by hand or machine". So if clothed (ie draped in some piece of cloth), is messy, then textile is just as bad if not worse because (to me), it seems grammatically incorrect. As a derivative, it is just expounding on the already messy word, which is why I specifically chose to use the messy "clothed" word in the beach context, realising it really didn't work. Thus maybe for now we should use the terms such as naturist and either "other areas", or "non-naturist areas". Or we could use nudist and non-nudist for the simplicity of non technical readers, because like we discussed for cultural reasons (and sexual connotations that were place upon the words by our predecessors), some of us make greater distinction than others.

The responses I give is how I try to frame my use of language and why I personally find it better to steer clear of terminology such as “textile”. Obviously, it does not always work, and we all find ourselves from time to time using the T word because we cannot think of a better way of expressing our view. It doesn’t necessarily make me cringe, however it does sometimes make me wonder if we are really any better than the name calling, hysteria crowd on social media who think we are all weirdos and a threat to their kids.

George. I like your argument, particularly the part about it being a word that they don't use.

I have never seen anything derogatory about the word and have never considered anyone else could but maybe they can. Maybe my own innocence and lack of judgment in the area could maybe stop me seeing the word as negatively as it could be concieved. I am more than happy to stop the use of the word "textile" just in case. The question is what to replace it with. 

Non-naturist is a possibility though it does sound negative towards those it is aimed at. Also though it may cause difficulty. An area of a beach being described as non-naturist because of the main use of it may appear misleading as it may be totally acceptable to be naked there but is more commonly used by non-naturists. Most beaches have blurred areas. Places where naturists and non-naturists intermingle. Some don't. In describing these beaches or situations we need a short hand of terms that are simple, non-threatening or judging and allow positive reactions from any readers. 

We don't want a them and us but also in some ways need an easy to recognise word that both doesn't alien the clothed people on the beach and at the same time doesn't discourage naturists from the area.

If we remove the word textile from our writing which I am more than happy to do, what can we use instead? I don't think clothed or non-naturist work particularly well, but maybe they do. Does anyone have an ideal suggestion?  

To be frank, until I came to this site I had never run across the term 'Textiles' being used in such a context. Prior to that, if someone had challenged me to define 'textiles,' I would have replied, "The various types of material produced and sometimes blended, to fashion clothing and decorative items." Perhaps not a complete dictionary definition; just saying, that's what would have come into my head.

I have often facetiously employed the term "clothies," to describe people who prefer to wear clothing. My wife tolerates my sarcasm, as she has had 31 years' practice.

How about signs (I'm imagining the entry point of a beach area here) that say, "CLOTHING PREFERRED THIS WAY" and "NUDITY PREFERRED THIS WAY" (with arrows, of course)?  Too simplistic?

I have returned to this for an edit, because as I went about preparing breakfast it occurred to me that I might have included a more personal note in my initial reaction to the term 'textiles.'  Thinking back, I recall that when I first saw the term used in a post on the old blog (ANF) the feeling that came over me was that people who prefer clothing were being referred to, themselves, as clothing. It was as though they were being labeled as though they were what they like.  I wasn't personally offended because, of course, I do not like wearing clothing. However as I continued on the site I came to a conclusion that those folks lavishly employing that term also seemed to a large degree, to be the same ones who approached naturism with almost a religious fervor; and since I knew I would never take my nudism quite to that extreme, I dismissed the usage of the term 'textiles' as a choice designed to express strong dislike for clothing and I left it at that.
I don't know if this helps anyone; just thought it might be helpful to share the sort of reaction that might be stimulated in the mind of a newbie, coming for the first time to a naturist site and reading the philosophical expression of those fully ensconced in the lifestyle. "Do I want to continue here?"  "Will I have to become this hostile to clothed society to fit in?"
In a world where people show an increasing displeasure in being labelled in a derogatory manner, no matter how briefly or lightheartedly, what is the likelihood some might be forever turned away from this lifestyle, having themselves referred to as though they themselves are something that might be worn to complete a painting job or to protect from bacon spatter? 

Food for thought...?

It is funny how we assume the usage of a word that seems to suggest one thing to one and another to another. When we came across the word textile originally we thought nothing of it at all and just saw it as a purely descriptive bit of shorthand to refer to those that dressed on a beach. We assumed it was quite commonly used (as seemed to be the case in both naturist writing and also articles in non-naturist press about naturism. We just assumed that as it is commonly used then why not just use it.

I have never seen it used negatively or aggressively -  but cannot guarantee it hasn't been. I also see no issue with people choosing to not be naked on a beach - although I don't get the logic of sand, sea and sun not encouraging such behaviour - especially as the miniscule amount of clothing used by some is almost pointless anyway. 

The term "veggie" is a term I live with - though not particularly attractive or flattering but I see no harm - although some "meat eaters" (maybe another unattractive term) seem to view vegetarians with contempt and distrust. I personally never felt comfortable with the use of the term "Gay" (always thinking it made homosexuality sound rather insultingly frivolous) but it seems very accepted by all. The words used for denoting different skin colouring and races and different body types, physical disorders etc leave me so concerned of using the right ones that I try to avoid any types of description at all. Anne Hathaway has recently apologised for her witch hands in The Witches it seems that we all have to be so very careful - and in many ways rightly so - not to offend others. I never considered "textile" as a concern at all maybe because I never saw it as hostile or aimed at a minority or suffering group. However, it seems  that the term "textile" does seem to create the wrong impression. So as much as I am surprised we will certainly steer clear of it in future. Though what is the best use of words?  A question that maybe needs to be addressed for future use in descriptions.

I personally am weary of the wide-spread offense at words.  Whatever happened to "Sticks and stones my break my bones, but words will never hurt me"?  Of course in polite society we seek to avoid offense by our choice of words; that should come from good training and a desire to be kind to those around us. There are some words that I hate, simply because of the pain, grief and sometimes death that they've caused.  Having said that, it seems that as a world community we've all just gotten a little too thin-skinned.
In 1970, when I first became aware of the homosexual community using the word 'gay' I was offended; simply because it meant happy and I felt it was the specializing of a word that belonged to us all.  Now, fifty years later, if I hear that word in a song by the old guys; eg, Dean Martin, Bing Crosby, two things happen.  1.  I feel old...  2. It sounds strange to my ears, hearing them singing about being gay.
Language changes. Constantly. But let's get real, people. For the most part, it's only words.  Textile is a legitimate word in the English language. If I know someone would be shocked and offended at seeing me naked, what in the world could be wrong with me referring to them as a 'textile?'  Are they going to be doubly offended?

Steve, your reference to the terms 'veggie' and 'meat-eater' serve as a good example.  I have never thought of either of those terms as having even the potential of being offensive. In my world, 'veggie' refers to the vegetables on my plate; not the person eating them.  "Meat-eater" is quite simply a reference to any carnivore, of which I am happily one.  If another person wants to refrain from meat and eat only vegetables, why would that ever be an offense to me? (You have a pierced belly button?  Fine. Not my button) I would only recommend that they seek their protein elsewhere.  If they are made nauseated by seeing me eat meat, they should get up and leave the room.  But the words... are only words.

Educated people used to take a certain pride in their vocabulary because it denoted education and proper upbringing. These days, it feels as though society is being encouraged to dumb-down and apologize for using any word that doesn't ring familiar and/or accepted by a majority in the room.  Textile! Textile! Textile!  There.  I said it, and I'm glad.  :)