On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Delia Clark via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: ​There is an assumption behind this statement which is often made, but which I find very disturbing. The assumption is that it is an unalloyed good thing for there to be standardization. This is the kind of thinking that led the Modern Western Square Dance movement to standardize all of their calls, and all of their teaching programs. They wanted any square dancer to be able to go to any square dance club in the country, or in the world, and immediately know exactly what was meant by everything that was said. There are some advantages to that kind of standardization, especially if you happen to be a globe-hopping square dancer who enjoys dancing hot hash, but it comes at a tremendous cost. It comes with a loss of the opportunity to experience, adapt t​o, and appreciate regional differences. I don't care about being able to go to a new place just to find that things there are done in the same way that I'm used to them being done back home. I care about being able to go to new places and learning the way things are done there. What this means for the current discussion, from my point of view, is that it's a good thing if dance callers and producers discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using different terminology, and consider what language will work best for their dance. It would be a BAD thing if anyone switched terminology JUST BECAUSE that's what other people were doing. It may well be that a certain set of terms will become generally accepted because it works better for the dancers in a lot of places. It may well be that dances which were written to be gender-neutral will be generally accepted because they work better for the dancers in a lot of places. In the meantime, if you find yourself assuming that it would a good thing if there was standardization across the country, please give some thought to what advantage you are trying to achieve, and what the disadvantages would be. Jacob Bloom