For instance, if the name were a racial slur, we’d change it pretty quickly despite the fact that many non-English speakers probably wouldn’t know what the original name meant.
It can be argued changing the name will actually be beneficial to the international community: American and other English-language events making this name change could set an example to the non-English-speaking international scene or at least open a dialogue about why we have chosen to do so.
Others argued that no one is asking for this change, and it’s just an invented problem. No one would have brought it up if someone wasn’t asking for this change.
Even if it is only a small number of people who have hitherto not spoken who were the first to request the change, what matters is whether we as a scene agree with them or not — not their number, even if it was one person.
Being worthy of experiencing joy is not tied to one’s gender or sexual orientation.
We as a scene want to encourage anyone who is interested to experience that joy.
Some non-English-speaking commenters noted that the name meant nothing to them in their native languages and had no connotations beyond being the name of a particular kind of competition.
The fact that the names “Jack & Jill” mean nothing to some communities of non-English-speaking dancers is irrelevant as to whether it should be changed or not for English speakers.
Here are additional (less formally presented) arguments and thoughts related to the debate: A common thread we see in people’s arguments is the underlying belief that changing the name is not a big change, not even an action. To change the name of a contest format so firmly ensconced in the modern history of the dance with such widespread recognition and saturation in our dance scene makes a powerful statement to the community.Second of all, regarding its history, the Jack & Jill’s namesake, dancer Jack Carey, welcomed name changes to the format in the past (such as “Luck of the Draw” — this is not the first time the contest has had a name change). The argument under consideration is an example of the reasoning “we should do this because this is the way we’ve always done it.” This is not a sound argument, but unfortunately it is a common one in debates like these.The framework for a valid historical argument is “It has been done this way for a long time because of these reasons, and based on those reasons, the historical way is still a better way to do it than the current suggested change.” This does not hold true for the Jack & Jill contest name or for many other aspects of our dance, which is why we’ve kept swingouts but given up racially segregated ballrooms.It’s saying that it’s important that the names we give things reflect the spirit of the dance scene we want to exist.In the future, many people will wonder “why did they change the name? When the answer is that we wanted the community to be inclusive to people of all of genders, disabilities, characters, and so forth, then that means that changing the name of the Jack & Jill will have been quite a simple but effective way of starting to do some of that education.