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.
In a dance community where anyone, regardless of gender, can dance any role, changing the name of the dance community’s “Jack & Jill” contests to something gender-neutral like “Mix & Match” is making language more accurate.
This argument may lead one to think there was a desire to destroy the contest format itself. This is not condemning “the history of the dance,” which is emotionally charged language in an argument giving very little evidence to back it up.If we as a scene want people of all identities to feel included, and the name for a contest can be exclusionary, then it is a logical course of action to change the contest name.Please note: The reason we put the “accuracy” argument first, and the “inclusive” argument second, is to highlight that from a strictly logical perspective we can establish that a name change is an improvement *in and of itself* before adding on a more desire-based argument (the desire for the dance to be inclusive).Because the names Jack and Jill have a long history of being used for specific genders, and because partner dance itself has a long history of primarily having men and women dancing together, the contest name “Jack and Jill” can imply that dancers in the respective roles are preferred to be male/female or of a specific sexual orientation.Therefore, the use of the term “Jack & Jill” can feel exclusionary to those who are gender or sexually non-conforming.