This Christmas, unwrap something truly special — the gift of being united by oral history.

Join us online on 19th December 2025 at 17:00 GMT for Unwrapping Memories Using Oral History: A Christmas Student Showcase, a heart warming celebration where students of Oral History Made Easy – Six Steps to Success reveal how they’ve brought stories of the past to life in new and inspiring ways using the oral history method. Book you free place now for this special celebration of oral history.

https://www.eventbrite.ie/e/unwrapping-memories-using-oral-history-a-christmas-student-showcase-tickets-1945476375209?aff=oddtdtcreator

Discover how students from around the world have transformed their new-found knowledge, skills and confidence as oral historians into projects that preserve voices, celebrate communities and honour the power of lived experience.

As the year draws to a close, this special event reminds us that memories are more than moments — they are precious heirlooms to be shared, treasured and passed on to current and future generations.

🎄 Expect festive warmth, heartfelt storytelling and plenty of inspiration to carry you into the new year.

💫 Why Attend?

• Meet the inspirational students who completed Oral History Made Easy.

• Discover how people have used oral history to capture the untold stories of people in their communities.

• Learn how storytelling connects generations, disciplines and cultures.

• Be inspired to start your own oral history journey in 2026.

✨ This special Christmas oral history event is hosted by renowned oral historian Dr Angela Maye-Banbury. Angela is Founder of Oral History Made Easy, Chairperson of Achill Oral Histories and Emeritus Fellow in Oral History. You will be joining Angela live from her home on beautiful Achill Island, County Mayo Republic Of Ireland with her students taking part from all over the world. We look forward to seeing you then!

Contact Information

Dr Angela Maye-Banbury, Emeritus Fellow In Oral History And Research Methods
Sheffield Hallam University, UK
Founder Oral History Made Easy
Founder & Chairperson Achill Oral Histories, Ireland
Mob: 00 44 7947 507 480 (UK) 00 353 87 483 6275

Contact Email

a.maye-banbury@shu.ac.uk

URL

https://www.eventbrite.ie/e/unwrapping-memories-using-oral-history-a-christmas-…

Attachments

Unwrapping memories 2025

A personal invitation

Your oral history journey, your way

Celebrating the student experience

Education, mentorship and community

December 18, 2025

You’re reading John McWhorter’s newsletter. Every week, McWhorter, a Columbia University linguist, explores how race and language shape our politics and culture. Enjoy the edition below and look for future newsletters in your inbox on Thursdays.

Pablo Delcan

The words and phrases of 2025

By John McWhorter

It was a year of so much politics and so much culture, a year of so many hopes and so many fears. But however you experienced 2025, you did it through language, the ever-evolving tool that both describes the world we inhabit and also responds to it, changing and shifting to meet the moment. “Slop,” “rage bait” and “parasocial” have all been named as the term of the year by the big dictionary franchises. Those are good choices, but here are the seven words and phrases that, to me, most closely represent the past year of our lives.

1. Groyper. Followers of the archconservative, openly racist and antisemitic, recreationally combative commentator Nick Fuentes take their name — or did they give it? — from a sourish, homely cartoon froglike figure that they treat as their avatar. They’ve been around since the 2010s, but this was the year that Fuentes, previously a sideshow, entered the MAGA mainstream. The death of Charlie Kirk, who led a competing swath of followers, was one reason; another was a long and respectful interview by Tucker Carlson that divided conservatives. Along the way, “groyper” moved from the dark corners of the internet to widespread recognition.

2. No Kings. When President Trump took to social media and declared “Long Live the King,” and the White House upped the ante with an image of Trump wearing a crown, organizers on the left offered a devastatingly simple response: No. No King Trump, no King Anyone Else, no kings. And they punctuated that response with a series of huge, crossnational protest marches, the very existence of which proved that they were right. The word “Occupy” served a similar rhetorical function in 2011, taking extreme economic inequality out of the realm of concept and into the stark physical reality of bodies on the street.

3. 6-7. You know I had to mention this one, right? “6-7,” the thing kids insist on articulating — with a knowing giggle — every time the two digits appear in that order, has been a subject of ongoing confusion by adults. For kids, that’s half the fun. Eventually those adults started consoling one another with the explanation that the expression has no meaning at all. That’s wrong, a mistake based on the false belief that all language serves to communicate facts. Language — starting with plain old “please” and “hello” — also serves social functions. Did “6-7” emerge from a line in a rap song that refers to the height of a basketball player? It’s almost irrelevant. For Gen Alpha folks, the phrase is a form of group identification: You have to be a teen or tween to get it. This is the function that slang has always served. “6-7” is unusual only in that — unlike “cool” or “lit,” say — it did not emerge out of a word or expression already in circulation. It’s a good bit. And the longer that grown-ups scratch our heads about it, the more such gags are likely to emerge.

4. It’s the phones. 2025 wasn’t the first time anyone lamented the influence of ubiquitous cellphones on our kids and our culture, but it was the year that this three-word declaration became the go-to formulation. Today it’s less a sentence one composes word by word than a set expression, a short, handy reference to a larger argument, advanced by, among others, the psychologists Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge, that smartphones are transforming children’s lives and brains for the worse.

5. The price of eggs. This humble home economics phrase became a stand-in for inflation but also for more than that — its rise and fall, the effect on consumers’ lives, the way that effect is influencing our nation’s politics and the discourse that has arisen to explain that influence. It’s what linguists call metonymy. Why eggs? Their price did jump substantially, but like so much of what happens to language, there is an element of chance. Lately the Democrats’ focus on this concept, which they feel plays to their advantage, has been so focused that it has squeezed the four words down to just one: “affordability.” There’s no perfect measure for how often the word was used, but digital search tools indicate that significantly more news articles included it this year than last.

6. Giving. Don’t groan. I know that the expression — as in “That song is giving Taylor Swift” or “That dress is giving old lady”— has been around for a while, originating in Black gay and ballroom culture, along with “slay” and “serve.” But 2025 is the year that “giving” became what linguists refer to as entrenched, meaning it’s no longer a dash of wit, color or attitude; it’s just normal everyday speech. A sign that this is happening is when members of Gen Alpha casually use the term with an adult (such as me) and it starts to feel as though it should be in the dictionary rather than just on lists of savory slang.

7. He and she. I’ve been saying for a while that the gender-neutral “they/them” was going to become even more widespread. As a linguist who studies the ways language changes, I noted the rise in people resisting the gender binary and got caught up in — and perhaps even biased toward — what I processed as a pronominal revolution. But surveys show that the number of young people identifying as nonbinary has decreased considerably over the past two years. Binary genders are on the rise again, and therefore so are the pronouns most closely associated with them. By the way, I also thought “Corona” would crowd out “Covid” as the general term for the virus, because it’s more melodious and lends itself better to wordplay. Really, predictions are always a risk, regardless of what you know and what feels right.

Can you think of any other words or expressions that would have stumped you if someone had said them a year ago? And is my take on “giving” and “they/them” just a matter of my not getting around enough?

Read past editions of the newsletter here.

If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here.

Have feedback? Send me a note at McWhorter-newsletter@nytimes.com.

The New York Times

FREE WEBINAR SERIES

Trump and Higher Ed: Understanding the Latest

Sign up for free today and you’ll automatically be registered for all four fall sessions, taking place once a month in September, October, November, and December.

Sarah Brown, The Chronicle’s news editor, and Rick Seltzer, author of the subscriber-only Daily Briefing newsletter, will tackle the most pressing issues in higher-ed policy, helping you stay informed and prepared for what’s ahead.

• Session 1: September 25 at 1 p.m. ET / 10 a.m. PT

• Session 2: October 28 at 1 p.m. ET / 10 a.m. PT

• Session 3: November 20 at 1 p.m. ET / 10 a.m. PT

• Session 4: December 15 at 1 p.m. ET / 10 a.m. PT

Don’t worry if you can’t attend live: Registrants will receive reminders before each session and on-demand access to the recordings afterward.

Sign Up Now

SPEAKERS

Focused on Health

Lorenzo Cohen, Ph.D., director of MD Anderson’s Integrative Medicine Program, shares what to watch for & how small changes can help protect your health.

Have you washed your hands, showered, styled your hair or applied makeup today? If so, you’ve used a personal care product.

While these products can help us look and feel our best, you may have questions about their ingredients and how they can impact your health.

You’re not alone. As director of MD Anderson’s Integrative Medicine Program and a melanoma survivor myself, I spend a lot of time considering these questions and carefully selecting the products I use.

Research shows that the more you can clean up your personal environment, the lower your risk of cancer. And we believe that the less your body needs to process toxic chemicals, the healthier you will be. If you’re undergoing cancer treatment, we want your body to be focused on that, not on processing chemical exposures. That’s why I’m sharing tips to help you make informed decisions on personal care products.

Key takeaways:

• Some beauty and personal care products contain endocrine disrupting ingredients that can modify how your hormonal system works.

• Some byproducts of beauty services and product manufacturing are carcinogenic, such as formaldehyde gas and 1,4-Dioxane.

• Governmental and educational resources can help you vet products and learn more about their ingredients.

• A strong scent can be a clue that a product contains endocrine disrupting ingredients.

What to know about carcinogens and endocrine disruptors in personal care products

Personal care and beauty products often contain dozens of ingredients that help a product do its job, extend its shelf life and give it a certain texture, color or smell. But could the products you use to get clean have a dirty side?

Often, products don’t contain large amounts of a single chemical. But, because of how commonly they are found in products, you could be exposed to hundreds of them per day. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) require studies on some of these chemicals. However, researchers are still learning how these chemicals affect the body over a long period of time and in different combinations. There is limited scientific knowledge and safety data on how the ingredients in personal care products affect our bodies in the combinations in which we use them and over a lifetime.

Here are a few examples of products and processes that may have health risks.

Formaldehyde in hair straightening products

Many hair smoothing or straightening products release a type of carcinogen called formaldehyde gas into the air when they are heated, according to the FDA.

It lists that long-term risks of formaldehyde exposure include:

• Headaches

• Asthma

• Contact dermatitis

• Possibly cancer

“The greater the exposure to products that contain formaldehyde in terms of both length of time and concentration, the higher the potential health risks,” the FDA website says.

To see if a hair straightening product contains formaldehyde or will release formaldehyde gas when used, the agency recommends scanning product labels for the following ingredients:

• Formaldehyde

• Formalin

• Methylene glycol

1,4-Dioxane

Another potential carcinogen that has been found in some beauty products in “extremely small amounts” is 1,4-Dioxane. It isn’t intentionally added to products, but instead a byproduct of manufacturing some detergents, foaming agents, emulsifiers and solvents, the FDA writes.

The agency writes that the 1,4-Dioxane levels they have detected in cosmetic products have decreased over time. The FDA has proposed changes to manufacturing processes to further decrease these levels. FDA research has also shown that 1,4-Dioxane evaporates, which limits how much the skin absorbs.

To find products that may contain 1,4-Dioxane, the FDA recommends looking for the following phrases on ingredient labels:

• PEG

• Polyethylene

• Polyethylene glycol

• Polyoxyethylene

• Words that include ‘-eth-’ or ‘-oxynol-’

Endocrine disruptors

Other personal care product ingredients are endocrine disruptors, or substances that change how the body’s hormonal system functions. Endocrine disruptors can influence estrogen, progesterone and testosterone levels.

Examples of endocrine-disrupting chemicals found in personal care products include:

• Phthalates

• Parabens

• Benzene

• Bisphenol A (BPA)

• Bisphenol S (BPS)

Endocrine disruptors are problematic in cancer because many cancers are hormonally driven, including breast, ovarian and prostate cancer. We’re still learning exactly how exposure to endocrine disruptors affects our health and cancer risk.

4 tips for choosing cleaner personal care products

Your personal care decisions impact more than your grooming routine. They also shape the future of the industry. Your purchases show manufacturers what you’d like to see more of and what you aren’t willing to buy. Use these tips to limit the harmful chemicals in your personal care or beauty routine.

1. Be wary of products with fragrance

It can be overwhelming to overhaul your personal care routine. If you’re not sure where to start, I recommend following your nose. If a product has a strong scent, that is a warning sign that it may contain an endocrine disruptor.

While scents can come from natural sources, they can also be created by a combination of toxic chemicals. So, how can you tell the difference? Check a product’s label for the word ‘fragrance.’ This single word can be a catch-all for dozens of chemicals. And, because they are often included in tiny amounts compared to the total amount of product, each chemical doesn’t need to be individually listed.

If you prefer scented products, opt for natural fragrance sources such as essential oils rather than products that only list ‘fragrance.’

2. Check the ingredients label

Sometimes, identifying a chemical in a personal care product is as easy as flipping it over and reading its ingredients label. Look out for the endocrine disruptors listed above and make note of any other ingredients you don’t recognize. When in doubt, choose the product that has ingredients that are all recognizable to you.

Don’t skip this step just because a product is labeled as clean or free of certain ingredients. For example, many beauty products are now being made without phthalates and parabens. But even if a product is labeled as “phthalate-free” or “paraben-free,” it’s still important to read the label and make sure it doesn’t contain anything equally harmful.

3. Vet your products using trusted resources

Of course, looking up each ingredient in a product can be time-consuming. Instead, I recommend turning to governmental and educational resources for advice.

When you are looking for reputable information online, seek out sites that end in ‘.edu’ or ‘.org’ rather than ‘.com’ sites, which often sell products.

RELATED: How to find trustworthy cancer information online

There are even websites and apps that allow you to scan a product’s barcode to learn more about its ingredients and see how they score compared to other products. You can find these apps by searching “beauty product scanner.”

4. Focus on making small changes to your routine

It can be tempting to think that only being exposed to small amounts of chemicals in beauty and personal care products is no big deal. And while it’s true that dose matters, avoiding harmful chemicals in any amount is ideal.

It’s important to be mindful of your exposure to chemicals at all ages, but especially during adolescence when the body is growing rapidly and cells can grow out of control. So, as we continue researching how environmental exposures affect cancer outcomes, don’t underestimate the importance of small changes to your environment.

It can help to know your ‘why.’ If you have cancer, your ‘why’ might be the desire to have all your biological resources helping to control the cancer: you want your liver to function well to process chemotherapy and targeted therapies, and your kidneys working to filter blood effectively. If your body is also processing toxic chemicals, that makes these jobs harder.

Instead, try to find alternatives. This will look different for everyone. Maybe it means choosing to wear makeup on weekends instead of every day, getting your nails done less frequently or switching to a cleaner product when you need a refill. Ultimately, the less you can expose yourself to harmful chemicals in your products, the better.

By Steve Bien-Aimé • March 20, 2019

When we die, we lose much of our say in how we want our lives, achievements, and identities framed in obituaries—that power is given to editors and journalists, who often follow industry norms.

Even though most U.S. publications have stopped using courtesy titles, exceptions are sometimes made for obituaries, where Mr., Ms., and so on are used to show respect. For example, Philly.com, the website for The Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News, generally does not use honorifics; however, in a 2018 obit for legendary Philadelphia Eagles player Tommy McDonald, an honorific was used—for him and no one else. Honorifics also hold a precious place in certain cultural contexts, such as racial or regional. Using titles in the South, for example, can be a matter of respect and even racial equality.

Even though most U.S. publications have stopped using courtesy titles, exceptions are sometimes made for obituaries.

Gendered honorifics, however, can have unintended harms. For some, the discomfort arises from the inherent emphasis on one part of a person—gender—when we go through life with many identities. Language shapes how we interpret reality, so placing a gender modifier before a person’s name gives the impression that we should be viewed through gender first and that all other characteristics fall in descending importance. The resulting issue is that some people don’t want to be viewed primarily through their gender. Also, courtesy titles for men and women are unequal: Before the use of Ms., the courtesy titles Miss and Mrs. revealed a woman’s marital status when married and unmarried men shared the status-free Mr.

The courtesy titles with longevity are ones without a gender bias. Because of systemic erasure of women’s achievements, some women with a PhD have added Dr. to their Twitter handles. My Northern Kentucky University colleague Alina Campan, an associate professor in computer science, says that while Mrs. is too general for her, she would want to be called Professor in an obituary because “My career defines a lot of who I am. I act in this role, and it has become an inherent part of my personality.”

Placing a gender modifier before a person’s name gives the impression that we should be viewed through gender first.

Associated Press Stylebook editor Paula Froke noted that AP style generally recommends not to use courtesy titles. However, she said by email that “If the person was a medical doctor, we would use Dr. as the title on first reference in an obituary just as we would in any other kind of story. Same with the Rev., when relevant.” Journalism bellwether The New York Times, which still uses courtesy titles except in certain sections, permits alternate courtesy titles, said the Times’ associate managing editor for standards, Philip B. Corbett, in an email. Mx., for example, has seen increasing acceptance for those failed by gender binaries or don’t believe in gendered honorifics.

Though journalists have begun using Mx., its usage is drawing attention in different ways. After The New York Times used Mx. in 2015, it explained its decision in a column: “People inside and outside the newsroom wondered if ‘Mx.’—an unfamiliar term to many—had suddenly taken its place alongside ‘Mr.’ and ‘Ms.’ in our stylebook’s entry on courtesy titles. The short answer is no. Or not yet. Or perhaps, ask me again in a while. Things are changing fast in this area.”

The courtesy titles with longevity are ones without a gender bias.

Recognizing societal changes, the 2017 Associated Press Stylebook called for editors and journalists to modify their language: “In stories about people who identify as neither male nor female or ask not to be referred to as he/she/him/her: Use the person’s name in place of a pronoun, or otherwise reword the sentence, whenever possible. If they/them/their use is essential, explain in the text that the person prefers a gender-neutral pronoun. Be sure that the phrasing does not imply more than one person.”

Introducing new terms and meanings can be a balancing act. While the visibility of Mx. indicates progress, explaining why Mx. was used for specific people might inadvertently overemphasize an aspect that is not germane to the story, such as the person’s gender. However, providing detailed explanations might be part of necessary growing pains as it takes a conscious effort to normalize new practices. As such, some educators are bringing the knowledge into the classroom: One substitute teacher engages with students about gender diversity by introducing themself with Mx.

Mx., for example, has seen increasing acceptance for those failed by gender binaries or don’t believe in gendered honorifics.

It’s important to differentiate between someone highlighting one of their identities (such as gender) versus an outsider’s description presenting their own bias (such as that gender is the primary identity). Habitual use of gendered honorifics reinforce one identity over and over, which causes other elements of one’s life to be overlooked. Determining the salience of something so personal as identity is hard—for some it’s their job, for others it’s their family roles—especially when the subject isn’t here to clarify. Thus, it’s time to end gendered courtesy titles in obits. As linguistic conventions evolve (as they always do), we must remember our complexity as individuals and to respect one another by not overemphasizing one identity in lieu of others.

Steve Bien-Aimé is an assistant professor of journalism at Northern Kentucky University. Before receiving his doctorate from Penn State’s College of Communications, Steve worked as a copy editor at The News Journal in Delaware and The Baltimore Sun and served in a variety of functions at FOXSports.com, departing as deputy NFL editor. His research interests include race and gender portrayals in news and sports media.