• Don't call pregnant women 'expectant mothers' as it might offend transgender people, BMA says
    253 replies, posted
[quote]The British Medical Association has said pregnant women should not be called "expectant mothers" as it could offend transgender people. Instead, they should call them "pregnant people" so as not to upset intersex and transgender men, the union has said. The advice comes in an internal document to staff outlining a raft of common phrases that should be avoided for fear of causing offence. "The elderly" should be referred to as "older people", "disabled lifts" called "accessible lifts" and someone who is "biologically male or female" should be called "assigned male or female". The BMA said the document was purely guidance for its staff on effective communication within the workplace, not advice to its 156,000 doctor members on how to deal with patients. On pregnancy and maternity, it says: "Gender inequality is reflected in traditional ideas about the roles of women and men. Though they have shifted over time, the assumptions and stereotypes that underpin those ideas are often deeply-rooted." It adds: "A large majority of people that have been pregnant or have given birth identify as women. We can include intersex men and transmen who may get pregnant by saying 'pregnant people' instead of 'expectant mothers'." It recently emerged that a Briton who was born a girl but wants to become a man has put surgery on hold in order to have a baby. Hayden Cross, 20, is legally male and had hormone treatment but not yet had sex-change surgery. [b]There are no other known cases of a transitioning person becoming pregnant in the UK. [/b] The guide also advises against using the terms "born man" or "born woman" in relation to trans people, as these phrases "are reductive and over-simplify a complex subject". Elsewhere, staff are told to substitute the words "surname" or "last name" for "family name". "Mankind" and "manpower" should be avoided because it is "not good practice" to use a "masculine noun", instead swapped for "humanity" and "personnel", and listing prefixes for names such as "Prof", "Dr", "Mr", "Mrs" or "Miss" should not be put in a particular order on forms to avoid a "perceived hierarchy". The document, which was published last year, also underlines guidance on language that has long been considered offensive, suggesting staff do not refer to people as being "spastic" or "mongol" but that they should be called a "person with cerebral palsy" or "person with Down's syndrome".[/quote] [url=https://www.bma.org.uk/-/media/files/pdfs/about%20the%20bma/equality%20and%20inclusion/bma-guide-to-effective-communication-2016.pdf]Link to the BMA Guide[/url] [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/29/dont-call-pregnant-women-expectant-mothers-might-offend-transgender/[/url] I think it is fine to be courteous to those they deal with, but feels silly when there is only one case known. Also some of the other suggestions like removing words with "man" (like manpower) is so forced and unlikely anyone would follow.
On one hand, for professionals, especially in the healthcare industry, sensitivity training is important, and as this was from an internal memo to their own licensees, it doesn't seem so out of place. On the other, come on. Nobody's got that thin a skin.
This is the most politically correct thing I've ever read.
I'd rather have someone like Leonard McCoy as a doctor who will be rude, emotional and direct than a massive pussy this old culture of softening words is tiring and idiotic
Can the far left just fuck off
How about instead you don't tell people what they should and shouldn't say, and just ignore it when you hear things you don't like. That way everyone's happy: you can stay in your own fantasy world and everyone else can get on with their lives.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51754345]How about instead you don't tell people what they should and shouldn't say, and just ignore it when you hear things you don't like. That way everyone's happy: you can stay in your own fantasy world and everyone else can get on with their lives.[/QUOTE] Er... did you read the article? This was a memo from the British Medical Association to their own staff, outlining a professional code of conduct. I thought stuff like this was standard, don't your American hospitals have similar?
When is this farce going to end? [QUOTE=archangel125;51754346]Er... did you read the article? This was a memo from the British Medical Association to their own staff, outlining a professional code of conduct. I thought stuff like this was standard, don't your American hospitals have similar?[/QUOTE] Generally yes, but that doesn't change anything. I get that courtesy is important in medicine, but it shouldn't get to the point where you're directing such semantics IMO. If BMA is a private organization it's entirely within their rights, but I still think it's utter nonsense.
Please, spare us the theatrics.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51754344]Can the far left just fuck off[/QUOTE] I really doubt this is about politics. More of a universal thing that has been going on for decades. Shell shock became PTSD. Anti-abortion became pro-life. Gays became same-sex-couples. This isn't just a far left thing. Right wingers do this in their own way as well. Hell, you can't call neo-nazi's neo-nazi's or else they will feel ~ashamed~.
[QUOTE=J!NX;51754351]I really doubt this is about politics. More of a universal thing. This isn't just a far left thing. Right wingers do this in their own way as well. Hell, you can't call neo-nazi's neo-nazi's or else they will feel ~ashamed~.[/QUOTE] Can I not be equally irritated by both of them? Considering they're literally as annoying as each other.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51754354]Can I not be equally irritated by both of them? Considering they're literally as annoying as each other.[/QUOTE] I mean fuck both of them yeah :v: They're an echo-chamber of stupidity and decay.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51754346]Er... did you read the article? This was a memo from the British Medical Association to their own staff, outlining a professional code of conduct. I thought stuff like this was standard, don't your American hospitals have similar?[/QUOTE] How is that in any way an excuse? It's shows how pervasive this crazy kind of thinking is at even the highest levels of the medical profession in the UK.
[url]https://www.reddit.com/r/transgender/comments/5qznky/dont_call_pregnant_women_expectant_mothers_as_it/[/url] Link to what some in the community thought about it. Most notably the first comment. [QUOTE]I feel like these stories are almost always trying to spin something reasonable into something that sounds absurd. Like, if a guy is pregnant, maybe don't call him an "expectant mother"; that seems kinda sane, rational, and respectful, no? And if you're not sure, maybe dispense with the 19th-century euphemism for "pregnant person" and just say "pregnant person."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Chonch;51754347]Generally yes, but that doesn't change anything.[/QUOTE] This isn't a request to the public at large. This is a [del]business[/del] professional association holding its employees to a very high standard of professional conduct. From the perspective of someone who's worked in the service industry, it's annoying as hell to have to check what you say, but it's still the BMA's prerogative. I think "When is this farce going to end?" is a bit of an overreaction, don't you?
This entire article is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. [quote] suggesting staff do not refer to people as being "spastic" or "mongol" but that they should be called a "person with cerebral palsy" or "person with Down's syndrome".[/quote] This is the only thing that honestly makes sense and I can easily agree with.
I feel the title somewhat misrepresents the contents of the article tbh
I was trying to justify this in my head before I saw the trans part, and maybe I could see it making sense if the pregnancy is a result of a rape, but that's still pushing it. But now that I read it with all context, come on man.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51754363]This isn't a request to the public at large. This is a business holding its employees to a very high standard of professional conduct. From the perspective of someone who's worked in the service industry, it's annoying as hell to have to check what you say, but it's still the BMA's prerogative. I think "When is this farce going to end?" is a bit of an overreaction, don't you?[/QUOTE] It being private does not shield it from critique. It's also the solely recognized union for doctors in the UK and represents over 150,000 members. So it's not exactly some individual private entity.
[QUOTE=Araknid;51754368]This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. [QUOTE]"Mankind" and "manpower" should be avoided because it is "not good practice" to use a "masculine noun", instead swapped for "humanity" and "personnel", and listing prefixes for names such as "Prof", "Dr", "Mr", "Mrs" or "Miss" should not be put in a particular order on forms to avoid a "perceived hierarchy".[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] I've always assumed "MAN" to be a partially gender neutral term tbh that can apply to all of humanity or simply men I mean when I think about why its like... woMAN, huMAN, etcetc. it isn't 100% specific.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51754363]I think "When is this farce going to end?" is a bit of an overreaction, don't you?[/QUOTE] Absolutely. I also happen to think this is part of a larger trend towards curbing thought towards the sensitivities of extreme minorities, and that's probably just as much an overreaction. Regardless of whatever pure-hearted free market principle is behind it, this is still some of the silliest stuff I've ever heard.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51754372]It being private does not shield it from critique. It's also the solely recognized union for doctors in the UK. So it's not exactly some individual private entity.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I did some research and corrected my mistake with a [del]strikethrough.[/del] I don't know about the States, but in Canada caregiving professionals tend to be expected to be very politically correct when dealing with people, as part of the professional standards expected of them by their licensing institution. Speaking as someone who studied social service work, I find it tiresome, but again, as someone who studied social service work, I understand the necessity for it. By necessity I mean that those in the caregiving profession, whether they're social workers, doctors, psychiatrists or nurses are often dealing with people in very difficult stages of their lives with all manner of problems, mental and physical. It helps, therefore, to treat them very gently to give them the best prospects of recovery. Not everyone needs to be treated with kid gloves, natch. But you never know who you're dealing with and what their problems may be unless they deign to tell you.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51754385]Yeah, I did some research and corrected my mistake with a [del]strikethrough.[/del] I don't know about the States, but in Canada caregiving professionals tend to be expected to be very politically correct when dealing with people, as part of the professional standards expected of them by their licensing institution. Speaking as someone who studied social service work, I find it tiresome, but again, as someone who studied social service work, I understand the necessity for it. By necessity I mean that those in the caregiving profession, whether they're social workers, doctors, psychiatrists or nurses are often dealing with people in very difficult stages of their lives with all manner of problems, mental and physical. It helps, therefore, to treat them very gently to give them the best prospects of recovery. Not everyone needs to be treated with kid gloves, natch. But you never know who you're dealing with and what their problems may be unless they deign to tell you.[/QUOTE] This expectation is so far beyond "professional standards" that I'm not even sure how to respond. At this point they might as well get rid of the words "man" and "woman" altogether. Just call everyone a "person."
[QUOTE=J!NX;51754369]I feel the title somewhat misrepresents the contents of the article tbh[/QUOTE] Kinda just used the article title since I didn't really know what to write honestly. There is alot.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51754391]This expectation is so far beyond "professional standards" that I'm not even sure how to respond. At this point they might as well get rid of the words "man" and "woman" altogether. Just call everyone a "person."[/QUOTE] That's why I said in my very first post that it seems a bit ridiculous. Don't think for a second I'm defending it. I'm merely pointing out why the professional community generally does such things, having studied to become a part of it (before deciding it wasn't for me, like fucking everything else I've studied. Fuck.)
[QUOTE=archangel125;51754397]That's why I said in my very first post that it seems a bit ridiculous. Don't think for a second I'm defending it. I'm merely pointing out why the professional community generally does such things, having studied to become a part of it (before deciding it wasn't for me, like fucking everything else I've studied. Fuck.)[/QUOTE] I don't know what you mean when you say that they "generally" do such things. This changing of our entire language for the feelings of rediculously tiny minorities is an extremely new phenomena.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51754406]I don't know what you mean when you say that they "generally" do such things. This changing of our entire language for the feelings of rediculously tiny minorities is an extremely new phenomena.[/QUOTE] Not exactly. While this is a particularly egregious example, sensitivity training is a pretty common part of professional education, with its magnitude depending on what profession you're going into. Social service workers, who typically deal with people at the end of their rope, put something of an emphasis on it. When dealing with extremely volatile individuals, you want to be careful how you handle them. It's been a standard of the caregiving professions since the 1970s, and even police officers in Canada have a (much lighter) version of it in the course of their study/training. Which I know, because I'm an OPC graduate.
Get fucked, I don't give a shit about your feelings.
i dont consider myself a conservative and i think this is completely off the rocker
[QUOTE=archangel125;51754425]Not exactly. While this is a particularly egregious example, sensitivity training is a pretty common part of professional education, with its magnitude depending on what profession you're going into. Social service workers, who typically deal with people at the end of their rope, put something of an emphasis on it. When dealing with extremely volatile individuals, you want to be careful how you handle them. It's been a standard of the caregiving professions since the 1970s, and even police officers in Canada have a (much lighter) version of it in the course of their study/training. Which I know, because I'm an OPC graduate.[/QUOTE] I think you're conflating fundamentally different things. Learning how to be diplomatic, careful with your speech, etc. is not at all the same thing as banning common phrases because it might offend certain tiny groups of people. Those two things are nothing alike.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.