Don't call pregnant women 'expectant mothers' as it might offend transgender people, BMA says
253 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Vitalogy;51754362][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 agree with their comment. I don't see anything wrong at all with using some more politically correct language in a sensitive place like the healthcare industry. Obviously it shouldn't interfere with proper communication and diagnosis, but I don't think any of these changes treads into that territory. If they hadn't made a statement and had just silently started using this language literally nobody would have an issue with it. People are just blowing things like these out of proportion.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;51754466]I agree with their comment. I don't see anything wrong at all with using some more politically correct language in a sensitive place like the healthcare industry. Obviously it shouldn't interfere with proper communication and diagnosis, but I don't think any of these changes treads into that territory. If they hadn't made a statement and had just silently started using this language literally nobody would have an issue with it. People are just blowing things like these out of proportion.[/QUOTE]
Essentially this.
This isn't that big of a deal. I don't see it as strictly necessary but hey why not. If you're not pregnant and you're not a doctor, it's probably not gonna have any effect on you whatsoever. Treating it like the lead-in to "PC culture" is a huge overreaction.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51754461]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.[/QUOTE]
But... did they actually BAN it? How would that be done? By firing anyone who uses the words and phrases that are advised against? The phrasing in the article says "should", not "must".
[QUOTE=Duck M.;51754473]But... did they actually BAN it? How would that be done? By firing anyone who uses the words and phrases that are advised against? The phrasing in the article says "should", not "must".[/QUOTE]
It's the same thing, I imagine, as working at Chick-Fil-A and being asked to say "My pleasure" instead of "you're welcome". Customers don't really give a damn, only corporate does. And if there are no corporate goons keeping an eye on you, you can probably get away with just saying you're welcome because it's not a huge deal to really anyone.
Just a common courtesy standard that they'd like to utilize as much as possible just in case of the scenario.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51754461]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.[/QUOTE]
Who said anything about banning phrases?
It's professional conduct. Example, if you're a cop getting a witness statement from or interrogating a transgender individual, you're supposed to ask them how they want to be addressed, and address them as such. Treating a person with respect, in policing, makes it more likely they'll want to share information with you. Psychology.
You get a feel for who you're dealing with, what their particular sensibilities might be, and try to treat them with dignity. Sensitivity training while I was studying social service work didn't include anything quite as asinine as avoiding words like "manpower" or "mankind" or any other such nonsense. It did, however, include guidelines for geriatric work, where "older person" is a softer term than "elderly" because it was a description rather than a classification - which is pretty useful when you're trying to get someone very old, and often bitter about their lost independence, to open up to you.
Again, not rules, guidelines.
Conservatives blow shit like this way out of proportion. It's hilarious that this is a memo shared with BMA staffers about how to avoid offending people, but there are people who are so offended by it they're in hysterics.
I guess thin skins aren't left-wing exclusive.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51754461]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.[/QUOTE]
Except this isn't a rule applied to everyone, everywhere.
They are telling this to their own staff because they deal people and in environments like that it's very important to address people correctly and try to avoid any misunderstanding.
This is not a global ban telling you that you can no longer call any pregnant woman you stumble upon the street an 'expecting mother' or you'll be punished.
Telling your healthcare staff to be professional and follow guidelines is not the same thing as telling the entire population that they are banned from saying something and that they should feel bad about themselves because they're going to offend imaginary over-sensitive people. These two things are not alike.
As a transgendered person, [B]no, you really will not offend anyone.[/B] I have never once heard of other trans people being upset over the term 'expectant mother', and even in the ludicrously rare chance that you would encounter a pregnant transgender male (not fucking likely I'll tell you that) they'd just tell you not to refer to [I]them[/I] as a mother and that would be fine.
This is not something to really blame on 'the far left' or 'PC gone mad', it's more likely the result of a bunch of people having like a boardroom meeting and trying to make sure they're as 'accepting as possible', so they start reaching for ideas, and one person suggests this, they're like "Ooh good idea" and here we are.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51754344]Can the far left just fuck off[/QUOTE]
Seeing as the sight of the merest nipple sends them into paroxysms of righteous frothy rage, how do you propose that occurs? Cause regular sex would probably cure a lot of the frustration they seem to need to survive.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;51754562]As a transgendered person, [B]no, you really will not offend anyone.[/B] I have never once heard of other trans people being upset over the term 'expectant mother', and even in the ludicrously rare chance that you would encounter a pregnant transgender male (not fucking likely I'll tell you that) they'd just tell you not to refer to [I]them[/I] as a mother and that would be fine.
This is not something to really blame on 'the far left' or 'PC gone mad', it's more likely the result of a bunch of people having like a boardroom meeting and trying to make sure they're as 'accepting as possible', so they start reaching for ideas, and one person suggests this, they're like "Ooh good idea" and here we are.[/QUOTE]
It's not the someone was stupid enough to suggest it, you get that all the time.
It's that somone[I]s[/I] said "YES THIS IS OUR FOREVER POLICY" and then made it an official decree.
how does this negatively affect any of you?
i'm so confused like this is so inconsequential
[QUOTE=27X;51754569]
It's not the someone was stupid enough to suggest it, you get that all the time.
It's that somone[i]s[/i] said "YES THIS OUR FOREVER POLICY" and then made it an official decree.[/QUOTE]
Which has nothing to do with the far left.
And yet here we are, with half the thread going "I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS" and blaming it on SJWs.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;51754587]Which has nothing to do with the far left.
And yet here we are, with half the thread going "I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS" and blaming it on SJWs.[/QUOTE]
That's because the entire thread was bait by Tudd, who is a level 60 troll.
[QUOTE=27X;51754569]Seeing as the sight of the merest nipple sends them into paroxysms of righteous frothy rage, how do you propose that occurs? Cause regular sex would probably cure a lot of the frustration they seem to need to survive..[/QUOTE]
Great zinger, but I'm honestly somewhat confused over what it means. There are plenty of anti sex-negative leftists out there.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51754344]Can the far left just fuck off[/QUOTE]
what does this have to do with the left? weird how feelings are now synonymous with far left and not the means of production lol.
[editline]31st January 2017[/editline]
like in case you guys didn't realise its totally possible to be far left and not authoritarian just as you can be a conservative libertarian or a conservative authoritarian. politicizing shit like this, letting a vocal minority represent a majority and blaming it on 'the far left' is like if people called all hardline conservatives fascists. politics is not one dimensional.
I don't know, I considered the "mother" to be "the one who gave birth to the child and (hopefully) breast-fed him", it being someone who is a female-to-male transgender doesn't really change it. "Mother" and "Father" are more like the family roles than the actual sex of the parents.
How about no, and how about fuck off? The world has far bigger problems than special snowflakes getting pissy about innocent language.
[I]Sticks and stones may break my bones, words will also break my bones.[/I]
People like this are the worst. Our society at university has two or three transgender / genderfluid people (one of whom is also a vegan). So every time we have a social that is remotely gender-based and requires people to split up into teams of guys and girls, they always make it so awkward. Our poor social rep had to handle the situation so carefully to not upset them and their delicate snowflake egos.
I really don't see the point in it, like if you're transgender, that's fair enough, more power to you, but expecting everyone to bend over backwards for you is just ridiculous. In the end, our social rep just said "We're sorry if it offends anyone, but we're just gonna go with what genitals you have. So it's dicks vs vaginas instead of guys vs girls". One of the genderfluid people has that terrible shaved-on-one-side-neon-blue-on-the-other hairstyle and it's just weird how cookie-cutter they all are.
[QUOTE=Crumpet;51754672]what does this have to do with the left? weird how feelings are now synonymous with far left and not the means of production lol.
[editline]31st January 2017[/editline]
like in case you guys didn't realise its totally possible to be far left and not authoritarian just as you can be a conservative libertarian or a conservative authoritarian. politicizing shit like this, letting a vocal minority represent a majority and blaming it on 'the far left' is like if people called all hardline conservatives fascists. politics is not one dimensional.[/QUOTE]
right wing terrorist kills 6 at a mosque: complete silence
bma updates terminology to be inclusive in a complete non-story: WOW HOW COULD THE FAR LEFT DO THIS
[editline]31st January 2017[/editline]
this means nothing at all for any of you, if you feel like this is some personal affront then you can fuck off
which word [I]DOESN'T[/I] offend people nowadays?
time to buy myself a political correct dictionary
[QUOTE=Turnips5;51754724]right wing terrorist kills 6 at a mosque: complete silence
bma updates terminology to be inclusive in a complete non-story: WOW HOW COULD THE FAR LEFT DO THIS
[editline]31st January 2017[/editline]
this means nothing at all for any of you, if you feel like this is some personal affront then you can fuck off[/QUOTE]
not only is it a non story, non issue and total manufactured outrage that in no way takes away from more serious world problems, but it has nothing to do with 'the left', whatever that means anymore. Marx continues to turn in his grave.
[QUOTE=Mr.Brown;51754746]what word [I]DOESN'T[/I] offend people nowadays?
time to buy myself a political correct dictionary[/QUOTE]
dunno apparently "transgender" seems to trigger everyone in this entire worthless forum section
[quote]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"[/quote]
oh no I'm not supposed to call my patients "spastics" any more, truly the hand of george soros lies heavily on my institution
[QUOTE=J!NX;51754374]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]
That seems to mostly be an English Language thing. It seems normal to English speakers because thats just how it is but it definitely represents our cultural history. Whether or not we should try and change it is another mater. If though, people just start using gender neutral phrases and pronouns then that will become English. Languages change to reflect culture. It isn't some far left thing to use gender neutral pronouns. Plenty of languages have them and have always had them.
[editline]31st January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr.Brown;51754746]what word [I]DOESN'T[/I] offend people nowadays?
time to buy myself a political correct dictionary[/QUOTE]
Yeah fuck medical professionals adhering to a standard of practice that deals with people in sensitive medical situations. We should just call gay cancer patients fags and call mental patients spastics! That'll show those no good snowflakes!
I don't understand what's so aggravating about an organisation whose mission is to motivate doctors to provide the highest possible standard of care to patients is being generous with how it wants doctors to refer to patients.
I imagine even the most rabid neocon physician with the world's worst bedside manner would agree that you should do your best to not call patients by names they find offensive.
How is progressing gender neutrality not a good thing?
Liberal evil ideology infiltrates out everyday living. People protest Trump - and I would totally protest that!
Holy crap please most people in this thread; either read the fucking document or shut up with your asinine "anti-PC", "lol fuck off", "fucking left wingers" comments. I love how a guideline by a professional union on professional communication for its members that has absolutely nothing to do with 99% of FP population raises such stink.
It is a published guide on professional courtesy and communication in the healthcare setting. Nothing I see that makes it mandatory. It is there to offer guidance for healthcare professionals on how to approach communicating with certain individuals. It has no bearing on you as a private individual. If you are transgender and don't care about how you are referred to, great! More power to you! You can still tell your doctor or nurse or whatever you don't mind being called a he or a she or xhe or whatever. This changes nothing for you. If you are an intersex pregnant person you can still tell your doctor you want to be called an expectant mother or an expectant father. If you are a heterosexual male you can demand being called They or a man or whatever.
Surprise surprise, healthcare is a field that requires utmost courtesy and thoughtfulness. If not for the humane reasons of you deal with people who are most likely having a very difficult time and need your help, than for the practical reasons of people are dicks who are looking for a chance to sue. An official guideline detailing how to be courteous in ways you might not have thought is not hurtful to anyone. BMA is a union, they are there to protect their members and publishing such a guideline is exactly the way to go. It is not even in any way, shape or form legally binding for your license to practice. Stop making a big deal out of this. It is a good thing.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;51754859]How is progressing gender neutrality not a good thing?[/QUOTE]
Because why is gender neutrality a good thing? Especially when it comes to defining who is father and who is mother. You gave birth to it? You're a mother.
[QUOTE=TestECull;51754696]How about no, and how about fuck off? The world has far bigger problems than special snowflakes getting pissy about innocent language.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=loopoo;51754722]People like this are the worst. Our society at university has two or three transgender / genderfluid people (one of whom is also a vegan). So every time we have a social that is remotely gender-based and requires people to split up into teams of guys and girls, they always make it so awkward. Our poor social rep had to handle the situation so carefully to not upset them and their delicate snowflake egos.
I really don't see the point in it, like if you're transgender, that's fair enough, more power to you, but expecting everyone to bend over backwards for you is just ridiculous. In the end, our social rep just said "We're sorry if it offends anyone, but we're just gonna go with what genitals you have. So it's dicks vs vaginas instead of guys vs girls". One of the genderfluid people has that terrible shaved-on-one-side-neon-blue-on-the-other hairstyle and it's just weird how cookie-cutter they all are.[/QUOTE]
Don't you love when you read something you know is going to be taken completely the wrong way so you write a post trying to explain that there's really nothing to be upset over - or at least, not at the thing you know people are going to get upset over - to try to quell some of the outrage, and then nobody reads it and keeps getting mad over the thing they shouldn't be getting mad about?
That's a great feeling.
The Irony of people complaining about some inconsequential sensitivity training non-story as if it's the harbinger of our societies' ruin, before remarking that people are too easily offended these days.
Every fucking time.
[QUOTE=Fetret;51754898]Holy crap please most people in this thread; either read the fucking document or shut up with your asinine "anti-PC", "lol fuck off", "fucking left wingers" comments. I love how a guideline by a professional union on professional communication for its members that has absolutely nothing to do with 99% of FP population raises such stink.
It is a published guide on professional courtesy and communication in the healthcare setting. Nothing I see that makes it mandatory. It is there to offer guidance for healthcare professionals on how to approach communicating with certain individuals. It has no bearing on you as a private individual. If you are transgender and don't care about how you are referred to, great! More power to you! You can still tell your doctor or nurse or whatever you don't mind being called a he or a she or xhe or whatever. This changes nothing for you. If you are an intersex pregnant person you can still tell your doctor you want to be called an expectant mother or an expectant father. If you are a heterosexual male you can demand being called They or a man or whatever.
Surprise surprise, healthcare is a field that requires utmost courtesy and thoughtfulness. If not for the humane reasons of you deal with people who are most likely having a very difficult time and need your help, than for the practical reasons of people are dicks who are looking for a chance to sue. An official guideline detailing how to be courteous in ways you might not have thought is not hurtful to anyone. BMA is a union, they are there to protect their members and publishing such a guideline is exactly the way to go. It is not even in any way, shape or form legally binding for your license to practice. Stop making a big deal out of this. It is a good thing.[/QUOTE]
No but I need this to fit in to my narrative though
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.