• Don't call pregnant women 'expectant mothers' as it might offend transgender people, BMA says
    253 replies, posted
[QUOTE=The golden;51763147]Dude this from the British Medical Association. These are guidelines for stuff like hospitals and clinics. You know, places where being non-offensive, inclusive, and comforting are extremely important? There is already a lot of changes to terminology and language that have already taken place and are used regularly in places such as these. It makes a huge difference in the comfort of patients and visitors. Speaking from experience here too as my clinic also enforces non-offensive terminology. It really helps when you're in an unknown place reaching out for help. Like I said before - grow a damn heart. Stop putting pedantic crap before peoples health and wellbeing.[/QUOTE] People's wellbeing is the treatment and healthcare they're getting, not what words are used. If people request the word being used, they can be used on a individual basis. You don't have to change it for everyone. If I and other people want to be referred to as an elderly and biological males. Using disabled lifts and speaking about mankind. Shouldn't we be accepted for using that?
[QUOTE=The golden;51763371]How people are treated as people and the environment around them is extremely important to their treatment and healthcare. Words like these are used so people feel included and comfortable and treated with dignity and respect and to minimize any conflicts - all of which are very important in a medical facility. I apologize but I fail to see how this simple concept is escaping you. If you have any specific terminology you wish your medical caregivers to use then ask them? All this is doing is making sure things are neutral from the get-go so everyone feels welcomed. You are basically arguing that this shouldn't happen and they should keep using the words you approve of because you don't like change.[/QUOTE] Most of the words that were recommended to change are already neutral, you're making them non-neutral by assigning petty reasons to be offended by them. Yes, i don't like change, because change here is unnecessary. As these words have been the standard previously, it's easier and more reasonable to change to alternative words if the patient requests it.
[QUOTE=The golden;51763491]Most of these are things people probably don't care if they get changed like "mankind" but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say.....a transgender dude isn't going to want to be called a woman. That seems pretty logical to me, I would say? And also many people who live with mental or physical struggles prefer not being called disabled - especially while hospitalized for them. Again I ask for the 3rd time: Grow a goddamn heart. Put yourself in the shoes of people who are hospitalized or in a medical clinic seeking help. Neutral terminology goes a long way to help a person feel more at-ease.[/QUOTE] If it's that important, you can avoid using gender-words at all until they tell you want they want to referred as. 90+% of people wouldn't have problems with it though, might even think it's weird. Some people will always be weirded out regardless of how you speak to them.
[QUOTE=RB33;51756850]No, it's not the same thing. It isn't about gender, it's about biology. Biologically, mothers give birth, fathers biologically can't, they lack those parts making it possible. You also differentiate between sex and gender for this reason. You can identify as a man gender-wise and still be a mother biologically. Since, biological males can't give birth.[/QUOTE] So it's more of a question of semantics then. Consider that that biological gender isn't 100% clear-cut either, and our vocabulary isn't equipped to describe its complexity. Obviously referring to people based on their "biology" is very disrespectful if they're trans, and the word "mother" seems to me to mean "female parent" rather than "birthgiver" and I'm sure many feel the same way.
Question: in the case of a transgender man getting pregnant, would it be acceptable to refer to their sex as female while calling them by their gender of male?
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51765319]Question: in the case of a transgender man getting pregnant, would it be acceptable to refer to their sex as female while calling them by their gender of male?[/QUOTE] Speaking as a transgender man (albeit one who is repulsed by the idea of pregnancy), I'd say the vast majority of us understand that in medical situations, our biological sex has to have at least some mention. So I'd say yes, so long as it's made clear that his gender identity will be respected and referring to his biological sex is used strictly for medical purposes. And this isn't aimed at your post specifically, but I know I would hate to be called an 'expectant mother' simply because mother has a very strong female connotation, which is a potential dysphoria trigger. Is this really worth getting all worked up and mad over?
[QUOTE=RB33;51762537]People don't come to me and say i should speak slang because it's the right thing to do. So they can do whatever they want to themselves. This is larger than just transgender men. The article itself mentions: These things are stupid and just makes people dislike actual good progress like you might be advocating.[/QUOTE] How is changing "disabled lifts" to "accessible lifts" stupid in any way? It's actually a better term for them because the point is not to be for disabled people specifically, but to be more easily used by people hampered by some condition that may or may not be a disability. I imagine that's an especially important distinction in a hospital where they probably deal with a lot of temporarily wheelchair-bound people who are not disabled, but would still need to use an elevator like that.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51765319]Question: in the case of a transgender man getting pregnant, would it be acceptable to refer to their sex as female while calling them by their gender of male?[/QUOTE] Yes. Speaking as both a transman and someone going into the medical field, doctors need to know a trans person's biological sex. Each sex is at risk for different illnesses. I, for example, haven't had any surgeries, so I still need to go through female health screening exams. A doctor also needs to know if their trans patient has gone through said surgeries in order to recommend any needed preventative exams.
What I gathered so far: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnGDQ7Rk-pQ#t=00m19s[/media] People read to much into tact-guidelines - I view them as suggestions and areas of potential conflict you might not have ever thoght about. I certainly never considered that "autistic-person" defines the person by their illness and that simply changing it to "person with autism" or not mentioning autism can be a more tactful way of saying it. I'd imagine you could ignore many of these when they aren't relevant as long as you're tactful and observant. Secondly, as a general note of arguments, I think many stem from our natural desire to make our point as incendiary as possible and people attack how broad our point was. We then cut it back to only apply to the bits we hate and defend that, while the other people are angry that you didn't address the overall point and focused on the minutae you can defend.
[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;51765742]How is changing "disabled lifts" to "accessible lifts" stupid in any way? It's actually a better term for them because the point is not to be for disabled people specifically, but to be more easily used by people hampered by some condition that may or may not be a disability. I imagine that's an especially important distinction in a hospital where they probably deal with a lot of temporarily wheelchair-bound people who are not disabled, but would still need to use an elevator like that.[/QUOTE] It isn't important either way, so changing all the signs or just keeping them doesn't really matter. Temporarily wheelchair-bound would still be temporarily disabled. You're just taking the lift, so being offended by its name is a really minor problem.
[QUOTE=The golden;51767019]I'm sorry but you can't just take something that might upset people and wave your hand over it and say "It isn't important". That's such a mean thing to do.[/QUOTE] You can and you should if there are more important things to care about. And they should be able to deal with it. The world isn't perfect, language isn't either. We have to learn to deal with it.
[QUOTE=The golden;51767082]1) What is is "more important" is 100% subjective in most cases. 2) This is referring to fucking hospitals and medical facilities. "Deal with it" is not the fucking attitude you use. I'm sorry but you are goddamn heartless.[/QUOTE] If you got a disease or hurt yourself in an accident, the important thing is getting help, not having people using the right words. If they call you a elderly biological male who should take the disabled lift, are you going to be that hurt? If a doctor talks to another about the manpower of the hospital? Words do the damage, you assign to them. If you don't care about them, they don't hurt. Especially if you know the person doesn't mean any harm by saying them.
[QUOTE=RB33;51767047]You can and you should if there are more important things to care about. And they should be able to deal with it. The world isn't perfect, language isn't either. We have to learn to deal with it.[/QUOTE] Oh man I'm super vulnerable and the nurse has avoided the "give people dignity" language classes so now I'm being reminded I'm disabled, My biological sex is female, I'm regarded as being dead weight by society and there's no compassion. No. When I'm at the hospital I want to be given terms I can tell my family, not words with negative connotations. I'd want accessible lifts not "handicapped" or "disabled" lifts. I'd want to be "mentally ill" not "a lunatic". I'd want to be "physically disabled" not "handicapped" because I'm still capable of doing a programming job I'm not handicapped in a general sense where I'm incapable of doing tasks. Neutral language is almost achieved and to fight aescepticised, medical, compassionate terms is to fight a foe that's called "making people's lives better for a modicum of effort". Go fight for the word literally instead. Now that one's bullshit.
[QUOTE=01271;51767153]Oh man I'm super vulnerable and the nurse has avoided the "give people dignity" language classes so now I'm being reminded I'm disabled, My biological sex is female, I'm regarded as being dead weight by society and there's no compassion. No. When I'm at the hospital I want to be given terms I can tell my family, not words with negative connotations. I'd want accessible lifts not "handicapped" or "disabled" lifts. I'd want to be "mentally ill" not "a lunatic". I'd want to be "physically disabled" not "handicapped" because I'm still capable of doing a programming job I'm not handicapped in a general sense where I'm incapable of doing tasks. Neutral language is almost achieved and to fight aescepticised, medical, compassionate terms is to fight a foe that's called "making people's lives better for a modicum of effort". Go fight for the word literally instead. Now that one's bullshit.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter if it's called a disabled lift or not, it's still the same lift. Just primarly intended for disabled people, hence the name. It doesn't need a name change for the sake of it. I don't think the hospital are calling you a "lunatic", are they? You got a point where the meaning might be different as with "physically disabled" and "handicapped". But when you 2 terms which means the exact same thing, it's unnecessary to change it. Biological male = Assigned male, Mankind = Humanity and so on. It probably annoys more people to change it than there are people who are offended by it.
[QUOTE=RB33;51767047]You can and you should if there are more important things to care about. And they should be able to deal with it. The world isn't perfect, language isn't either. We have to learn to deal with it.[/QUOTE] Just because something is 'more important' than something else doesn't mean you can't debate it. Language is constantly changing naturally, your whole argument against this is an argument against itself. How is telling people not to modify language any different than telling people to modify their language? I'm sorry you couldn't have protected the English language for the thousands of years it's been around.
[QUOTE=reedbo;51767212]Just because something is 'more important' than something else doesn't mean you can't debate it. Language is constantly changing naturally, your whole argument against this is an argument against itself. How is telling people not to modify language any different than telling people to modify their language? I'm sorry you couldn't have protected the English language for the thousands of years it's been around.[/QUOTE] This isn't natural though, it's a deliberate decision to change the language. If it's natural it will spread and take hold on its own. I'm not against debating it, i'm debating it right now. By saying it isn't an necessary change.
It's not a name change for the sake lf it. Terms like this remove the chance that they'd be offended and contribute a bunch to the hospital's culture of nurture, healing, and respect. Lifts changing names is not about change for the sake of change it's about not using the word that has a connotation of you, as a lift user, being generally incapable. At hospitals: They broke their arm, their hip, they have a heart condition, they're bedridden etc... Now is not the time to have them man up. Now is a time to prevent them from being ashamed of their conditions. Their arm is fucked for life, is it time to let them sit for hours on a bed thinking about the word handicapped or are they getting a much more specific and clinical word that's direct and to the point? Come to the hospital and get a complimentary guilt-free safe space experience where you won't be confronted with the idea that you're less than human. Oh yeah pre-emptively chipping in that doctors are professionals and that they use those terms vs the general public is important because everyone trusts doctors and their word has more weight. Being called handicapped by a waiter definitely wouldn't have the same impact after the much more important and cool doctor gave you the correct word to prove this guy wrong in your head and shield yourself.
[QUOTE=RB33;51767233]This isn't natural though, it's a deliberate decision to change the language. If it's natural it will spread and take hold on its own. I'm not against debating it, i'm debating it right now. By saying it isn't an necessary change.[/QUOTE] How is this not natural? Language is a human concept, we've been modifying its usage for thousands of years. How else would it change if not for someone using different words? Merely proposing new words doesn't change the language. If people decide that it's important to use words that are more inclusive then language has evolved.
[QUOTE=The golden;51767245]Preservation of older terminology should never come before the comfort and wellbeing of people...especially in a medical environment. And yes - English as a language changes constantly. In fact much of the language we're using right now in these posts is English that has been modified over the centuries. To act like this is some sort of heinous act against language is astonishingly ignorant. Also these words mentioned in the OP are already established words used daily in the English language. It's not like they're making up words.[/QUOTE] These people would have more comfort and wellbeing, if they learned to accept that everything won't be adapted to their needs and that they have to accept some words which they don't like being used. Then they can move on from caring about them. They already exist sure, do we need to make them more common and replace other words? No, it's an overreaction. What's wrong with biological, mankind or elderly? Do most people have a problem with these words? If not, they don't need to be changed for everyone.
[QUOTE=RB33;51767273]These people would have more comfort and wellbeing, if they learned to accept that everything won't be adapted to their needs and that they have to accept some words which they don't like being used. Then they can move on from caring about them. They already exist sure, do we need to make them more common and replace other words? No, it's an overreaction. What's wrong with biological, mankind or elderly? Do most people have a problem with these words? If not, they don't need to be changed for everyone.[/QUOTE] Why are you so uppity about being inclusive with your vocabulary?
[QUOTE=01271;51767257]It's not a name change for the sake lf it. Terms like this remove the chance that they'd be offended and contribute a bunch to the hospital's culture of nurture, healing, and respect. Lifts changing names is not about change for the sake of change it's about not using the word that has a connotation of you, as a lift user, being generally incapable. At hospitals: They broke their arm, their hip, they have a heart condition, they're bedridden etc... Now is not the time to have them man up. Now is a time to prevent them from being ashamed of their conditions. Their arm is fucked for life, is it time to let them sit for hours on a bed thinking about the word handicapped or are they getting a much more specific and clinical word that's direct and to the point? Come to the hospital and get a complimentary guilt-free safe space experience where you won't be confronted with the idea that you're less than human. Oh yeah pre-emptively chipping in that doctors are professionals and that they use those terms vs the general public is important because everyone trusts doctors and their word has more weight. Being called handicapped by a waiter definitely wouldn't have the same impact after the much more important and cool doctor gave you the correct word to prove this guy wrong in your head and shield yourself.[/QUOTE] The problem here is that people are letting words affect them too much. That's probably not easily fixed though. If it turns out that renaming certain insignificant things is easier, sure, go ahead and do it. Regardless if the hospital adapts to your renaming needs, you stand to gain by learning to not be hurt by words.
Hospitals are there to "adapt to needs".
[QUOTE=reedbo;51767265]How is this not natural? Language is a human concept, we've been modifying its usage for thousands of years. How else would it change if not for someone using different words? Merely proposing new words doesn't change the language. If people decide that it's important to use words that are more inclusive then language has evolved.[/QUOTE] Change is natural if it happens without deliberate intervention. This is a deliberate intervention though. They tell you to use these words instead, that's not natural. It didn't happen on its own. [editline]2nd February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=The golden;51767279]I'm sorry...but what the actual fuck? Dude, this is talking about hospitals and stuff.[/QUOTE] So they only get to have comfort while in the hospital, the rest of society won't be as adapting. That's why they should learn it, it will help them. [QUOTE=reedbo;51767280]Why are you so uppity about being inclusive with your vocabulary?[/QUOTE] Why should I be the one to change, when people can accept and adapt to current usage? It's more effort to get everyone to change than to have the few accept what's commonly used.
[QUOTE=RB33;51767342]Change is natural if it happens without deliberate intervention. This is a deliberate intervention though. They tell you to use these words instead, that's not natural. It didn't happen on its own.[/QUOTE] Telling someone to use words is different than forcing someone to use them. It's not like they're changing the definition straight from Merriam-Webster. You can't force people to change their language, much like you're demonstrating now. But if you tell people that the words they use hurt others then they're more likely to be a good person and change their vocabulary accordingly. It takes zero effort to be a nice person but instead you take the stance that people need to toughen the fuck up. Sure life is tough but that doesn't mean you need to be an asshole and refuse to accommodate others when it's possible. Side-note, I think 'dabbing' is stupid as all hell but that doesn't stop it from becoming common place now does it? Language evolves itself based on what people feel is right, if people feel that being inclusive is important then they'll change their vocabulary accordingly.
[QUOTE=RB33;51767342]Change is natural if it happens without deliberate intervention. So they only get to have comfort while in the hospital, the rest of society won't be as adapting. That's why they should learn it, it will help them. Why should I be the one to change, when people can accept and adapt to current usage? It's more effort to get everyone to change than to have the few accept what's commonly used.[/QUOTE] 1) nobody really thinks about the small things like negative connotations it's not like you're telling them a swear word or something so no natural change is likely. 2)[QUOTE=01271;51767257]Oh yeah pre-emptively chipping in that doctors are professionals and that they use those terms vs the general public is important because everyone trusts doctors and their word has more weight. Being called handicapped by a waiter definitely wouldn't have the same impact after the much more important and cool doctor gave you the correct word to prove this guy wrong in your head and shield yourself.[/QUOTE] 3) you don't want to put people into a depression or something. This is an important person with a lab coat talking. You've been trained all your life to accept what a doctor says as fact.
[QUOTE=reedbo;51767371]Telling someone to use words is different than forcing someone to use them. It's not like they're changing the definition straight from Merriam-Webster. You can't force people to change their language, much like you're demonstrating now. But if you tell people that the words they use hurt others then they're more likely to be a good person and change their vocabulary accordingly. It takes zero effort to be a nice person but instead you take the stance that people need to toughen the fuck up. Sure life is tough but that doesn't mean you need to be an asshole and refuse to accommodate others when it's possible. Side-note, I think 'dabbing' is stupid as all hell but that doesn't stop it from becoming common place now does it? Language evolves itself based on what people feel is right, if people feel that being inclusive is important then they'll change their vocabulary accordingly.[/QUOTE] Telling people to use certain words isn't how words naturally spreads. It does take effort, because if you're used to say certain words, you need to remember all the words you supposed to use instead and when to use them. Which won't be unproblematic at first, at least. There will be always be assholes, so learning how to deal with them using words, you don't like will be useful anyway. And if people feel that this is all unnecessary changes, they will not change their vocabulary.
[QUOTE=RB33;51767432]Telling people to use certain words isn't how words naturally spreads. It does take effort, because if you're used to say certain words, you need to remember all the words you supposed to use instead and when to use them. Which won't be unproblematic at first, at least. There will be always be assholes, so learning how to deal with them using words, you don't like will be useful anyway. [B]And if people feel that this is all unnecessary changes, they will not change their vocabulary[/B].[/QUOTE] Exactly my point! There is nothing wrong in telling people that the language they're using is hurtful. If the person isn't a total asshole they will make changes to their vocabulary to be more inclusive. It's the same reason people don't run around calling black people niggers any more. Society as a whole has deemed it wrong and hurtful so we don't say it any more. Go ahead and call a black person that and when they get mad just say "Why should I be the one to change, when people can accept and adapt to current usage?". It seems to me like you're the one that isn't adapting to current usage.
[QUOTE=01271;51767406]1) nobody really thinks about the small things like negative connotations it's not like you're telling them a swear word or something so no natural change is likely. 2) 3) you don't want to put people into a depression or something. This is an important person with a lab coat talking. You've been trained all your life to accept what a doctor says as fact.[/QUOTE] Well, he started by claiming this was a natural change which it isn't. You might be right, that it won't change naturally. They should still learn to handle negative words, as they only stand to gain from it. Unfortunately, they are facts though. Even if you don't like the name of the fact. Which is what this is about, not elderly, older, not disabled lift, accessible lift, not biological male, assigned male, not manpower, personnel. They are the same thing and they are facts. If the word isn't meant to hurt you, learn to not be hurt by it. You don't lose anything by being able to.
[QUOTE=RB33;51767123]manpower of the hospital[/QUOTE] lol that sounds so clumsy personnel would definitely be a way more fitting word
[QUOTE=The golden;51767440]Oh my fucking god. All this is doing is asking medical staff to use more comforting words so people in medical facilities feel maybe a little more comfortable and dignified while they lay there in extreme pain, on their death bed, on suicide watch, childbirth or with whatever they might be struggling with. And more. You are making a valiant effort to try and tell people this shouldn't happen because it's an affront to what you feel is already-perfect English and that they should just suck it up and deal with it. Grow a goddamn heart, man. Seriously.[/QUOTE] It can be done on individual basis, do you prefer being called assigned male, older person, not being called disabled. Then they can do it, you don't have to weird out people by calling them words they think are unnecessary. Most people won't have a problem being called what's common now. [editline]2nd February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Saturn V;51767475]lol that sounds so clumsy personnel would definitely be a way more fitting word[/QUOTE] Well, the article mentioned it, i don't know when they would use it otherwise.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.