Don't call pregnant women 'expectant mothers' as it might offend transgender people, BMA says
253 replies, posted
[QUOTE=RB33;51767468]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]
she*
Learning to handle hurtful words is different than using them. I feel that it's important for people to not make a big deal out of small things like hurtful language. But I also feel that being inclusive and using appropriate language is an important part of being an adult. Suggesting new word usage is the first step to a natural language change. If nobody knew that these words could be hurtful then we would continue to use them and it would never change. But because the BMA says that it may be exclusive to say these things, rational human beings can make the decision themselves to adjust their vocabulary thus causing language to evolve. Language doesn't evolve without talking about it.
The only thing I gain from knowing how to handle negative words is how to avoid an asshole.
[QUOTE=reedbo;51767448]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]
Is it current usage yet? That's why you oppose changes you don't want, before they become common usage. The most non-asshole you can be is to ask what they want be referred to as, not force either of the words upon them. What is seen as the non-offensive option doesn't always have to be non-offensive.
[QUOTE=RB33;51767512]Is it current usage yet? That's why you oppose changes you don't want, before they become common usage. The most non-asshole you can be is to ask what they want be referred to as, not force either of the words upon them. What is seen as the non-offensive option doesn't always have to be non-offensive.[/QUOTE]
yeah but dude like this is talking about fucking hospitals oh my god
seriously if shit like this didnt happen we'd be still be calling disabled people fucking mongols or whatever
[QUOTE=RB33;51767512]Is it current usage yet? That's why you oppose changes you don't want, before they become common usage. The most non-asshole you can be is to ask what they want be referred to as, not force either of the words upon them. What is seen as the non-offensive option doesn't always have to be non-offensive.[/QUOTE]
Why don't [B]you[/B] want these changes? Why do [B]you[B][/B][/B] think they're a bad idea? It can't be just because people need to toughen up. That's a really stupid reason, please give me something more logical.
[QUOTE=reedbo;51767506]she*
Learning to handle hurtful words is different than using them. I feel that it's important for people to not make a big deal out of small things like hurtful language. But I also feel that being inclusive and using appropriate language is an important part of being an adult. Suggesting new word usage is the first step to a natural language change. If nobody knew that these words could be hurtful then we would continue to use them and it would never change. But because the BMA says that it may be exclusive to say these things, rational human beings can make the decision themselves to adjust their vocabulary thus causing language to evolve. Language doesn't evolve without talking about it.
The only thing I gain from knowing how to handle negative words is how to avoid an asshole.[/QUOTE]
I'm of the belief that current language can be made neutral instead of making up new words to replace them. It's easier and more reasonable.
It's neat seeing someone take offence at an organization making suggestions to its employees on how not to offend people.
[QUOTE=RB33;51767523]I'm of the belief that current language can be made neutral instead of making up new words to replace them. It's easier and more reasonable.[/QUOTE]
What is language
[QUOTE=Saturn V;51767517]yeah but dude like this is talking about fucking hospitals oh my god
seriously if shit like this didnt happen we'd be still be calling disabled people fucking mongols or whatever[/QUOTE]
That was a reasonable change but do we have to change every 30-40 years? Will these new words be considered offensive in the future and we have to change them yet again. The words are fact, fact doesn't change. We shouldn't make something offensive, if it isn't intended to be.
[QUOTE=reedbo;51767522]Why don't [B]you[/B] want these changes? Why do [B]you[B][/B][/B] think they're a bad idea? It can't be just because people need to toughen up. That's a really stupid reason, please give me something more logical.[/QUOTE]
Because it's unnecessary and in most cases we can use the current words without any problems. Being offended by words like biological male or manpower is unreasonable. They are neutral words.
You people are as offended and petty as these mythical SJWs you claim to hate, I swear. This is a minor adjustment in policy that has no effect on you whatsoever. Is anyone being negatively impacted by this? I really doubt so. The first page of this thread is throwing a massive fit over effectively nothing. Is this the most necessary end-all change that needed to happen? Maybe, not really, who knows. Is there anything we are losing by doing this? Not really. For the vast majority of you effectively nothing changed in the world and everything else is the same.
Culture, language, the world, perceptions, and even history changes as we move forward.
If you're oblivious to that fact that this is the very core of nature then I dunno what to tell you.
Shit's gonna change whether you think it should or not lol.
[QUOTE=RB33;51767548]That was a reasonable change but do we have to change every 30-40 years? Will these new words be considered offensive in the future and we have to change them yet again. The words are fact, fact doesn't change. We shouldn't make something offensive, if it isn't intended to be.
Because it's unnecessary and in most cases we can use the current words without any problems. Being offended by words like biological male or manpower is unreasonable. They are neutral words.[/QUOTE]
None of these terms in this list are [I]new[/I] words lmao. All of these words are keeping their definition only the combination and usage of the words is changing. Language isn't changed by the BMA telling doctors to use different terminology. This is the same thing as a car mechanic using different wording when talking to peer as opposed to a customer. Your holy English language isn't being changed by this single act. It will require 30-40 years of people adapting to new usage before it has actually changed and even then not all of these usages will even stick. Nothing is at stake from the BMA having made this document.
[QUOTE=The golden;51767574]You've past the point where you were arguing for your side and are now just spewing meaningless crap.[/QUOTE]
Well, you said i needed to grow a heart 10 times or so. That's not really arguing either. I'm pointing out why i don't see this as necessary, that it's easier and more reasonable to keep what we have and have those who disagree adapt to it.
[QUOTE=Pascall;51767589]Culture, language, the world, perceptions, and even history changes as we move forward.
If you're oblivious to that fact that this is the very core of nature then I dunno what to tell you.
Shit's gonna change whether you think it should or not lol.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but we should debate the things we don't like or feel are necessary.
[editline]2nd February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=reedbo;51767590]None of these terms in this list are [I]new[/I] words lmao. All of these words are keeping their definition only the combination and usage of the words is changing. Language isn't changed by the BMA telling doctors to use different terminology. This is the same thing as a car mechanic using different wording when talking to peer as opposed to a customer. Your holy English language isn't being changed by this single act. It will require 30-40 years of people adapting to new usage before it has actually changed and even then not all of these usages will even stick. Nothing is at stake from the BMA having made this document.[/QUOTE]
The new usage of these words, then. They want to change it, that's the point with telling them. This can cause it to spread. As an example, the Swedish [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du-reformen"]Du-reform[/URL], a major change in the language became the new standard within 5 years and the previous use basically disappeared after a announcement by the head of the National Board of Health and Welfare. This could have a similar effect, it isn't too unlikely. Far more likely than it taking 30-40 years.
I agree, let me help by providing a list of good reasons why language changing is something to be concerned about:
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51767859]I agree, let me help by providing a list of good reasons why language changing is something to be concerned about:[/QUOTE]
It can increase the divide between different groups (elderly, young, rural, urban) and lower the understanding between them.
It can lead to collapse in language rules, making the language unpredictable and hard to understand.
It can lead to language being harder to learn as more and different words are used for the same thing.
You can find lots of reasons for it being bad, if it's not kept in check.
[QUOTE=RB33;51767923]It can increase the divide between different groups (elderly, young, rural, urban) and lower the understanding between them.
It can lead to collapse in language rules, making the language unpredictable and hard to understand.
It can lead to language being harder to learn as more and different words are used for the same thing.
You can find lots of reasons for it being bad, if it's not kept in check.[/QUOTE]
Who keeps this stuff in check might I ask?
[QUOTE=reedbo;51768070]Who keeps this stuff in check might I ask?[/QUOTE]
Those who write dictionaries, academia and official language institutions (if such exist).
France, if I recall correctly is very hard on these things.
[QUOTE=RB33;51768112]Those who write dictionaries, academia and official language institutions (if such exist).
France, if I recall correctly is very hard on these things.[/QUOTE]
I find it hard to believe that those groups are actively working to keep language the same as it was when they learned it, regardless, what makes the British Medical Associated unqualified to suggest changes to workplace terminology?
[QUOTE=reedbo;51768181]I find it hard to believe that those groups are actively working to keep language the same as it was when they learned it, regardless, what makes the British Medical Associated unqualified to suggest changes to workplace terminology?[/QUOTE]
They are not unqualified, i just feel that they are wrong and should keep most words as they are.
I would like those who disagree with me, give me reasons for why words like "biological male" and "manpower" should be changed. I feel that these in particular are just an overreaction.
[QUOTE=RB33;51768204]They are not unqualified, i just feel that they are wrong and should keep most words as they are.
I would like those who disagree with me, give me reasons for why words like "biological male" and "manpower" should be changed. I feel that these in particular are just an overreaction.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you on this point, those are a little over the top. But that is up to society to determine, if it becomes widely used over time then language will have evolved to include it, but as of now it hurts nothing to suggest changing it.
Don't these people think that transgender people will get tired of being treated like special snowflakes sooner or later?
Yes they are transgender, but in the end, they just want to have a normal life, with the correct body. They probably don't want a lot of pading and being reminded they are transgender.
I mean, thats what I think. I can't really say it is or it isn't. Thoughts?
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;51768390]Don't these people think that transgender people will get tired of being treated like special snowflakes sooner or later?
Yes they are transgender, but in the end, they just want to have a normal life, with the correct body. They probably don't want a lot of pading and being reminded they are transgender.
I mean, thats what I think. I can't really say it is or it isn't. Thoughts?[/QUOTE]
Being referred to as an appropriate pronoun is not "being treated like a special snowflake". It's basic respect.
So no, I don't think people will get tired of it.
[QUOTE=RB33;51767923]It can increase the divide between different groups (elderly, young, rural, urban) and lower the understanding between them.
It can lead to collapse in language rules, making the language unpredictable and hard to understand.
It can lead to language being harder to learn as more and different words are used for the same thing.
You can find lots of reasons for it being bad, if it's not kept in check.[/QUOTE]
So you've just listed a bunch of natural things to justify imposing your idea of what the language should be.
They are also addressed by the existence of standard language, which coexists with dialects. However even that changes lol and usually trying to prevent it at best is fruitless and at worst descends into racism.
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;51768390]Don't these people think that transgender people will get tired of being treated like special snowflakes sooner or later?
Yes they are transgender, but in the end, they just want to have a normal life, with the correct body. They probably don't want a lot of pading and being reminded they are transgender.
I mean, thats what I think. I can't really say it is or it isn't. Thoughts?[/QUOTE]
I can assure you that most of society does not treat us like special snowflakes. And how is being referred to by a term aligned with our gender identity being "treated like special snowflakes" anyways? I'd be much happier knowing people wouldn't call me an expectant mother or any other term that unnecessarily reminds me of my biological sex, so I can't see what the problem is here.
Man, I sure do hate it when some idiot that usually isn't even trans says something like this and the immediate response is "those god damned transgender people are a menace." I didn't ask for this and never would, just being treated like a human being is good thanks. Don't blame me because some dickhead thought they we're doing my poor ass a favor by speaking for me.
Seriously though, whatever happened to discretion with this sort of shit?
Snip Ninjad my automerge
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51768425]So you've just listed a bunch of natural things to justify imposing your idea of what the language should be.
They are also addressed by the existence of standard language, which coexists with dialects. However even that changes lol and trying to prevent it at best is fruitless and at worst descends into racism.[/QUOTE]
If you're making something bad, that isn't or hasn't been. Then that's your own fault. By painting some of these words as bad, you're just making them unusable for no good reason. All suggested changes and reforms of language don't succeed either. Most of this might and will hopefully fail.
my god, the irony of people getting so mad at this isn't lost on me
[QUOTE=archangel125;51754335]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.[/QUOTE]
We don't agree on a lot of things, but this post is pretty spot on.
[QUOTE=RB33;51768476]If you're making something bad, that isn't or hasn't been. Then that's your own fault. By painting some of these words as bad, you're just making them unusable for no good reason. All suggested changes and reforms of language don't succeed either. Most of this might and will hopefully fail.[/QUOTE]
You're being incredibly dramatic.
Go call a black person a negro in America and tell him that it's his fault that he thinks it's a bad word (I get to be dramatic too.) Quite literally all they've done is recommended their employees use alternatives so-as to be more pleasant when dealing with their patients. Sure, a huge amount of things like this are short-term (and some of these are dumb,) but not [B]all[/B]. For example we generally say firefighter and police officer instead of fireman and policeman because of an effort just like this, and there's no need to be so over-the-top and triggered about it.
[QUOTE=The golden;51768464]Err most English dictionaries are Descriptivist. Meaning they write down the definitions and meaning of English words as they currently are in society. English has absolutely no governing body and its use varies wildly all over the world. I would suggest you actually go outside for once.[/QUOTE]
Why do you think I added "if such exist"? It was about any language in general. People will seek to find a standard anyway, what's right or not. Else everyone would write as if it were the 1700s still.
[editline]3rd February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51768497]You're being incredibly dramatic.
Go call a black person a negro in America and tell him that it's his fault that he thinks it's a bad word (I get to be dramatic too.) Quite literally all they've done is recommended their employees use alternatives so-as to be more pleasant when dealing with their patients. Sure, a huge amount of things like this are short-term (and some of these are dumb,) but not [B]all[/B]. For example we generally say firefighter and police officer instead of fireman and policeman because of an effort just like this, and there's no need to be so over-the-top and triggered about it.[/QUOTE]
Well, it's dumb. Words can be made gender-neutral, some are already used neutrally in practice. I can speak for my own language Swedish, where gendered names of jobs are disappearing. Fewer and fewer say "actress", both genders are "actors". Men and women are firemen, speaker of the parliament is literally called "speak man". Leading to things as "Miss speak man". It's unnecessary to make new gender-neutral words when exisiting words can change meaning to include both genders.
[QUOTE=The golden;51768464]Being treated as our proper gender is not special treatment to a trans person. That is just simply the same as someone calling you he/she depending on which you are. It means a lot to us.
Secondly....we don't get treated like special snowflakes. We get discriminated against, we get fired, robbed, assaulted, abused, beaten, raped, and murdered. The suicide rate amongst trans people is fucking astonishingly high as is the amount of reported discrimination. I'd happily take "snowflake" treatment please...it's better than all that shit.[/QUOTE]
I don't call that being treated like "a special snowflake". I call that being treated like everyone else. Which I'm not talking about.
I'd say its pretty obvious nobody sane and rational would want anyone to get beaten or raped or murdered or whatever because of being of a different race, ethnicity, transgender or gay/bi.
It's pretty obvious aswell that transgender people should be treated by their right pronoun.
The thing about this, is that this isn't exclusive to transgender people right? This applies to everyone, cisgender included right?
Why exactly is there a need to change "the elderly" into "older people"? Why "disabled lifts" into "accessible lifts"?
Is someone transgender really gonna take offence upon hearing someone saying expectant mother to someone else? And if you ARE refering to someone who is going from male to female and may get pregnant later, doesn't that really become a useless term since that person IS gonna change sex? Or would that person not consider herself a mother? Legit question there though
Surname/last name to family name... Why?
Mankind and manpower, and whichever order you put prefixes... Why?... Thats such a nitpicky thing to complain about. Almost as if you were keeping real score of such needless things like that. I get that humanity would englobe everyone, but is anyone really that annoyed by it that you have to change that?
[editline]3rd February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=RB33;51768499]Well, it's dumb. Words can be made gender-neutral, some already are used neutrally in practice. I can speak for my own language Swedish, where gendered names of jobs are disappearing. Fewer and fewer say "actress", both genders are "actors". Men and women are firemen, speaker of the parliament is literally called "speak man". Leading to things as "Miss speak man". It's unnecessary to make new gender-neutral words when exisiting words can change meaning to include both genders.[/QUOTE]
Thats what I mean for example.
Would people really want firewomen to be used to relate to women who are firefighters? Is anyone that nitpicky that they have to complain about that? (hey, how about just firefighters then?)
I can agree with pronouns for transgender people, but theres some stuff that IMO don't directly relate to them at all unless you get really specific that shouldn't really need a change just because someone decided to be annoyed by it.
That almost reminds me of all that feminism crap in videogames where people argued about stupid things, and then ignored the real problems.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.