Seven words (and phrases) you can't say - CDC edition

But wasn't it the WH putting out the guidelines? Why would the WH care if the guy in charge is triggered? Wouldn't the WH rather have the agencies out those trigger words in so their funding gets denied?

The Times confirmed some details of the report with several officials, although a few suggested that the proposal was not so much a ban on words but recommendations to avoid some language to ease the path toward budget approval by Republicans.

A former federal official, who asked not to be named, called the move unprecedented.

“It’s absurd and Orwellian, it’s stupid and Orwellian, but they are not saying to not use the words in reports or articles or scientific publications or anything else the C.D.C. does,” the former official said. “They’re saying not to use it in your request for money because it will hurt you. It’s not about censoring what C.D.C. can say to the American public. It’s about a budget strategy to get funded.”

...

There seemed to be confusion around the public health agencies about whether the ban originated at the agency’s parent department, Health and Human Services, or inside the C.D.C. itself; and whether such a ban would apply beyond budget documents.

You could just ignore him at this point.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on December 18, 2017, 08:05:37 PM

But wasn't it the WH putting out the guidelines? Why would the WH care if the guy in charge is triggered? Wouldn't the WH rather have the agencies out those trigger words in so their funding gets denied?

It didn't necessarily come from the White house.

Quote from: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/health/cdc-trump-banned-words.html

The Times confirmed some details of the report with several officials, although a few suggested that the proposal was not so much a ban on words but recommendations to avoid some language to ease the path toward budget approval by Republicans.

A former federal official, who asked not to be named, called the move unprecedented.

“It’s absurd and Orwellian, it’s stupid and Orwellian, but they are not saying to not use the words in reports or articles or scientific publications or anything else the C.D.C. does,” the former official said. “They’re saying not to use it in your request for money because it will hurt you. It’s not about censoring what C.D.C. can say to the American public. It’s about a budget strategy to get funded.”

...

There seemed to be confusion around the public health agencies about whether the ban originated at the agency’s parent department, Health and Human Services, or inside the C.D.C. itself; and whether such a ban would apply beyond budget documents.

My fee fees lol. You think of your own and the 0.1% of people who think like you. I'm a realist who calls things how they are. If my son has a penis and has both X and Y chromosomes, no amount of pretending will make him any different. If he wants to dress as a girl, he is simply a guy who likes to dress in feminine clothing. We don't need to 'invent' a plethora of labels to choose from so he can fee like he fits neatly into some imagined box all by himself

I notice you 'snip' any point of argument you cant debate.... And as for sucking Chinas knob, you are imagining things for your argument. I have said plenty of times China is hideous and littered with a host of human rights abuses and suppressions of freedoms, but you cant simply deny the progress they have made in the past few decades. Taking the best of both systems could bring the benefits of both and the negatives of neither.

But hey, make shit up about me if you feel your argument is weak and lost. Good work man. Jane would be proud

A fetus is an unborn baby.  It makes no sense to pretend that the use of one term is any more politically loaded than the other.

The science around transgenderism is controversial, to put it mildly.

"Evidence-based" and "science-based" are also, like it or not, politically loaded terms at this point, which was intentional.

In short, this list is no more politicizing these issues than its opponents already do.

I think it's dumb too but don't think you own the high ground here

Quote

How about that lady in China that had a forced abortion at 7 months

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_abortion

Only a foetus right? No loss. Certainly couldn't call that an unborn baby

Well you could call it that, I guess, but the most proper term would still be fetus. And no, it's not a small loss because it's called a fetus, I find it really hard to understand what exactly your argument here is.

Quote

China is disgusting in a lot of regards but one place it excels is that it has a plan and no 'opposition for opposition sake' groups to get in the way.

Yeah, that's exactly why they ended up disgusting.

I think the controversy around the "facts" of transgenderism are because lots of the facts aren't facts. For example, if you read the "facts" about the murder rate of mtf you'd think they were dropping like flies, but it turns out that isn't the case. They use the murder rates of Brazil and pretend it applies to the US. They leave out the the fact that it's mostly trans poc in the sex trade who are murdered (no matter where they live). There's a lot of controversy around gathering facts, for example http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/psychotherapist-gender-assignment-surgery-reverse-research-stop-trans-bath-spa-university-james-a7965281.html

Quote from: Shifter on December 18, 2017, 02:57:42 PM

Quote

How about that lady in China that had a forced abortion at 7 months

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_abortion

Only a foetus right? No loss. Certainly couldn't call that an unborn baby

Well you could call it that, I guess, but the most proper term would still be fetus. And no, it's not a small loss because it's called a fetus, I find it really hard to understand what exactly your argument here is.

Quote

China is disgusting in a lot of regards but one place it excels is that it has a plan and no 'opposition for opposition sake' groups to get in the way.

Yeah, that's exactly why they ended up disgusting.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on December 20, 2017, 12:21:39 PM

I think the controversy around the "facts" of transgenderism are because lots of the facts aren't facts. For example, if you read the "facts" about the murder rate of mtf you'd think they were dropping like flies, but it turns out that isn't the case. They use the murder rates of Brazil and pretend it applies to the US. They leave out the the fact that it's mostly trans poc in the sex trade who are murdered (no matter where they live). There's a lot of controversy around gathering facts, for example http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/psychotherapist-gender-assignment-surgery-reverse-research-stop-trans-bath-spa-university-james-a7965281.html

Is the solution to prevent the CDC from talking about said facts?

When you call it a foetus, well there is nothing in the law that protects them. Call it a baby and they have plenty of rights and recognition.

I believe if the baby is wanted, it should be called as such,

All our petty bickering has helped the rise of the worlds biggest and most populist nation to take us over by stealth.

Quote from: Shifter on December 20, 2017, 12:59:05 PM

When you call it a foetus, well there is nothing in the law that protects them. Call it a baby and they have plenty of rights and recognition.

What? The law doesn't care if you call it a fetus or an unborn child, fetuses and embryos are still protected by the law in most countries and killing them against the consent of the mother may be treated as murder.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on December 21, 2017, 04:49:20 AM

Quote from: Shifter on December 20, 2017, 12:59:05 PM

When you call it a foetus, well there is nothing in the law that protects them. Call it a baby and they have plenty of rights and recognition.

What? The law doesn't care if you call it a fetus or an unborn child, fetuses and embryos are still protected by the law in most countries and killing them against the consent of the mother may be treated as murder.

Actually, most of the controversy arises when you try to kill it with the mother's consent.

Quote from: markjo on December 21, 2017, 10:04:59 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on December 21, 2017, 04:49:20 AM

Quote from: Shifter on December 20, 2017, 12:59:05 PM

When you call it a foetus, well there is nothing in the law that protects them. Call it a baby and they have plenty of rights and recognition.

What? The law doesn't care if you call it a fetus or an unborn child, fetuses and embryos are still protected by the law in most countries and killing them against the consent of the mother may be treated as murder.

Actually, most of the controversy arises when you try to kill it with the mother's consent.

Yes, but in that post Shifter was talking about killing it without consent.

When does Human Life become Human Life?

Quote from: crutonius on December 18, 2017, 12:00:11 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on December 17, 2017, 11:42:31 PM

Ok that's pretty weird... Especially fetus, that's a word that is hard to replace and seems pretty necessary in a medical context.

It's for the ultra pro lifers.

So ultra pro lifers don't even mention fetuses? Like, they're not even a thing to them?

President Donald Trump declared a national emergency on Dec. 21 in response to severe human rights abuses and corruption around the world.

In his executive order, the president said that rights abuses and corruption “have reached such scope and gravity that they threaten the stability of international political and economic systems.”