←back to thread

CDC gets list of forbidden words

(www.washingtonpost.com)
382 points js2 | 2 comments | 16 Dec 17 02:17 UTC | HN request time: 0.521s | source
Show context
somebodynew ◴[16 Dec 17 03:33 UTC] No.15937313[source]▶
I probably need to preface this comment by making it clear that I'm against banning words and not a fan of Trump.

Banning "fetus" and "transgender" is completely indefensible as they're fairly neutral words with no obvious replacement. But for the rest, imagine that rather than a ban this was a style guide recommending against certain words. The common theme in the rest of them is that they don't convey much useful information but have a strong emotional charge.

You don't need to say something is evidence-based, just show the evidence. Coming right out and saying your position is evidence-based just sounds like a way to shut down any objections, even reasoned discussion, by casting the other side as being against science, evidence, or facts in general. This is similar for science-based, vulnerable, and diversity. If you're seen as being "anti-diversity" your argument doesn't matter because you're a misogynistic racist xenophobe.

Entitlements is charged term because you've cemented your position on social welfare pretty clearly just by referring to them as entitlements. It's not quite as bad as Derry/Londonderry , but it's certainly not neutral.

I don't think any of these words should be banned, but I do think it would be reasonable for government agencies to use neutral language and fully explain their thoughts rather than using emotionally charged buzzwords.

replies(9): >>15937345 #>>15937372 #>>15937422 #>>15937434 #>>15937461 #>>15937625 #>>15938115 #>>15938125 #>>15938178 #
whathaschanged[dead post] ◴[16 Dec 17 03:49 UTC] No.15937434[source]▶
How is transgender in any way related to science? Furthering the Obama agenda of promoting mental illness is not in the best interest of society. Helping the mentally ill get the help they deserve is. A banana can declare it is an apple all it wants, but it is still a banana.
gizmo686 ◴[16 Dec 17 03:57 UTC] No.15937490[source]▶
Suppose I were to grant that transgenderism is a mental illness. Why would we ban the word? The CDC's job is to deal with dissease, so this would put transgenderism squarely in the purview of what they should be talking about.

The reason to ban them from using the word is because you do not like what they say when they do talk about it.

replies(2): >>15937539 #>>15937616 #
djsumdog[dead post] ◴[16 Dec 17 04:03 UTC] No.15937539[source]▶
Whenever people say mental illness in the same sentence as issues relating to transgendered people: first you don't care about them. The phrase "mental illness" is never used to uplift people in America. It is seen as derogatory. This is why we have HIPPA; so you can see a professional and talk about serious issues without stigma.

Most western countries are fairly free. You are free to do what you want within a couple of reasonable limits. If you want to act in ways that are normally associated with the opposite gender, go for it. There's nothing wrong with that and that's how society and culture change.

When someone looks at themselves in the mirror every morning and sees something that isn't them; e.g. if they see a fat person when they're 160cm and 45kg .. that's dysphoria. It can lead to anorexia and other forms of self harm.

When people feel they would be better off without and arm or a leg, and then find a surgeon to preform an unnecessary amputation, some will preform it just so they don't try to harm, and potentially kill, themselves. But there is a disconnect there with what they see and what they are.

When someone sees themselves in a mirror and see the biological gender they aren't born with, and desires to mutilate their genitals .. well that is their right. You can do what you want to your body, just like the person who wants to amputate their arm or starve themselves. But if you try to have that conversation in today's world -- it is a very difficult one to rationally have.

If you actually cared about the person, you don't throw around words like "mental illness." You do that because you hate. You are the reason we can't have these very real conversations.

1. labster ◴[16 Dec 17 04:17 UTC] No.15937629[source]▶
This feels like a personal attack against someone who agrees with you.
replies(1): >>15937744 #
2. djsumdog ◴[16 Dec 17 04:44 UTC] No.15937744[source]▶
It was aimed at the previous comment, but it got flagged for deletion before I could reply.