|
Post by Optimus on Dec 16, 2017 19:04:54 GMT -5
What on earth are they going to substitute for "transgender"? Gender-confused?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2017 19:11:14 GMT -5
This is one of those "news reports" that struck me immediately as the kind to be very skeptical about. Fake news, if you will. And of course, so many people are jumping on the end-of-the-world-according-to-Trump bandwagon. But really, what would the Trump admin get out of doing something like this? It doesn't make sense to me. This NPR story says Trump officals at HHS are pushing back against this: www.npr.org/2017/12/16/571329234/trump-administration-reportedly-instructs-cdc-on-its-own-version-of-7-dirty-wordNPR also brings up a possible angle that makes more sense: As I said, I'm very skeptical this is what people are saying it is. The whole world is in on a conspiracy to make, poor, poor Trump and his administration look bad. It's no doubt the Deep State doing this, and yet Trump and his appointees get the blame just because they're in charge. Unless of course it's just that Eevil Eevil Fake News Blamestream media again. Or maybe it's actually a good thing and we're all just not getting it. Because if there is one thing that's totally clear here, it's that it can't possibly be the fault of our wonderful POTUS or anyone he appointed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2017 19:37:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Dec 16, 2017 21:47:48 GMT -5
This is one of those "news reports" that struck me immediately as the kind to be very skeptical about. Fake news, if you will. And of course, so many people are jumping on the end-of-the-world-according-to-Trump bandwagon. But really, what would the Trump admin get out of doing something like this? It doesn't make sense to me. This NPR story says Trump officals at HHS are pushing back against this: www.npr.org/2017/12/16/571329234/trump-administration-reportedly-instructs-cdc-on-its-own-version-of-7-dirty-wordNPR also brings up a possible angle that makes more sense: As I said, I'm very skeptical this is what people are saying it is. Well, it certainly wouldn't be the first time the Trump administration has tried to dictate what words scientists can and can't use, so I really wouldn't put it past them: www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/usda-climate-change-language-censorship-emailsGiven that they've unequivocally done this at least once already this year, it's not too far out in left field to believe that they'd also do this to the CDC, especially given how much disdain toward and censoring of the CDC the Republicans show already. If the Trump administration is denying it, that doesn't really convince me, given that they've denied pretty much every shitty thing that that they've later found out to have actually been involved in so far. So, you're right to imply that there's no smoking gun, but it'd be blind denialism to claim that this story isn't at least very plausible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2017 22:03:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Dec 16, 2017 22:54:15 GMT -5
I'm quite fond of womb lizard. Still studying on the rest,
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 17, 2017 12:47:52 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2017 12:51:33 GMT -5
I'll be regularly checking the CDC's output for use of those seven words.
If they use them, I'll believe it.
ETA:
Also worth noting that the reported ban was with regard to something specific: "any official documents being prepared for next year’s budget."
The CDC director's denial isn't.
What I suspect is the case it this:
People at CDC were indeed told to avoid using those words in the context reported. They kicked up a fuss and it blew up. Now the CDC director is backpedaling and saying it wasn't a ban (or else is stating that whatever the agency was told, it will use whatever words it thinks are necessary, or is trying to sidestep the specific context).
If it were me working at that agency, I'd make a point about using those words, just to demonstrate either (a) that it was all a big mainstream media lie -- or (b) to get in the face of those who told them not to use the words and then tried to pretend it didn't happen. Whichever happens to be applicable.
If somehow those seven words never make it into any official CDC documents for next years budget...
ETA:
Here's what I doubt very much: that the report was invented.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2017 13:59:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Dec 17, 2017 14:20:28 GMT -5
Yeah, seems like a lot of "he said, she said" and carefully-worded backpedaling.
"We didn't "ban" any words. We simply strongly, coercively *suggested* that they use alternative phrasing for 7 specific words. That's not the same as a ban, because we never actually said the word "banned." We just said they couldn't use those words. See? Totally different."
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 17, 2017 16:48:11 GMT -5
What makes more sense?
1) That Someone in HHS with an interest in supporting the CDC in securing money from congress would advise them to avoid certain words in their requests for budgetary or grant money, therefore giving them a better chance to trick those crazy and evil Republicans out of denying them money due to spite and partisan reasons.
2) Trump, who we all know is evil and wants to destroy America with his Orwellian tactics, would outright send a word ban to the CDC because...you know...Trump.
I know what my answer is. If I am wrong, I will freely admit it. But I'm not going to get upset until we know more. And I sure would like someone to offer a coherent explanation of why Trump would even do that. IMO, it would behoove people to think more deeply on some of these "news reports" before they become so upset.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2017 16:51:02 GMT -5
IMO, it would behoove some to think more deeply on both the details and the overall gist of what's been happening in our government over last year.
ETA:
The thread that follows Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald's tweet (especially her comments but also those of others) are interesting. She is doing a very careful tap-dance that makes me think of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
It is clear to me that at a minimum, there was a meeting where they were told not to use those words in budget documents lest they endanger their funding. Let's say that's all it was. C.e. doesn't seem to think this is a problem, but I very much disagree.
First -- good lord, those words would endanger them getting their funding? All of them, of course, but really, science-based and evidence-based, FFS? Take another look at the suggested substitute, and tell me that's not disturbing that doing such a thing is now necessary to get funding out of Congress for science-based programs.
Second, it's going to be interesting to write budget proposals relating to transgender people without ever using the word "transgender."
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 17, 2017 17:08:25 GMT -5
Also worth noting that the reported ban was with regard to something specific: "any official documents being prepared for next year’s budget." The CDC director's denial isn't. What I suspect is the case it this: People at CDC were indeed told to avoid using those words in the context reported. They kicked up a fuss and it blew up. Now the CDC director is backpedaling and saying it wasn't a ban (or else is stating that whatever the agency was told, it will use whatever words it thinks are necessary, or is trying to sidestep the specific context). That seems quite plausible. But on the "sexual risk avoidance" angle, that is unfortunately nothing new. It reflects a methodology so common in government as to make it, well, just typical, regardless of the "who" involved. Personally, such word games--renaming things to disguise them, to make them more palatable, etc.--bug the crap out of me. But I don't know how to stop such shenanigans.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2017 17:15:21 GMT -5
I suppose to some degree politicians are going to politician.
But man, that substitute for "science-based" and "evidence-based" -- those are not terms people should need to pussyfoot around, especially in the way that is suggested. I'm with Don -- that particular suggested substitution gave me the heebie-jeebies.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Dec 17, 2017 17:28:31 GMT -5
I suppose to some degree politicians are going to politician. But man, that substitute for "science-based" and "evidence-based" -- those are not terms people should need to pussyfoot around, especially in the way that is suggested. I'm with Don -- that particular suggested substitution gave me the heebie-jeebies. Personally, I'm kind of looking forward to adding the word "proofified" to my next draft.
|
|