The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50

grey_til_I_dye

thorn

But that isn't what the BMA have done at all.

"This is a guide for BMA staff and representatives aimed at promoting an inclusive workplace at the BMA. It is not workplace guidance for doctors which is clear from the fact it does not refer to patients."

And what it actually said was:

A large majority of people that have been pregnant or have given birth identify as women. We can include intersex men and transmen who may get pregnant by saying ‘pregnant people’ instead of ‘expectant mothers’.

You can read the whole leaflet here:

https://www.bma.org.uk/-/media/files/pdfs/about the bma/equality and inclusion/bma-guide-to-effective-communication-2016.pdf

You might still disagree with the reasoning, but at the least I think you will see that it puts their reasoning forwards more fairly than the Telegraph or Mail do.

thornburyiron

I wasn't saying I believed they were the full facts I was just using our off the cuff conversation about it to show that his response implied that he may or may not comply with it should it occur. I doubt I'd be discussing it again as its not a matter close to my heart but his views on my condition is.

MrsGrey

thornburyiron said:

For example this week the BMA have instructed hospitals and doctors not to refer to pregnant women as expectant mothers in case it may offend a transgender person. Words such as mum, dad, son, daughter, boy, girl etc etc are also not to be used.

The words you list are not 'not to be used'. What the guidance advises is this.

1.If you don’t know for certain what gender to use when talking about a person’s loved ones, or if you aren’t sure whether someone identifies as male or female, keep your language neutral until you know what terms they prefer to use. For example, use the word ‘partner’ instead of ‘wife’ or ‘husband’, ‘parent’ instead of ‘Mum’ or ‘Dad’, and ‘child’ instead of ‘son’ or ‘daughter’.
2. The guidance doesn't apply to clinical staff working with patients, it is for people working for the BMA, which is a professional association representing its members. A direct quote from the BMA: 'This is a guide for BMA staff and representatives aimed at promoting an inclusive workplace at the BMA. It is not workplace guidance for doctors, which is clear from the fact it does not refer to patients.”



Edit: I spent ages looking it all up, only to find grey got there first. ;weep

MrsGrey

thornburyiron said:

Genuine answer, I have absolutely no idea.

But you have implied that the judges have not been impartial in their rulings. I don't think you have any evidence of that. So why say it?

PS, I'll move this chunk of discussion over to the Article 50 thread, as it isn't about the US ;ok

thornburyiron

I don't have any evidence of it, I was just saying that it is easy to see why people may be suspicious of the judiciary.

Edit.... Better move this one too

grey_til_I_dye

thorn

I would expect a cardiologist (or any health professional) to carry out their professional duties regardless of their own personal beliefs or opinions.

I would expect a Muslim doctor to treat a Jewish patient as well as any other patient. I would expect a socialist doctor to work to the best of their ability on a right-wing terrorist suspect.

I expect all members of the judiciary to act impartially, based on the evidence they hear, and the relevant laws.

I have no reason to suspect that is not the case, and believe that enough checks and balances exist to deal with any instances where a member of the judiciary falls below that standard.

I think slinging mud at the judiciary because they don't come up with the answer you wanted is a hair's breadth away from totalitarianism.

thornburyiron

Grey I don't know if it's intended that your last paragraph is directed at me but if it is its out of order.
I was not slinging mud at the judiciary but merely stating that for those who do mistrust the judiciary, the fact that the Supreme Court verdict of 8-3 was predicted well in advance of the actual verdict does nothing yo quell their mistrust.
As an aside the mud slinging because it's not the answer someone wants applies totally to remain voters and Clinton supporters.

grey_til_I_dye

thorn

No, it wasn't. It was directed at the media hysteria (and the deafening silence of HMG) which followed the result, and which does seem to have coloured your view.

How about: it was pretty well known what the result would be because it was pretty clear what the law said?

To give comfort or credence to those who sling mud at the judiciary, with absolutely no evidence, is to support them, imo.

It's exactly what Trump is doing with his 'Lying media' claims. One of the few independent institutions that could challenge him is directly under attack, precisely so that they will be discredited when his failings are pointed out.

To suggest that it is reasonable to assume the British judiciary is not impartial (without providing compelling evidence of the fact) is, imo, to undermine one of the cornerstones of its democracy.

MrsGrey

HoC debating the Bill at the moment.

In the absence of an effective Opposition, Ken Clarke is having to do all the work himself. ;lol ;bowdown

TheMadcapLaughs

I`ve always liked Ken Clarke. Seems courteous, intelligent, fair, level headed and has that mischievous twinkle in his eye. ;ok

claretandbluesky

This discussion about the BMA guidelines is an example of how in this day and age of everyone being able to publish news via social media can distort perceptions. Whilst I am not suggestion for one moment that you would post such a thing on Facebook Thorn you can see that if someone did post the following:

For example this week the BMA have instructed hospitals and doctors not to refer to pregnant women as expectant mothers in case it may offend a transgender person. Words such as mum, dad, son, daughter, boy, girl etc etc are also not to be used.


It could be spread via facebook very quickly and before you knew it taken as fact by many people who were not able or willing to verify the accuracy. It used to be limited to the Sun printing stories about Bananas needing to have a certain degree of curve as a way of suggesting 'look at these looney Europeans' but now everyone can publish anything. I think Mark Zuckerburg will make fake news a priority as it really does undermine democracy as the information published influences how people vote.

NEoldiron

claretandblue hear, hear. It's why brexiteers got the majority ;angry

TheMadcapLaughs

That "made me laugh" was not "clicked" in a nasty, derogatory or snide way. That genuinely did make me laugh. ;ok

MrsGrey

C+B ;ok

That misreporting was exactly what was the gist of the coverage in (print and online versions of) The Sun, Mail, Metro, Daily Telegraph, Mirror, The Standard, Fox News .. I could go on.

Most led with 'Doctors are banned from using the word mothers' type headlines or lead paragraphs.

Which quite blatantly 'fake news'.

The Daily Telegraph was more accurate in its headline and the body of its news report. But the end of it contains quotes from 5 people. The first is from the BMA, explaining that it is workplace guidance for its staff, and is a simple statement of a fact that is a repeat of something that's already been covered in the article. 3 more are strongly worded negative opinions calling it ridiculous and Orwellian, and using such highly emotive language, and responding as if doctors are really banned from using the word 'mother'. The final one is a positive opinion from a transgender support group rep.

How is that balanced or unbiased reporting?

NEoldiron

Sid, glad to see you have a sense of humour ;biggrin

AdMeus_CaputFilius

At the end of the day the BMA stuff is Guidance and has no legal standing, so they do not have to follow it, unless the BMA write it in to their code of practice then the BMA cannot take any action against those who do not follow the guidance either.

This type of "fake" news - if that is what you want to call it - (e.g. news based on supposition and misrepresentation) has been more and more prevalent over the last few years as the media (including the BBC) seem hell bent on making (up) the news with misleading headlines rather than just reporting it. It was particularly apparent during the Scottish independence and UK Leave/Remain referendums (on both side of the arguments).

chicagohammer

Just chiming in with my tuppence worth, to my mind this "guidence" has been poorly communicated.

In my world, anyone who is pregnant could legitimately be described as simply "expecting". If you are essentially female but identify as male, assuming that you are actually pregnant then it seems perfectly reasonable to be described as "expecting"

I would imagine that "Expectant mother" would still be an appropriate handle to describe The vast majority of anyone who is actually pregnant but in the rare case where it could be determined as being an unwelcome phrase - then simply "expecting" would seem to fit the bill.

The offered up phrase "expectant person" should certainly have been "expected" to generate the screaming headlines that it appears to have done.

Just a thought

;ok

AdMeus_CaputFilius

Chicago - couple of simple phrases to cover all basis that are already in use - 'with child' and 'prospective parent' - are non-gender specific.

Sorry, had an outbreak of common sense ..... ;yercoat

thornburyiron

Careful prospective parent might upset a surrogate mother ;wink

MrsGrey

You can be a parent without giving birth. So it probably wouldn't.

TheMadcapLaughs

"with child" can be very insulting to someone who isn`t "with child" but just a little portly............ ;whistle

We`ve all made this mistake...........................surely.................

IronHerb

The 'I'm Pregnamt' badges on the train certainly help avoid these errors

PrestonHammer

I'm probably going to get shot down for saying this but I don't get it. There are only 2 genders, you are either male or female. It doesn't matter that if you were born a man but feel you should be a woman and vice versa, you are still either a male or a female.

grey_til_I_dye

Preston

Apparently, for those affected, it is not that simple.

Doesn't seem to me to be wrong to listen to what transgender people have to say about their experiences, and how they would like to be treated.

MrsGrey

Gender isn't the same as sex.

(Is the argument about how these two words are being used. It's about distinguishing 'gender' ie identity - which can be formed from various influences and factors - from sex which is more or less biologically determined.)

Also, it has become clear that there aren't only 2 sexes. Look up 'intersex'. There are a number of different syndromes where sex is not binary (in the way it is commonly understood).

And of course, people can be born one and later change to another.

(I'm ready to be corrected by those who know more about it than me, but that is my understanding based on the reading I've done. Apologies if I've misstated it.)

MrsGrey

Preston, why would you get shot down?

You'd only get ''shot down'' if you expressed prejudiced or discriminatory views on the topic. ;hmm

NEoldiron

Should there not be a separate thread for this, as it's not really relevant to the UK soon to be out of the EU is it, unless I've missed a post connecting the two subjects.

grey_til_I_dye

NE

It's a spin-off, like happens in many of these kinds of threads. Don't think it really needs its own thread, as it is, imo, unlikely to 'run and run'.

PrestonHammer

Thinking about it, I shouldn't have put the first bit in. I will have a read up on trans genderism.

MrsGrey

If you like reading fiction, a novel called Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides won the Pulitzer Prize some years ago.

It is a very good read, not preachy or overly medical. Just quite an engrossing story about several generations of a family in the 1st half of the 20th century.