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

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.

TheMadcapLaughs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-38827731

Whilst I have every sympathy with the human in this story, school is a cruel, wicked, unforgiving place if you are different in any way, but apart from the obvious financial benefits, possibly tens of thousands of pounds I assume, what "good" does suing the school do. Highlighting the schools short comings and agitating for a better more inclusive World are one thing, but suing leaves me cold. It is the blame culture and the automatic "right" to financial recompense that gets me. Cases like this are detrimental (in my view), rather than healing wounds and promoting understanding they achieve the exact opposite.

With view to the earlier discussion, and to save any doubt or confusion, why not "pregnant human" as the catch all phrase.

MrsGrey

Re the language thing, those of you who have suggested alternative inclusive terms...

I agree there could be other terms used rather than the selection offered by the Guidance.

But the point is (and it seems to be one all of us are accepting - or at least nobody has actually challenged it) that trying to choose language that is inclusive and not containing any explicit or implicit derogatory overtones is a good thing. So the actual term isn't really the issue, it seems to me.

For anybody who didn't read the booklet, there are also other categories covered, such as language to describe people with disabilities, learning difficulties etc. (Which are categories that seem to attract less scorn and ridicule from papers like the Mail and The Sun than do those associated with race and gender. Quelle surprise!)

OutcastLondoner

TheMadcapLaughs said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-38827731

what "good" does suing the school do.

Setting legal precedent.

TheMadcapLaughs

OutcastLondoner said:

TheMadcapLaughs said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-38827731

what "good" does suing the school do.

Setting legal precedent.

For future claims???

OutcastLondoner

TheMadcapLaughs said:

OutcastLondoner said:

TheMadcapLaughs said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-38827731

what "good" does suing the school do.

Setting legal precedent.

For future claims???

For how schools are legally allowed to treat children. To make clear what constitutes discrimination and is therefore illegal.

TheMadcapLaughs

But according to the article the laws are already in place, the school seems negligent in their interpretation of the law, and I can understand that the school should be held accountable for neglecting its responsibilities, but "suing" (IMO) is wrong. I think that if this is a test case and will be used to set a precedent for the benefit of future pupils then if "damages" are awarded in cases such as this then they should be nominally set at £1.00. That assumes then that the claimant is doing this for the benefit of future generations rather than personal financial gain. The thought of "gender chasers" out there and "genderlawyers4u" makes me a little uncomfortable.

MrsGrey

TheMadcapLaughs said:

But according to the article the laws are already in place, the school seems negligent in their interpretation of the law, and I can understand that the school should be held accountable for neglecting its responsibilities, but "suing" (IMO) is wrong.

But that's the point.

How do you know if a school has been negligent in their conforming with the law and fulfilling their responsibilities? Until the day they put you in charge of deciding ( ;wink ), a case has to be taken to court to test that.

Who will do that, unless a 'victim' steps forward.

TheMadcapLaughs

I`m not objecting to the case, I`m objecting to the possibility of large damages being paid. If it is made clear that the damages are set at £1.00 then great. I hate compensation culture. We are money obsessed and it is being seen as a cure all, I`m all for righting wrongs, it just seems to me that a few thousand pounds appears to soften the blow. That is wrong and doesn`t compute in my head.

MrsGrey

But in many cases (not necessarily this one, I don't know) the person/organisation found to be at fault has done something that has caused the victim financial losses. (eg, loss of earning, facing medical or other expenses and so on). Why shouldn't they be compensated? I have no problem with it myself.

Also, if there is no punitive impact on the offending organisations, they can just carry on ignoring the law. And if they get taken to court and lose, ah well. Never mind.

OutcastLondoner

Does it actually even say in the story that they're seeking compensation?

MrsGrey

Not in the article, no.

But I think under the 2010 Act Part 9 (Enforcement) the tribunals and courts are empowered to award compensation and damages (subject to various criteria and limits).

NEoldiron

Of all the reasons to remain in the EU none can compete with this reason to leave

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/question-time-woman-banana-is-straight-audience-member-brexit-vote-last-minute-eu-referendum-a7560781.html

How many more of them had a similar reason ;puzzled