https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-administration-cdc-banned-words_us_5a348ed2e4b0ff955ad3221d

Um hhhmmmm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, it's like this.  We have influential groups that have worked long and hard to make certain sciency words sound all scary.  Now they are asking sciency people to please not use those words, because they frighten some of their followers.

That is...

Crimespeak doubleplus ungoodful.  Doublethink goodspeak doubleplus goodful.

Whats next? Burning books?

We are obviously figments of our own imagination.  Foetuses are also imaginary.  Babies are delivered by storks.

2+2=5


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a technique formalized and polished by a fellow named Frank Luntz, to deliberately control the debate over issues in such a way as to inhibit thoughts that might interfere with the message. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/political-language-rhetoric-framing-messaging-lakoff-luntz-2017-8

This may be the first modern application of semiotics theory to mass communications for political purposes.

It's been polished quite a bit since then, and has greatly influenced debate and led to the huge political schism we currently live with.

The application of the techniques to the public perception of the transgender community is relatively new.   We've seen the 'transgender debate' focused on the Great Bathroom Debate of 2017, but the semiotic well poisoning extends well beyond that, and has been applied to feminist theory to rekindle oppositional feminism and its implications to isolate and divide marginalized communities, particularly within the LGBT communities.

The presence of this is unfortunately everywhere now, even influencing discussions within our little community.   

This seems to be seriously misreported and taken out of context. It pertains solely to the CDC budget request. The CDC has not banned the word transgender, despite the inflammatory headlines. I don't know why it would be in their budget request anyway. Does anyone here feel that being transgender is a disease?

Hugs, Devlyn

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on December 16, 2017, 01:21:21 PM
This seems to be seriously misreported and taken out of context. It pertains solely to the CDC budget request. The CDC has not banned the word transgender, despite the inflammatory headlines. I don't know why it would be in their budget request anyway. Does anyone here feel that being transgender is a disease?

Hugs, Devlyn

Err.. no. If its a disease it feels pretty darn good.

Being transgender isn't a disease.  Neither is being a fetus.  If there are ever any diseases that transgender people or fetuses are particularly prone to, though, it would be nice if money were budgeted to research and control them.

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on December 16, 2017, 01:21:21 PM
This seems to be seriously misreported and taken out of context. It pertains solely to the CDC budget request. The CDC has not banned the word transgender, despite the inflammatory headlines. I don't know why it would be in their budget request anyway. Does anyone here feel that being transgender is a disease?

Hugs, Devlyn

Lets suppose you are  scientist doing research on HIV with the CDC, now you cannot request funding to research its impact and prevention strategys  in the transgender community.

I'm with Devlyn, this seems to be out of context or at least blown out of proportion for the sake of headlines. It doesn't feel like an attack per se, at least not one that has any real world impact. Regardless, it is really, really weird. They say they can use certain phrases with identical meaning in place of the "banned words", making the end result absolutely nothing.

I'd very much like to hear the other side's rationale before making a judgment here, maybe there is some insane but benign reason for it. Right now it just seems like nothing leading to nothing, and baffles me to no end.'

It reminds me of how Word 2016 yells at my word choice writing papers. (Shut up Word, If I want to be imprecise to pad my word count, that's my call!)

Quote from: Roll on December 16, 2017, 01:36:58 PM
... They say they can use certain phrases with identical meaning in place of the "banned words", making the end result absolutely nothing. ...

I'm with Michelle there.  The "phrases with identical meaning" may have different psychological impact and influence whether, and how much, funding is granted to some projects.

So what now they have to refer to trans people and 'individuals suffering from gender disphoria' and  futus with 'protohuman' and since based as....... Hey wait a minute this is really freaking shady. So the CDC can't ask for funding on research in trans issues? Didn't they come up with some of the statistics that show just how bad off we are compared to the rest of the population?
Here it is https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/transgender/index.html
11 million over 5years.....
As some one who spends a lot of time and effort writing being forced to use a weeker phrase to convey a meaning seriously weakens your argument.

It is thought control.  Muzzling scientists is one of the first ways that totalitarian regimes control public dialogue.  Here in Canada, the previous Conservative government cancelled the detailed census (don't want all those nasty facts, after all) and prohibited scientists from talking to the public. 

This is a more targeted version of the same thing.  If the CDC can't ask for funding for projects in those areas because they aren't allowed to use the words, then the intention is that those projects will go away.  Next year's list of prohibited words will be longer as the budget requests this year will be worded creatively to work around the restrictions.

 

Please have the discussion without name calling and bashing. I do not want discussions that end up (or begin) as slinging mud at each other.

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on December 16, 2017, 01:21:21 PM
This seems to be seriously misreported and taken out of context. It pertains solely to the CDC budget request. The CDC has not banned the word transgender, despite the inflammatory headlines. I don't know why it would be in their budget request anyway. Does anyone here feel that being transgender is a disease?

Hugs, Devlyn

No.  With all due respect, this is serious, and it's VERY serious.  A principal function of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is epidemiology - the study of how diseases develop and move through the population, and how the progress of those diseases can be interrupted or controlled.

Transgender (one of the banned words) people, due to their marginalized and stigmatized status in many parts of society, are uniquely vulnerable (another banned word) to a number of serious and sometimes fatal, health risks.

A few examples.

Transgender people, due to high levels of social stigma, are unemployed or underemployed at much higher levels than the general population.  As a result, they are more likely to lack access to adequate medical consultation and treatment, rendering them more susceptible to a wide range of diseases.

Also because of this constriction of conventional employment opportunity, a statistically unusual number of transgender people are involved in the sex industry, with all of the attendant health risks that accompany that type of work.  In particular, trans folks have HIV/AIDS infection rates considerably higher than the average for the general population.  The numbers skyrocket when combined "intersectionally" with disparities of race or ethnicity - trans people of color are at especially high risk.

Because trans people are often socially stigmatized and may be isolated or estranged from their families of origin, trans folks may experience high levels of emotional suffering.  To the extent that statistics are available, it appears that trans people face much higher levels of emotional disorders such as depression and anxiety disorders.  Many trans people struggle with alcohol or drug problems.

As a result of the issues I just mentioned, trans people are disproportionately at risk for suicide - which is another issue that CDC has studied in the past.  And, as many of us gathered to observe last month on Transgender Day of Remembrance, trans folks are not infrequently singled out for violent attack, up to and including homicide, by ignorant fools.

All of these factors (and these are only the ones I can recite off the top of my head - I'm sure there are a lot more that others could offer) show exactly why CDC MUST study transgender (forbidden word) people as a uniquely vulnerable (forbidden word) population.  If CDC fails to do this, it fails in its core mission as an agency.

Why is the CDC budget important?  Because that's where CDC gets the money to study these issues.  CDC must justify to Congress its need to study various aspects of national health policy to get the resources it needs.  If CDC doesn't explain the necessity for study, Congress doesn't appropriate the funds.  Then the research isn't done.  Then the health problems go unaddressed.  And downstream, trans people die.

To the Trump administration, it appears that trans folks are just a national embarrassment, and an unpleasant object to sweep under the carpet or back into the closet.

I can only imagine the frustration of doctors, medical researchers, and policy analysts at CDC being called into a staff meeting and told in effect "we can't submit a budget request for these activities because we're not allowed to speak of transgender (forbidden) people as a vulnerable (forbidden) population."

On a policy level, it's just too stupid.

The CDC hasn't banned anything. The thread title here is blatantly false. We do better when we don't call apples oranges. 

Fetuses pretty much rules out this being aimed deliberately and specifically at us, doesn't it? The emotional appeal of "Oh, think about the vulnerable unborn children" is strong. Maybe it's been misused and this is an attempt to keep budgetary requests factual rather than emotional? I don't know.

But I do know when someone says the CDC banned something and the CDC has not in fact banned that thing, the story is misleading.

Hugs, Devlyn

I agree that the thread title is incorrect.   The CDC is the victim of the ban, not the source of it.  The news media headlines have it right.  The ban is not aimed solely at us.  We are merely one of the categories that the CDC will not be allowed to talk about or request funding for.

The targets are clear: the administration wants discussion of several hot-button topics to disappear.  We happen to be one of those topics.

*-You are right Devlyn, Only the instructions to ban the seven words have been put forward. So far no action has been taken. But it will. But the choice of words in those instructions are suspect. Just as religious leaders calling us an abomination. So far it is just words. What happens when we are disappeared? What happens when law enforcement arrests us for gathering like the Jews, disabled, sexually diverse of Germany, we will be exterminated. How long before someone builds a comedy routine about the 7 dirty words?