7 ms·

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 complete

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.

justinpombrio 9y ago
> You don't need to say something is evidence-based, just show the evidence. No, "evidence-based medicine" is a term of art. Maybe you could argue that it took too generic of a name, but that's the word we have. From Wikipedia: "Although all medicine based on science has some degree of empirical support, EBM goes further, classifying evidence by its epistemologic strength and requiring that only the strongest types (coming from meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials) can yield strong recommendations; weaker types (such as from case-control studies) can yield only weak recommendations."
- somebodynew 9y ago
  That's a fair point and a good example of why an outright ban is bad. I don't know if the administration intended to impact the term evidence-based medicine or if it's just collateral damage from a perceived abuse of the prefix evidence-based, but it's only the latter that I would stylistically discourage.
- drcode 9y ago
  As a doctor, it seems to me that at one time (maybe 10 years ago) it had a very specific meaning, but unfortunately the usage has degraded to the point where everything is "evidence based medicine" now, just like everything in business now is a "disruptor" or a "pivot".
  - smcameron 9y ago
    "If only all medicine were evidence based medicine..." Careful what you wish for, I guess.
    - thanksgiving 9y ago
      I just assumed that was the norm and we had terms like "experimental cancer treatment" for when the treatment is so new that we don't have enough evidence to back it up.
  - JshWright 9y ago
    Yeah, I find myself having to clarify every time I use that phrase that I'm using it in the "pre-buzzword" sense...
gajomi 9y ago
"Diversity" may be an emotionally charged word, but also is a useful and common word in the biological sciences for a number of purposes. Of note especially is its common usage in ecology relevant to the CDC's goals of cataloging diverse bacterial and viral infections from clinical samples.
- somebodynew 9y ago
  I would argue that in a biological context the primary problem with neutral uses of "diversity" is vagueness. If a report indicates that they "collected a diverse range of bacteria for study", what is it that's different about them? Why not say "collected bacteria with various tolerances to extracellular ethanol concentration across three genera"? But like I said, an outright ban is silly, there are certainly places where it's the right word to use.
  - gajomi 9y ago
    It is a problem, but a technical problem thats well understood within the relevant communities. A quantification of "various tolerances" is one notion of diversity, but as you have deftly pointed out there are many other quantifiable notions that are endlessly debated (some links in the context of ecology: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=%22diversity+metric%22+ecology&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=%22...). Usually "diversity" is reported in terms of well defined quantitative metrics so that even if the umbrella term "diversity" is ambiguous it typically has well defined meaning(s) in the context of any particular study. All of which is to say, I would wager that the vast majority of scientific reports (and perhaps also those coming from the CDC) use the term "diversity" to introduce a general concept of a measure of heterogeneity which is quickly made precise within the study.
thaumasiotes 9y ago
> Banning "fetus" and "transgender" is completely indefensible as they're fairly neutral words with no obvious replacement. There's always "transexual", the older word for exactly the same concept.
- somebodynew 9y ago
  Maybe I'm letting my own bias seep in now, but I consider "transgender" fairly neutral and "transsexual" overtly negative and likely intentionally used to agitate.
  - rainbowmverse 9y ago
    The main trouble with -sexual as a catch-all is it's too narrow. Gender and sex have been conflated for a long time in the English-speaking world, but people are becoming more aware of the great variety in both.
    - retrogradeorbit 9y ago
      If you research the etymology of the word gender you discover that the word gender, up until the 1970's in academia, and up until the 2010's in the general populace, had an identical meaning to sex. Gender meant sex. Gender was used in writing and conversation in preference to the word sex, because sex also meant sexual intercourse. So to prevent confusion and so as to not evoke the thought of sex, the word gender was used. Gender meant "sex and I don't mean fucking". This meaning of gender originated back in the 17th century if I recall correctly. In the 1970s, certain non-scientific branches of academia invented an entirely new concept and attached the label "gender" to it. The concept was that the way one presents themselves in society is "gender". This historically has never been the meaning of gender. The public at large continued to use gender in the original meaning (as you will see with official forms asking for 'gender'. If they asked for 'sex', people would add a box with "yes please" on it and tick it). In the 2010s this new meaning of gender leaked out of academic circles and into the general vernacular. But it is a concept that is entirely the invention of left-leaning academics, cross citing each other repeatedly in echo chamber journals. You say there is "great variety in both", but this is not true. There is great variety in "gender as a social construct", that is, the cosmetic way people dress, do their hair etc. But there is not great variety in "sex and I don't mean fucking". Disorders of sex development (DSDs) are extremely rare and do not constitute a new sex and are recognised medically as disorders. For example, XXYY occurs in 1 in 18,000 to 40,000 male births. XXXXY occurs in 1 in 85,000 to 100,000 male births. Compare that to the "normal" male sex characteristics, or the "normal" female sex characteristics, that each occur in about 1 in 2 births. People erroneously make the claim that other conditions, like triple X syndrome, constitute a DSD (occurs in 1 in 1000 females), but because it causes no health issues or abnormal development it is not considered a DSD by the medical community. The DSD Guideline documents [http://www.dsdguidelines.org http://www.dsdguidelines.org] are a trustworthy source of information and definitions.
whathaschanged 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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.
  - djsumdog 9y ago
    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.
bitL 9y ago
Maybe those words were identified as most likely to be used in manipulating others to get bigger budget and moving towards emotional response "one with a good heart" can't deny, so it's a nice playground for sociopaths to force their way through by shaming/guilt/etc.? So commonly used technique, one would laugh if it weren't so dangerous not to play along, risking mob lynching? Frankly, I'd love to know what is the best defense technique for the scenario I outlined. Any ideas?
fenomas 9y ago
Surely this is a transparently motte-and-bailey argument. Obviously no-one would dispute that it's good for government agencies to use clear language, and avoiding certain words might serve that purpose in certain cases. Those points are completely orthogonal to the fact that it's patently terrible for an administration to attempt to tell its own subject matter experts which words they can use.
grigjd3 9y ago
"a diverse range of bacteria" - might just be a phrase you'd see in a document written by the CDC, now banned because of stupid, puerile "culture warriors".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
djur 9y ago
> Entitlements is charged term because you've cemented your position on social welfare pretty clearly just by referring to them as entitlements. This may already be a lost battle, but "entitlement" is a policy term of art with absolutely no negative connotations. It simply refers to any government benefit that a person or entity is guaranteed to receive if they meet a certain set of criteria (i.e. falling under a certain income, under or over a particular age, being a citizen, etc.). This is as opposed to grant programs (limited benefits dispensed according to an assessment of merit), lotteries (limited benefits distributed at random), first-come-first-serve, etc.
tzs 9y ago
> You don't need to say something is evidence-based, just show the evidence. That would make some sense for documents reporting research results, but this is for budget proposal documents.

justinpombrio 9y ago

> You don't need to say something is evidence-based, just show the evidence. No, "evidence-based medicine" is a term of art. Maybe you could argue that it took too generic of a name, but that's the word we have. From Wikipedia: "Although all medicine based on science has some degree of empirical support, EBM goes further, classifying evidence by its epistemologic strength and requiring that only the strongest types (coming from meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials) can yield strong recommendations; weaker types (such as from case-control studies) can yield only weak recommendations."

somebodynew 9y ago
That's a fair point and a good example of why an outright ban is bad. I don't know if the administration intended to impact the term evidence-based medicine or if it's just collateral damage from a perceived abuse of the prefix evidence-based, but it's only the latter that I would stylistically discourage.
drcode 9y ago
As a doctor, it seems to me that at one time (maybe 10 years ago) it had a very specific meaning, but unfortunately the usage has degraded to the point where everything is "evidence based medicine" now, just like everything in business now is a "disruptor" or a "pivot".
- smcameron 9y ago
  "If only all medicine were evidence based medicine..." Careful what you wish for, I guess.
  - thanksgiving 9y ago
    I just assumed that was the norm and we had terms like "experimental cancer treatment" for when the treatment is so new that we don't have enough evidence to back it up.
- JshWright 9y ago
  Yeah, I find myself having to clarify every time I use that phrase that I'm using it in the "pre-buzzword" sense...

gajomi 9y ago

"Diversity" may be an emotionally charged word, but also is a useful and common word in the biological sciences for a number of purposes. Of note especially is its common usage in ecology relevant to the CDC's goals of cataloging diverse bacterial and viral infections from clinical samples.

somebodynew 9y ago
I would argue that in a biological context the primary problem with neutral uses of "diversity" is vagueness. If a report indicates that they "collected a diverse range of bacteria for study", what is it that's different about them? Why not say "collected bacteria with various tolerances to extracellular ethanol concentration across three genera"? But like I said, an outright ban is silly, there are certainly places where it's the right word to use.
- gajomi 9y ago
  It is a problem, but a technical problem thats well understood within the relevant communities. A quantification of "various tolerances" is one notion of diversity, but as you have deftly pointed out there are many other quantifiable notions that are endlessly debated (some links in the context of ecology: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=%22diversity+metric%22+ecology&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=%22...). Usually "diversity" is reported in terms of well defined quantitative metrics so that even if the umbrella term "diversity" is ambiguous it typically has well defined meaning(s) in the context of any particular study. All of which is to say, I would wager that the vast majority of scientific reports (and perhaps also those coming from the CDC) use the term "diversity" to introduce a general concept of a measure of heterogeneity which is quickly made precise within the study.

thaumasiotes 9y ago

> Banning "fetus" and "transgender" is completely indefensible as they're fairly neutral words with no obvious replacement. There's always "transexual", the older word for exactly the same concept.

somebodynew 9y ago
Maybe I'm letting my own bias seep in now, but I consider "transgender" fairly neutral and "transsexual" overtly negative and likely intentionally used to agitate.
- rainbowmverse 9y ago
  The main trouble with -sexual as a catch-all is it's too narrow. Gender and sex have been conflated for a long time in the English-speaking world, but people are becoming more aware of the great variety in both.
  - retrogradeorbit 9y ago
    If you research the etymology of the word gender you discover that the word gender, up until the 1970's in academia, and up until the 2010's in the general populace, had an identical meaning to sex. Gender meant sex. Gender was used in writing and conversation in preference to the word sex, because sex also meant sexual intercourse. So to prevent confusion and so as to not evoke the thought of sex, the word gender was used. Gender meant "sex and I don't mean fucking". This meaning of gender originated back in the 17th century if I recall correctly. In the 1970s, certain non-scientific branches of academia invented an entirely new concept and attached the label "gender" to it. The concept was that the way one presents themselves in society is "gender". This historically has never been the meaning of gender. The public at large continued to use gender in the original meaning (as you will see with official forms asking for 'gender'. If they asked for 'sex', people would add a box with "yes please" on it and tick it). In the 2010s this new meaning of gender leaked out of academic circles and into the general vernacular. But it is a concept that is entirely the invention of left-leaning academics, cross citing each other repeatedly in echo chamber journals. You say there is "great variety in both", but this is not true. There is great variety in "gender as a social construct", that is, the cosmetic way people dress, do their hair etc. But there is not great variety in "sex and I don't mean fucking". Disorders of sex development (DSDs) are extremely rare and do not constitute a new sex and are recognised medically as disorders. For example, XXYY occurs in 1 in 18,000 to 40,000 male births. XXXXY occurs in 1 in 85,000 to 100,000 male births. Compare that to the "normal" male sex characteristics, or the "normal" female sex characteristics, that each occur in about 1 in 2 births. People erroneously make the claim that other conditions, like triple X syndrome, constitute a DSD (occurs in 1 in 1000 females), but because it causes no health issues or abnormal development it is not considered a DSD by the medical community. The DSD Guideline documents [http://www.dsdguidelines.org http://www.dsdguidelines.org] are a trustworthy source of information and definitions.

whathaschanged 9y ago

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 9y ago
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.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  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.

bitL 9y ago

Maybe those words were identified as most likely to be used in manipulating others to get bigger budget and moving towards emotional response "one with a good heart" can't deny, so it's a nice playground for sociopaths to force their way through by shaming/guilt/etc.? So commonly used technique, one would laugh if it weren't so dangerous not to play along, risking mob lynching? Frankly, I'd love to know what is the best defense technique for the scenario I outlined. Any ideas?

fenomas 9y ago

Surely this is a transparently motte-and-bailey argument. Obviously no-one would dispute that it's good for government agencies to use clear language, and avoiding certain words might serve that purpose in certain cases. Those points are completely orthogonal to the fact that it's patently terrible for an administration to attempt to tell its own subject matter experts which words they can use.

grigjd3 9y ago

"a diverse range of bacteria" - might just be a phrase you'd see in a document written by the CDC, now banned because of stupid, puerile "culture warriors".

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

djur 9y ago

> Entitlements is charged term because you've cemented your position on social welfare pretty clearly just by referring to them as entitlements. This may already be a lost battle, but "entitlement" is a policy term of art with absolutely no negative connotations. It simply refers to any government benefit that a person or entity is guaranteed to receive if they meet a certain set of criteria (i.e. falling under a certain income, under or over a particular age, being a citizen, etc.). This is as opposed to grant programs (limited benefits dispensed according to an assessment of merit), lotteries (limited benefits distributed at random), first-come-first-serve, etc.

tzs 9y ago

> You don't need to say something is evidence-based, just show the evidence. That would make some sense for documents reporting research results, but this is for budget proposal documents.