- Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "transgender," "fetus," "evidence-based" and "science-based."
In some instances, the analysts were given alternative phrases. Instead of "science-based" or "evidence-based," the suggested phrase is "CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes," the person said. In other cases, no replacement words were immediately offered.
I think that the CDC should continue business as usual, and just censor the offensive words, preferably with a big black line. That should make the point clearly enough.
"███████████ is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity or expression (masculine, feminine, other) is different from their sex (male, female) at birth. Gender identity refers to one’s internal understanding of one’s own gender, or the gender with which a person identifies. Gender expression is a term used to describe people’s outward presentation of their gender."
As a side note, are they able to say things like "fetal microencephalopathy" or do they have to say "baby brain small" now?
UPDATE:
The director of the CDC clarified that they were not banned by the Trump Administration from using these words. Internally, they made the decision that these are the Trump Admin's "trigger words", so they should avoid using them.
Basically, they were making a cagey move to get their policy and budget through, but it got misinterpreted and the misinterpretation went publicly viral.
Nope. You are wrong.
"Self-censorship" is not the issue here; Being a cagey businessperson is.
You can't be a bull in a china shop and expect to get anything other than broken dishware.
Sometimes it is smarter to cloak your real purpose behind some carefully chosen wording. This is the case throughout the business world, and especially in the world of government funding. If you want to get them to release the money you need to do your work, then you need to phrase your needs in terms they will be supportive of.
This is the path of success in business and government. It is not "self-censorship".
- "Self-censorship" is not the issue here;
I mean, it sort of is.
The CDC figured out that there are trigger words and phrases that get Republicans up in arms. They want to accomplish the same public health goals they always have, and not get pilloried for it by the people who have the ability to pull their funding. In order to do that, they had to self-censor, which is an insidious evil, and hard to counteract.
I believe that there is an important distinction between 'business acumen' and 'Blatantly trying to conceal the exact aims and methods of our work.'
I understand what they did. I understand why they did it. I understand why various context-specific taboos exist to delineate 'work' from 'real life' and why you don't talk about money, politics or religion at work. I also think that we need more honesty and forthrightness in our system, not less.
- "CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes"
I am, supposedly, a translator. Let me translate:
"CDC is using science but is ready to shed certain evidential notions if someone less-informed throws a fit over their conclusion"
There's an idea in the US that people's opinions and perceptions value as much as facts. If I were to hate gay people, I should receive as much respect for what I feel as someone who doesn't (I was about to say "as much as gay people themselves", but that would not be the case).
It's okay to have tastes. It's okay to have preferences. Substituting reality with your preferences and claiming your preferred reality to be true is ignorant, and ignorance can lead to dire mistakes. (I'm not going to look up stories of kids being bullied to suicide for being gay, but you can find them easily)
People have, for a while now, been disenchanted with the way they'd been treated by the government. That much is clear, and that much is fair. Lying about reality does not make it better for anyone. No, being gay is not a choice. No, stories about climate change being a hoax are not true (and yes, 95%+ of scientists do agree on that). You don't get to say that something is true simply because you believe it to be true.
I think it's more accurate to say that a Trump appointee who has neither interest nor understanding of the function of the CDC is doing the bidding of one or more special interests in order to secure a position post-Trump.
That the CDC is positively gobsmacked by this charge demonstrates "continuity of government" or "the deep state" depending on how conspiratorially-minded you are. Epidemiology has little room for ideology.
Well, shit. You're right. I'm a fool for missing the point. I think my argument still stands, but I've accidentally hit something else while missing the intended target.
Trying to control language so they can control how people think. What can you say if you can’t say fetus ? Basically have to say baby even though that would get hella confusing, which works pretty well for anti-abortion fuckwits.
Freedumb indeed. You know what though ? I have complete faith in the witty brainpower of the people who have to write this dumb report to come up with a clever way to make a fetus sound even farther from a baby.
I want to say that banning things like books and words is idiotic, since there are bunches of really smart people out there who will be goaded into action by any such restriction. I also see how easily developed nations can devolve into authoritarianism and have to reconsider my statement.
Economic development has little to do with how its population reacts to threats, real or perceived. Strong economy allows for better education and public information but does not entail it.