Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Colm Henry HSE Nonsense

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,814 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121657917#Comment_121657917

    Cis women and trans men are scientific terms

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #33
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,056 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121657935#Comment_121657935

    The critique in the OP is specifically of a radio discussion about Covid precautions - very much focussed on the general public and not at all concerned with analysing exactly who can, and who cannot, become pregnant. In that context "pregnant people" works fine, and should avoid the very distracting discussion that the politically correct want to drag into everything.

    To my mind "pregnant biological women", while not inaccurate, is redundant. Anyone who is pregnant must be a "biological woman". Thus, once you have identified that you are talking about someone who is pregnant, it's unecessary to add that that that someone is a "biological woman". We can deduce that from the information that they are pregnant, if we care to. The only reason for insisting on including express references to "biological woman" or similar terminology would be to make some political point about gender or gender identity, and if that's not germane to the public health message you are trying to communicate, it's probably best avoided.



  • Options
    #34
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,394 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121657951#Comment_121657951

    They are not biological terms.



  • Options
    #35
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,393 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121657935#Comment_121657935

    It's not an interview. It's a public information advert, where 'being scientific about it' is the fastest possible way to make sure you lose your audience.



  • Options
    #36
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,814 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658000#Comment_121658000

    Meh. Lots of terms are not biological. Pregnant people works as it includes cis women and trans men.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Iguarantee
    Registered Users Posts: 323 ✭✭Iguarantee


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121657705#Comment_121657705

    i.e. just biological women



  • Options
    #38
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,394 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121657988#Comment_121657988

    Again, I don't have an issue with the radio discussion - I appreciate that pregnant person is completly fine in that context.

    Agreed, anyone who is pregnant must be a biological woman. Once that deduction is made I suppose there is no issue.



  • Options
    #39
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,056 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Will, in a scientific biological context, "male" and "female" would be the default terms. You can use cow, bitch, woman, nanny in a context where the population you're discussing consists of bovines, canines, humans, caprines. But, honestly, you generally don't.



  • Options
    #40
    RetroEncabulator
    Registered Users Posts: 1,298 ✭✭✭RetroEncabulator


    I really never thought we would get bogged down in the U.S. style bathroom debates, nor did I think the U.K. would either, but here we’ are. It seems the 1950s never quite went away for some.



  • Options
    #41
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,394 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658006#Comment_121658006

    T

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658002#Comment_121658002

    This discussion is happening in a science/biology forum, where one would hope that science and specificilly biology are important.

    That said, I ultimatly don't have an issue with the radio interview as mentioned above.

    Once would assume that a pregnant person is a biologicial woman.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,393 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658022#Comment_121658022

    One would hope that any discussion around public communications would be audience focused.



  • Options
    #43
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,394 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658031#Comment_121658031

    Would you assume a pregnant person is a biological woman or not?



  • Options
    #44
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,393 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658040#Comment_121658040

    I'd assume that the most inclusive language is the best option for public radio advert, which is exactly what was used.



  • Options
    #45
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,814 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658010#Comment_121658010

    Pregnant people includes all. It's perfectly fine.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #46
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,394 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658048#Comment_121658048

    So again, would you assume a pregnant person was a biological woman?



  • Options
    #47
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,393 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658066#Comment_121658066

    Why would I need to assume anything? We've identified the most inclusive language that is appropriate for a public communication like this.



  • Options
    #48
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,394 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121657988#Comment_121657988

    While agree with the majority of that - you cannot simply say a term is redundant in the context of a scientific conversation.



  • Options
    #49
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,056 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658148#Comment_121658148

    Certainly you can. In mathematics, for example, you wouldn't talk about a "right-angled orthogonal equilateral quadrilateral square". If it's a square, then it's right-angled, orthogonal, equilateral and orthogonal; actually adding those terms is redundant.

    Similarly, with "pregnant biological woman", the words "biological woman" convey no additional information whatsoever. That's pretty much the definition of redundancy.



  • Options
    #50
    Former Former Former
    Registered Users Posts: 5,468 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    Ah lads, this entire thread is a wind-up.

    Just go back and read the OP and ask yourself if anyone could really be like this.



  • Options
    #51
    Calahonda52
    Registered Users Posts: 12,195 ✭✭✭✭Calahonda52


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121657731#Comment_121657731


    them people may be pejorative in your world but not in the wider community who have a basic grasp of english grammar


    People

    People who need people

    Are the luckiest people in the world

    We're children, needing other children

    And yet letting a grown-up pride

    Hide all the need inside

    Acting more like children than children

    Lovers, are very special people

    They're the luckiest people in the world

    With one person 

    One very special person 

    A feeling deep in your soul 

    Says you were half now you're whole

    No more hunger and thirst

    But first be a person who needs people

    People who need people

    Are the luckiest people in the world

    With one person, one very special person

    A feeling deep in your soul 

    Says you were half, now you're whole

    No more hunger and thirst

    But first be a person who needs people

    People who need people

    Are the luckiest people in the world

    “I can’t pay my staff or mortgage with instagram likes”.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,394 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658360#Comment_121658360

    As you descibe it - that's fair.

    The assumption is that if one is pregnant, one is a biological woman - fair enough.



  • Options
    #53
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,805 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    fcuking hell, seriously op! jesus christ, wheres the therapists!



  • Options
    #54
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,118 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658577#Comment_121658577

    Some thread in fairness. Would have made for some Tomorrows World episode back in the day, in the year 2024 men will be able to get pregnant without any genetic modifications, it's up there with if you give the Government more money they'll change the weather.



  • Options
    #55
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,805 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658764#Comment_121658764

    ....i ll try find my wallet!

    seriously, who cares, weird sh1t happens, who cares, theres far more serious problems happening in the world.....



  • Options
    #56
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,056 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658499#Comment_121658499

    It's only an assumption if somebody makes it, and scientists are noted for not making unnecessary assumptions.



  • Options
    #57
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,814 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658066#Comment_121658066

    I'd assume person means person.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #58
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,394 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658838#Comment_121658838

    I am a bit confused. You said that the term "biological woman" was redundant as anyone who is pregnant "must be a biological woman". Am I misrepresenting what you are saying?



  • Options
    #59
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,394 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658968#Comment_121658968

    Indeed, that would be a fine assumption to make.

    Would you assume that a pregnant person was a biological woman or would you think its open to some interpretation? It's pretty simple question.



  • Options
    #60
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,056 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121659391#Comment_121659391

    No, you're quite correct. My point is that there is no need, everytime pregnancy is discussed out loud, to take the time either to say that only biological women can become pregnant, or to ask the question whether others accept that only biological women can become pregnant. People who obsess about this usually have a political axe that they are seeking to grind. Science doesn't generally concern itself with these.

    If we are discussing pregnancy, and you ask me whether I would assume that anyone who is pregnant must be a biological woman, I would say yes, that would be my assumption. But I only make an assumption because you have asked me to; if you hadn't asked me I would probably not have directed my mind to the question; and I would wonder why you felt the need to ask me.

    Scientists don't make unecessary assumptions. A scientist writing a paper about pregnancy isn't going to make the assumption that anyone who is pregnant must be a biological woman unless that assumption is necessary to address the question which the paper seeks to address.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,814 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121659406#Comment_121659406

    Pregnant Person could mean cis woman, trans man or non binary person.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement