BMA's Support of Totalitarian Language Control Must End
British Medical Association Supporting Language Control and Threatening Freedom of Conscience
British Medical Association Supporting Language Control and Threatening Freedom of Conscience
Parliament has been engaging in reality warping through language control, so have many in education and now the doctors’ union, the British Medical Association (BMA) has joined in too. In what is becoming a theme among our country’s elites, the BMA has released new guidance which tells its employees to stop calling pregnant women “expectant mothers” and instead start calling them “pregnant people”.
The reason for this? Because apparently “transmen” and intersex people can become pregnant also and calling such people “expectant mothers” might be offensive.
Similarly, the guidance (scroll down the page to find the document) advises employees not to say “biologically male/female” but “assigned male/female at birth”.
The document “A guide to effective communication: inclusive language in the workplace” is full of advice about what language to use and what language not to use and you could be forgiven for thinking that this advice is, at best, unnecessary.
More likely however, it is a move to enforce ideological conformity through the (ab)use of language. Under the guise of making the workplace more inclusive, this guidance will have the effect, intentional or otherwise, of
1. advancing an ideology which is attempting to blur the real distinctions which exist between men and women
2. riding roughshod over the consciences of those who reject this ideology in good faith.
How does this guidance “ride roughshod” over conscience?
Imagine if ever the Muslim prophet Mohammed came up in conversation, your workplace forced you to say “peace be upon him” after his name. This would be an unjust violation of your conscience and of the consciences of all people who are not Muslim. Insofar as you are a non-Muslim, you should refuse to do this as you do not believe that Mohammed received special divine revelation and do not believe that he is in need of any special veneration.
To force you to do otherwise would be to force you to endorse a worldview which you reject. Similarly, for the BMA to force its employees to start talking about “pregnant people” rather than “expectant mothers” is to force them to endorse an ideology which many of them will reject.
This guidance therefore, is deeply illiberal and intolerant of those who do not agree.
At the moment, this guidance only applies to those who work for the BMA and not for the 156,000 doctors members of the union.
But make no mistake, if this ideological language control goes unopposed now, it is only a matter of time before they attempt to make this standard practice for doctors in their interaction with their patients. From there, we can readily imagine doctors having their jobs threatened for not using this language.
The language control typical of (trans)gender ideology will not stop unless we do something about it. It is in our parliament, our schools and coming soon to our hospitals.
Sign this petition now to the BMA, asking them to put a stop to this, to respect the consciences of their employees and ensure that those who do not accept this ideology are in no way reprimanded.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/29/dont-call-pregnant-women-expe...
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/01/29/doctors-told-term-mothers-off...
https://www.bma.org.uk/about-us/equality-diversity-and-inclusion/informa...
Complete your signature
Sign this petition now!
Regarding "A guide to effective communication"
To whom it may concern,
I write to you in regard to your recent document “A guide to effective communication: inclusive language in the workplace”
I recognise that this document is attempting to improve the lives of people often considered marginalised and vulnerable, but I strongly object to its language control and the effect this has/will have on the consciences of those to whom these guidelines apply.
I am especially concerned about the document’s advice to use the term “pregnant people” instead of “expectant mothers”. This appears to be an attempt at ideological social engineering through language control and is not something that many people, especially perhaps Christians, could say in good conscience.
As far as such people are concerned, “expectant mothers” is an accurate description of the reality at hand, whereas “pregnant people” implies a non-existent reality i.e. it implies that there are people who are pregnant who are not also mothers. From the perspective of all who do not accept transgender ideology, this is not true. All pregnant people are “expectant mothers”.
The same argument applies to the documents ideologically driven advice not to say “biologically male/female” but “assigned male/female at birth”.
There are many people who, in good conscience, do not accept the ideology underpinning this language and therefore simply could not use this document's approved language.
I am aware that this document is guidance for the BMA’s staff, and is not advice to your 156,000 doctor members on how to deal with patients. Yet, this guidance should not apply to your staff and furthermore, I have no doubts that should this guidance go unchallenged there will be similar guidance for your doctors in the near future.
I ask therefore, as a concerned citizen
1. that you retract this guidance
2. that you respect the conscience of those people, doctors, patients and BMA workers, who cannot use this language
3. that the people to whom this guidance applies, are not punished for ignoring its suggestions
Regarding "A guide to effective communication"
To whom it may concern,
I write to you in regard to your recent document “A guide to effective communication: inclusive language in the workplace”
I recognise that this document is attempting to improve the lives of people often considered marginalised and vulnerable, but I strongly object to its language control and the effect this has/will have on the consciences of those to whom these guidelines apply.
I am especially concerned about the document’s advice to use the term “pregnant people” instead of “expectant mothers”. This appears to be an attempt at ideological social engineering through language control and is not something that many people, especially perhaps Christians, could say in good conscience.
As far as such people are concerned, “expectant mothers” is an accurate description of the reality at hand, whereas “pregnant people” implies a non-existent reality i.e. it implies that there are people who are pregnant who are not also mothers. From the perspective of all who do not accept transgender ideology, this is not true. All pregnant people are “expectant mothers”.
The same argument applies to the documents ideologically driven advice not to say “biologically male/female” but “assigned male/female at birth”.
There are many people who, in good conscience, do not accept the ideology underpinning this language and therefore simply could not use this document's approved language.
I am aware that this document is guidance for the BMA’s staff, and is not advice to your 156,000 doctor members on how to deal with patients. Yet, this guidance should not apply to your staff and furthermore, I have no doubts that should this guidance go unchallenged there will be similar guidance for your doctors in the near future.
I ask therefore, as a concerned citizen
1. that you retract this guidance
2. that you respect the conscience of those people, doctors, patients and BMA workers, who cannot use this language
3. that the people to whom this guidance applies, are not punished for ignoring its suggestions
