PC Gobbledegook

stickywicket

A plaque has been put up in York to a woman who has always been regarded as the first modern lesbian. But, does it say that? No. In the county whose inhabitants have always prided themselves on their plain-speaking, it describes her as 'gender non-conforming'.

(And, in English?)

https://tinyurl.com/y7fsayh5

barbara12

Dear me..like you say only this country...and there was me thinking we had moved on..

daffy2

And one could argue that by using that form of words they are making judgement - not conforming to what is expected of females. Whereas 'lesbian' has the merit of good classical roots and is a simple statement of fact - loves women - without any judgement attached.

bubbles

No wonder it has sparked anger, just reading the explanation of "gender non conforming"

Gender variance, or gender nonconformity, is behaviour or gender expression by an individual that does not match masculine and feminine gender norms.

:shock: :shock: :? :?

That makes it so much clearer now SW. :roll:

There is quite a lot written about it, but I lost the will. :? :?

PC at its most stupid.

stickywicket

daffy2 wrote:

And one could argue that by using that form of words they are making judgement - not conforming to what is expected of females. Whereas 'lesbian' has the merit of good classical roots and is a simple statement of fact - loves women - without any judgement attached.

Absolutely.

daffy2

does not match masculine and feminine gender norms.

So by implication abnormal - which is surely the view that we are supposed to be changing?
Sadly, while PC activity may spring from well-intentioned motives it has the capacity to make things much worse.

bubbles

Sadly, while PC activity may spring from well-intentioned motives it has the capacity to make things much worse.

Absolutely

stickywicket

I think their idea of being inclusive is to bung all the 'gender non-conformists' in together ie keep them separate. Logical it is not.

daffy2

When I was a school governor I became increasingly involved in drafting policies and saw the changes in wording forced by 'inclusiveness'. It became more and more time consuming(and tiresome) ensuring the latest group ('protected characteristic' is I believe the current accepted term) was included in the 'ensure equal treatment regardless of...' preamble; the days of 'race, colour, creed' being sufficient had long gone. Eventually, when I was dealing with the two biggies - equal ops and safeguarding -which were already taking up enormous amounts of time - I put my foot down and said that if the policy stated we would treat all equally and fairly then there was no need for the 'regardless of' bit - not least because at some point somebody would say they'd been left out of the list. It would also avoid having to update that section every time another category was added to the list.

Airwave!

The resent outburst by Boris Johnson is a classic example of pc gone mad. It becomes a 'no-go' area of discussion when attached unecessarily to muslim or religeon. Those black shapeless clothes must be unsufferably impractical in this weather.

There must be more to life than hiding behind a dark cloak?

stickywicket

On the contrary, I found his latest words, like many others of his, quite deliberately offensive - nothing to do with PC or non-PC and everything to do with manners. Or rather the lack of them.

I would hate to be dressed in a burka in hot weather but each to his or her own unless they are e.g. a speech therapist. I remember nuns, when they all wore long habits, were sometimes referred to as 'penguins' but not by senior politicians with ambitions to be PM.

Slosh

Equal ops does not mean treating everyone the same. It means giving some the help they need to have the equal opportunity to take part in activities, access education etc. In terms of disability it relates to the social model which sees the environment, social and physical as putting barriers in the way and "causing" the disability rather than the medical model which sees the pupil/adult as the source of the problem, needing intervention to "normalise" them. These days it is recognised that both aspects have a part to play in "disabling" someone.

My favourite definition of inclusion is one I heard many years ago at a lecture I attended.
Inclusion is an emotion, you either feel included or you don't.

Equal ops is what needs to be done to make everyone feel included.

daffy2

Equal ops does not mean treating everyone the same.

You are right,after all the key word is 'opportunities' but increasingly these days the individual consideration which is necessary to achieve this is being discarded in favour of pigeon-holing and tick-boxing - or being lost in cost-cutting exercises.
The school I was involved with(and which my 2 very diffreent children attended) had as its underlying ethos developing the potential of each pupil, and so treating them equally meant giving each the input needed to realise that aim. One of the frustrations of the non-stop meddling by government was that it made it more and more difficult to do that in a way which enabled the tick-boxes to be dealt with to satisfy the authorities. The pupil ceased to be an individual and became a collection of classifications with expectations(more like prejudices in some cases) and actions attached.
The more mechanistic and automated systems become for monitoring and assessing such matters as equality and discrimination(in whatever field), and the further removed from dealing with those under consideration as individuals, then the less likely it is that the stated aims will be achieved in my view. Such systems should be part of, not the sum of, any review of implementation and compliance within organisations.Apart from anything else they do nothing to address the resentment that can arise when people feel that one group is getting preferential treatment simply because they belong to that group rather than due to actual need. Positive discrimination and PC filters can be very effective ways of creating negative attitudes!

Slosh

Sticky, I agree 100% with you about Boris Johnson's latest outburst. I won't call it a gaffe because he knows better. I would not like to wear a burka or hijab but respect those who choose to. One of my closest friends is Muslim and wears a scarf, always chosen to coordinate with her clothes. In my previous school we had a few TAs who wore the hijab but who were happy to comply with the school dress code which meant the face had to be uncovered.
On a personal level I don't like the fact that some devout Muslim men won't shake hands with a woman because she may be "unclean" but would never let that get in the way of talking to them.

I like your point about nuns too!

daffy2

Sticky's comment about nuns is a pertinent one because it begs the question about why their religion based attire is not seen as threatening. Setting aside the perceptions and associations regarding Christianity and Islam with regard to 'right' or acceptable religions, and links to terrorism etc I think a great deal has to do with whether the face is concealed. After all, hoodies, balaclavas and motorbike helmets tend to cause negative reactions which I think aren't entirely the result of their use in anti-social or criminal activities.
The few times I have encountered concealed faces I have found it difficult not to be negative as a first reaction. It made me realise the extent to which I 'read' faces, especially unfamiliar ones, and the part that plays in any communication.There are not the same restrictions here on who one speaks to in public places as there are in many countries where face concealment is more usual and so that concealment becomes more obvious and more contentious.