Pc non-pc cave names

[Loki]

At what point does referring to someone in a way that describes their existing physical and mental attributes become offensive prejudice or stereotyping? In the case of master Augustus saying he was enormous still still conveys to the reader that he was fat so why bother changing it? I do agree that ugly shouldnt be used as they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder and is therefore subjective.

 

[mikem]

Real life was easier (psychologically) when it was a struggle!

Noddy was originally terrorised by Golliwogs, but they were changed into monkeys.

Politically Correct Oompa–Loompa Evolution

Roald Dahl suffered many attacks on his books by conservative literary critics, but one of the worst and most damaging skirmishes arose over the "Oompa-Loompas" in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. "In the version first published, [the Oompa-Loompas were] a tribe of 3,000 amiable black pygmi

www.roalddahlfans.com

 

[mikem]

4) a simple rule for life: don't be obnoxious.
5) gender is an entirely cultural concept. If you don't understand, this is entirely fine, but maybe see point 4.

Gender is not "just" a social construct, although some definitions of it are. There are some interesting discussions about word use, & raising children generally, in:

Old-School Parenting for Modern-Day Families

Tried and true tactics for raising resilient and independent children

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[Brown]

It's for them to do what they want, not you...

It's all quite "Alice through the looking glass" really.

We have a baying mob making media rounds insisting they are being censored whilst they are quite literally trying to restrict the speech and language of a publishing house trying to preserve the brand value of one of its pieces of intellectual property.

The reactionary right are veering full into anticapitalism. It was Boris Johnson after all who said "fuçk business".

 

[andrewmcleod]

Gender is not "just" a social construct, although some definitions of it are. There are some interesting discussions about word use, & raising children generally, in:

Old-School Parenting for Modern-Day Families

Tried and true tactics for raising resilient and independent children

www.psychologytoday.com

Well OK I will concede that nobody owns language, so someone is fully at liberty to use the word 'gender' to mean anything they want. However, unless people are purposely trying to confuse the issue, the generally agreed modern definition is that gender is the cultural concept i.e. the presentation. In the UK you can get a gender recognition certificate; it is therefore clear that this is also the legal definition.

From the World Health Organization website:
"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time."
The OED has similar definitions (although you have to wade past all the uses of gender in language first) e.g.
"Psychology and Sociology (originally U.S.). The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one's sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way."

If you choose not to use gender in its cultural form (which is of course anyone's right), then you can quite happily spend all your time talking about how confused it all is, but that's mostly because you've chosen to use confused, non-standard definitions...

 

[andrewmcleod]

At what point does referring to someone in a way that describes their existing physical and mental attributes become offensive prejudice or stereotyping? In the case of master Augustus saying he was enormous still still conveys to the reader that he was fat so why bother changing it? I do agree that ugly shouldnt be used as they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder and is therefore subjective.

Easy - when it's offensive.

The right to offend is an important right that we shouldn't lose. People can be unreasonably offended about things e.g. they can find you living your own life offensive.

But choosing to deliberately offend people about things they have no or limited control over is wrong. It's OK to describe people as tall or short. It's not OK to make fun of someone because they are short. It's OK to think that someone is ugly or stupid. It's wrong to go around being offensive about this.
If I am making fun of someone based on a characteristic that they can't change or find difficult to change, and they don't like it, I am _always_ going to be in the wrong. If they think it's hilarious, that's fine (although social pressures can lead to people to accepting abuse they aren't enjoying as part of a 'culture').

On stereotyping:
It's good to treat people as individuals. It's wrong to stereotype e.g. to treat an individual based on assumptions from their groupings. It is wrong to automatically assume a woman is shorter just because on average women are shorter than men, for example.

 

[PeteHall]

Well OK I will concede that nobody owns language, so someone is fully at liberty to use the word 'gender' to mean anything they want. However, unless people are purposely trying to confuse the issue, the generally agreed modern definition is that gender is the cultural concept i.e. the presentation. In the UK you can get a gender recognition certificate; it is therefore clear that this is also the legal definition.

From the World Health Organization website:
"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time."
The OED has similar definitions (although you have to wade past all the uses of gender in language first) e.g.
"Psychology and Sociology (originally U.S.). The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one's sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way."

If you choose not to use gender in its cultural form (which is of course anyone's right), then you can quite happily spend all your time talking about how confused it all is, but that's mostly because you've chosen to use confused, non-standard definitions...

Didn't we spend decades trying to break down gender stereotypes? To the extent that "boys and girls" can no longer be mentioned in Dahls works and the phrase is replaced by the gender neutral word "children".

Yet now, boys and girls are being offered life changing medical interventions (requiring lifelong medication) when they display certain behaviours more typically associated with the opposite gender stereotype.

 

[AR]

Going back to Roald Dahl: this is not censorship. The original versions will always be available. Censorship would be banning the publisher from making more inclusive versions for those people who want to let their children read excellent stories without picking up out of date prejudices and stereotyping.

No, it's bowdlerization - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowdlerization

 

[Badlad]

Just read the OP. How about 'Thunder Thighs Hole'. Is that offensive? I guess it's meant to be to someone. How would you rename that?

 

[PeteHall]

gender is an entirely cultural concept.

I assume you know who pioneered this theory (yes, it is a theory, not a fact). If not, I suggest you read up about Dr John Money and in particular his landmark case, David Reimer.

 

[FionaH]

Didn't we spend decades trying to break down gender stereotypes? To the extent that "boys and girls" can no longer be mentioned in Dahls works and the phrase is replaced by the gender neutral word "children".

Yet now, boys and girls are being offered life changing medical interventions (requiring lifelong medication) when they display certain behaviours more typically associated with the opposite gender stereotype.

You make it sound like every girl who displayed "tomboy" traits as a kid is now going to be approached and asked if she'd like to transition to male, or every boy who wears heels and "is in touch with his emotions" is going to be approached and asked if he'd like to transition to female. One: no, that isn't what is happening. Two: that's their own choice to make, not yours.

 

[Fjell]

1) teenagers (even adult ones) sometimes haven't quite worked out who they are yet. This is really not such a radical idea. In this case, no transitioning occurred as a child - we are talking about an adult.
2) if you don't have a small number of people transitioning who subsequently realise that they have made a mistake, then you are almost certainly holding back a larger number of people for whom transitioning is the wrong thing and overall doing more harm than good.
3) I am always disappointed when cavers, who many would consider traditionally counter-culture, start telling other people who they are and how they should be or judging their choices.
4) a simple rule for life: don't be obnoxious.
5) gender is an entirely cultural concept. If you don't understand, this is entirely fine, but maybe see point 4.
6) for any given 'the young today are so radical/woke/whatever', you can find a historical analogue where people are complaining about pretty much the same or a similar thing. There is nothing radically special about now.
7) the young today have freedoms that previous generations did not have (but this isn't new, see point 6). There's no need to be judgemental about how they choose to use those freedoms (see point 4).

Going back to Roald Dahl: this is not censorship. The original versions will always be available. Censorship would be banning the publisher from making more inclusive versions for those people who want to let their children read excellent stories without picking up out of date prejudices and stereotyping.

The simple

You make it sound like every girl who displayed "tomboy" traits as a kid is now going to be approached and asked if she'd like to transition to male, or every boy who wears heels and "is in touch with his emotions" is going to be approached and asked if he'd like to transition to female. One: no, that isn't what is happening. Two: that's their own choice to make, not yours.

What society can do is choose not to medicalise it before someone reaches maturity (rough age 25). This is what countries like Finland and Sweden have now decided to do after careful consideration. The Uk’s biggest problem is an abject shortage of mental health care, pills are so much easier.

What has not filtered through in public discussion is that historically this has mostly been about sexuality and it’s development through childhood. The majority of children who exhibit “trans” behaviour as pre-pubescent children resolve as gay. Some feel happier as adults being trans, but are still gay. A few are not. But having lived in countries where being trans is more culturally embedded, I have never seen people being other than gay who present as the opposite sex. It’s also important to recognise that roughly 15,000 children in every year cohort in the UK are gay, and the numbers presenting as trans are historically tiny in comparison, it’s an artefact (or was).

What is new is very large numbers of girls in puberty presenting as trans. This is (or really should be) a screaming red flag to clinicians. It resulted in massive infighting and resignations at Tavistock, which is now being closed. The reason a lot of people got very concerned about 4 years ago was internal reviews leaked by the BBC which showed that all sorts of very strange things were going on. The one I found most disturbing was reports of a large number of parents telling clinicians they would rather their child was trans than gay, and the clinicians admitting they rubber-stamped it and put the child on drugs. On top of this you have this huge number of girls who seem to have taken up being trans as an alternative to anorexia or cutting (which would be OK I suppose if you weren’t medicalising them). The most senior psychiatrist was driven out for saying they should only be doing talking therapy and not drugs or surgery on children and young people.

The NHS is heading for their biggest ever damages claim. The government has already conceded abuse and negligence has occurred on a significant scale.

The BBC Newsnight journalist who investigated it is having a book published this month on it. It’s apparently grim reading. It seems likely a full public inquiry will follow the Cass review. I’d like to know what the GMC has been doing - they have been striking off doctors for far less.

 

[mikem]

Stereotyping is the way our brains make sense of the world...

 

[FionaH]

But having lived in countries where being trans is more culturally embedded, I have never seen people being other than gay who present as the opposite sex.

Apologies, but if you have time would you mind rewording this for me? I'm struggling to understand your meaning.

 

[FionaH]

Just read the OP. How about 'Thunder Thighs Hole'. Is that offensive? I guess it's meant to be to someone. How would you rename that?

I have just read on Wikipedia there was a vocal group in the 70s called Thunderthighs. Did the backing vocals to Lou Reed's 'Walk on the Wild Side'. Perhaps the cave could be named after one of their few singles. "Dracula's Daughter" Pot? Can't say it has the greatest ring to it though...

 

[grahams]

My wife likes Penyghent Pot's Better Dead than Welsh because she's (a) half Welsh and (b) has a sense of humour.

 

[grahams]

We can discuss this wokie stuff forever but the facts remain that wokies have killed British TV comedy, our greatest living comedy writer, graham Linehan, has lost his career and even the mild mannered author JK Rowling has been demonised by the millionaire actors that she created.

 

[Samouse1]

even the mild mannered author JK Rowling has been demonised by the millionaire actors that she created.

Jk Rowling has been “demonised” because she has spent her money on anti trans political campaigns and being vocally anti-trans, I’d hardly describe that as being mild mannered….

 

[Brown]

No, it's bowdlerization - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowdlerization

Is it not responding to consumer demand?

Are you suggesting that as soon as something is published, the author looses control over it, is no longer able to edit or amend without some form of reactionary committee censoring their work.

A few years ago the Pogues were fully behind the de-faggoted Fairytale of New York version. Should they have been censored, their speech restricted, made to keep singing lyrics they no longer wanted to. Would you send language police to their gigs?

Artists, authors, and publishers choosing to move with the times is not censorship. Mandating what artists, authors and publishers say or write is.

 

[Ian Ball]

AMs No.4 good advice