Doublespeak and gender-free language is leading to the dehumanisation of women
A phenomenon that is picking up pace in these current times is what is referred to as the “woke doublespeak language” or “gender-free language”. This doublespeak is now the language being used in education to affirm a gender-free language. in the process, educators are not realising that they are dehumanising girls and as has been highlighted in an article published on this website, they are in the process emphasising masculinity over feminity. In this article, I will be giving other examples from the healthcare system in the UK.
Britain’s healthcare system was on the verge of adopting so-called gender-free language after it emerged that the NHS removed references to women from online health advice pages for “female-only” cancers.
According to reports, the British government has instructed the National Health Service (NHS) to refer to “women” instead of using woke doublespeak terms like “people with ovaries.” But Health Secretary Sajid Javid reportedly intervened to stop the country’s socialized healthcare system from implementing so-called gender-free language. He ordered NHS to start using the word “women” instead.
Following worries that such health advice may confound those who speak English as a second language, Javid is reportedly concerned that the health service is prioritizing woke ideology over the health consequences of patients.
It was revealed earlier this month that the NHS has changed the web landing pages for womb, ovarian, and cervical cancer to eliminate any mention of women.
For example, the health advice page for ovarian cancer stated: “Anyone with ovaries can get ovarian cancer. This includes women, trans men, non-binary people, and intersex people with ovaries.”
“Responding to the initial report, Health Secretary Sajid Javid told The Daily Mail: “You won’t be surprised to know that, as the Health Secretary, I think that your sex matters, your biological sex is incredibly important to make sure you get the right treatment, the very best treatment.”
Asked whether he believed the NHS website should revert to its original and reinstate references to women, he said: “I am looking into this and you’ll know, look, the NHS, there (are) many different trusts and I want to listen to why someone might have taken a different approach – I don’t just want to assume – but I think I’ve made my views clear on this.”
In the UK, it has become more commonplace to criticize the concept of womanhood by using non-gendered vocabulary. For instance, it was revealed in April that midwife students were receiving training at Edinburgh Napier University in Scotland on how to deliver infants through the penises of “birthing individuals.”
Last year, after publishing an article referring to women as “bodies with vaginas,” the country’s top medical publication, The Lancet, was accused of dehumanizing women.
Also, Leslie Sinclair, 66, who over a span of nearly 50 years, has given a formidable 125 pints of blood, was turned away by the clinic on his last trip after he refused to answer the question, he was given on the form about whether or not he was pregnant!
Mr. Sinclair was instructed to complete a form that questioned if he was currently expecting a child or had just given birth.
Mr. Sinclair claimed clinic employees told him they could not accept his blood when he complained that, as a man in his 60s, this question did not apply, and he should not be required to respond to it.
The conflict occurred as NHS England started a campaign earlier this week to increase blood donor numbers by a million over the course of the next five years after they declined during the pandemic. This month, a campaign to locate 16,000 new donors for the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service (SNBTS) was launched.
It was revealed last night that all prospective donors are asked if they are expecting because pregnancy is “not always visually evident” and to “promote inclusion.”
This is all ridiculous, to say the least.