UK Government Refuses to Use an Adjective, Because it Excludes

All adjectives like, big, or small…exclude. They exclude and narrow the focus of the noun which comes after. (Or before if you are speaking Spanish.)

The Times:

 The government has said the term “pregnant woman” should not be used in a UN treaty because it “excludes” transgender people.

Feminists reacted with outrage to what they said was the latest example of “making women unmentionable” in the name of transgender equality.

The statement comes in Britain’s official submission on proposed amendments to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the UK has been a signatory since 1976. The UN treaty says a “pregnant woman” must be protected, including not being subject to the death penalty.

Yet in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office submission, Britain opposes the term “pregnant woman” because it may “exclude transgender people who have given birth”. The suggested term is “pregnant people”.

h/t Ace.

The term “dumb-ass” also excludes asses which are smart, like smart-asses.


This entry was posted in Not Evil, Just Stupid, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to UK Government Refuses to Use an Adjective, Because it Excludes

  1. onwyrdsdream says:

    If you’re contractually obligated to do something while you are working and don’t do it, that there might be consequences for not doing it is a given. I haven’t seen it personally, but I have heard that obligation exists for NFL players to stand during the anthem. What rational theory of work would allow someone to damage your brand while working without consequences?

    If an actor went on stage and started lecturing the audience without permission, it is the producer’s right to fire them, ignore the action, or even reward them as they will. But it would never be the actor’s right to demand the right to speak as he will on that stage, as he doesn’t own it. Rather, his actions must always be made with the awareness of personal consequences.

    In particular, sports are entertainment and the money that pays athletes comes from people being entertained. When they detract from the customer’s enjoyment, how could that be ignored? A customer of some form of entertainment doesn’t have to put up with being lectured. The audience is paying for the time and if they don’t like it, they can leave. The reason the coaches and higher ups are complaining is that the customers are leaving, and they realize there are a thousand other enjoyments besides watching sweaty guys in light body armor ram into each other. Insulting a customer and his beliefs is not an action to be taken lightly.

    And, if we cared any more about these people than their ability to throw and catch an oddly shaped ball and ram into each other, isn’t that what magazines, newspapers, and television interviews are for?

    Liked by 2 people

  2. The 13th Duke of Wymbourne says:

    On the plus side, I can now counter-sue in paternity suits.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s