Diversity
Fetus
Transgender
Vulnerable
Entitlement
Science-based
Evidence-based
What do these seven innocuous-looking words have in common? They are now forbidden to appear in official documents prepared by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), by order of the Trump administration. That’s right, our very own [CENSORED] authoritarian head of state has literally forbidden the doctors, scientists, and administrators tasked with protecting the health and wellbeing of all Americans from using words that might offend the sensibilities of [CENSORED] differently-sane, [CENSORED] ingroup-oriented, religious [CENSORED] enthusiasts.
I imagine the good folks at the CDC are feeling inclined to tell Trump’s pencil-pushers to go [CENSORED] engage in a solitary activity of their choosing. But if a humble graduate student may be so bold as to advise her (hopefully) future colleagues, you have a unique opportunity here. The Trump administration, with their usual competence (i.e., none,) has told you what you shouldn’t say, while neglecting to specify what you should say. I suggest that you acquiesce to the letter of the law while using this shortsightedness to your advantage. Here are a few...creative alternatives for the forbidden words; I’m sure the fine commenters here at Daily Kos will be happy to add to the list:
Diversity: You could go the subtle route and simply substitute “diverseness” (yes, according to Thesaurus.com this is a real word.) Slightly more daringly, you could use “heterogeneity” or “multifariousness,” covertly tape Trump’s woefully unqualified political appointees’ attempts to sound the words out, then leak the video to the major news organizations for lulz. But perhaps the best approach would be to flip the script and, instead of pointing out the benefits of diversity, point of the negative consequences associated with a lack of diversity. Terms such as “monotony,” “conformity,” or, given the appropriate context, “inbred,” not only avoid the d-word so dreaded by Trump’s base, but actively undermine the underlying assumption that “purity” is an unmitigated good.
Fetus: Presumably, this word was banned at the behest of the group of people who characterize themselves as “pro-life,” albeit rather selectively (turns out it’s much easier to affect compassion for a vaguely defined, undifferentiated “life” than actual, distinct-from-you people.) The f-word is obviously intended to be replaced with an emotionally-charged term like “unborn child;” it doesn’t appear to have occurred to the Trump administration that loading a simple medical term with emotionally manipulative connotations can work both ways. Possibilities include “uterine parasite,” “histologically incompatible tissue,” or “potentially fatal non-cancerous growth.” Or, if you’re not comfortable with emotive language and are feeling twee, you could simply substitute the archaic alternative spelling, “foetus.”
Transgender: Do you remember when obesity and its comorbidities became “Syndrome X,” and the natural age-related decline in testosterone production became “Low T?” I suggest a similar strategy for avoiding the t-word and the social stigma that has traditionally been associated with it while retaining and even increasing resources for the people formerly known as transgender. No doubt the first alternatives that spring to mind are existing euphemisms like “differently gendered” or “non-binary,” however, for this stratagem to work it is essential that the condition of being transgender be given a psychologically neutral name that dissociates it from the existential threat it represents to those whose sense of self depends on adherence to, and enforcement of, rigid gender norms, while establishing it as a legitimate “condition” requiring empathy, acceptance, and most importantly, research funds. In fact, the more bland and nondescript the name, the better; just get the lab together, pick someone’s name out of a hat, and viola, “ZOMG, they want to allow depraved sexual perverts in public bathrooms to prey on our children!” becomes “there is no cure for Brown’s Syndrome, but understanding, social support, and, in some cases, reconstructive surgery can dramatically improve quality of life for those living with this condition.” As an aspie (i.e., a person who “suffers from” Asperger’s Syndrome,) I am well aware that characterizing a normal facet of human neurodiversness (see what I did there?) as a “disease” may offend some people, while leading others to develop an unhealthy fixation on finding a “cure” or explanation for the newly-created “epidemic,” most likely by blaming it on some ubiquitous feature of modern life such as vaccinations, GMOs, or cell phones. Desperate times call for desperate measures, nevertheless, I strongly recommend applying this suggestion in consultation with “the relevant patient population” (another potential substitute for the t-word.)
Vulnerable: Ironically, this is itself a euphemism, so if they don’t like it then you can just go back to the more unpleasant words it was originally employed to avoid: poor, destitute, impoverished, marginalized, needy, etc. In specific contexts where you would use the v-word to refer to someone at risk for a specific disease, you can simply substitute the synonym “susceptible,” but let’s be honest: that’s not the usage that Trump et al. object to, they just hate being reminded that poor people have the temerity to continue existing in spite of their obvious undeservingness.
Entitlement: In the context of the budgetary documents this term has been banned from, I assume that it refers to “entitlement programs” such as Medicare and Social Security, so you could, of course, simply name these programs directly, e.g: “our estimates indicate that the draconian and irresponsible cuts to Medicare and Social Security being considered by Congress will cause x number of deaths per year if implemented.” Alternatively, the synonym “earned benefits” has frequently been suggested as a general substitute for the e-word in the context of political debates, etc., as it more accurately reflects the fact that these programs are, as it were, “pre-paid” by their beneficiaries via a payroll tax that is automatically deducted from their income throughout their working lives.
Science- and Evidence-based: These could, of course, simply be replaced with the synonym “reality-based,” but, since the idea that statements or policies can and should be measured against an independently observable “reality” is precisely what this ban is meant to undermine, it is probable that the use of this term would simply result in it’s quickly being banned as well. In some instances, it may be advisable to resort to a simplified description of the scientific process itself: “results based on repeated independent observations followed by carefully designed tests to rule out alternate explanations” is more difficult to peremptorily dismiss than “the scientific consensus.” In many contexts, however, these terms could simply be replaced with “sensible,” “reasonable,” or even “sane” with no significant change in meaning. In many cases, objection to terms such as “science-, evidence- or reality-based” is founded on adherence to a specific anti-science position; in these cases the best defense is a good offense. Effective scientific communication designed for lay-people must often be less nuanced than that designed for other scientists; don’t be afraid to use terms such as “snake oil,” “scam,” or in extreme cases, “raving lunacy.”
How about it, Kossacks, do you have some additional suggestions for our fine civil servants at the CDC?