To Think That Oxfam Should Cancel Themselves

[MrsJamesofSutton]

Oxfam have published a New Language Guide (if you google that phrase, there are various news sites and indeed Oxfam's own site) pouring approbation on terms such as 'Mother' , 'biological sex', 'field trip' and even apologising for the fact that the guide is written in English-a colonial language.

There are many more examples-some laughable and some quite frightening.

As Oxfam exists , primarily. to help other nations-many of them non-white-couldn't this be see as a patronising, 'Great White Saviour Organisation' and the next logical step, therefore, is to cancel itself.

Why are they wasting money on this sort of thing instead of helping people in need. They need to get in with helping and not on hand wringing. All that money, on expensive staff writing basically nonsense

Y rheswm am fod y Saeson oedd gormeswyr y Cymry
My goodness, so you’re saying that there was a targeted campaign and legislation advanced in order to try to snuff out the Welsh language in favour of English? And this involved the systemic beating of children who were caught speaking Welsh in schools in Wales?

Come off it, next you’ll be telling me that similar attempts to eradicate native languages, and to ‘civilize’ people by forcing them to speak English instead, were made in various countries throughout the British Empire.

It's quite easy to find the person on Linkedin who is very proud of writing it. And their job title is very emblematic of an organisation that has lost its way and its core purpose.

Madness - www.lbc.co.uk/news/oxfam-bizarre-language-guide-sorry-for-using-english/

The charity guide says that words like "headquarters", "local" and even "people" have colonial implications and should be avoided.
Staff were warned that "people who become pregnant" was preferable to "expectant mothers", while "parent" is better than "mother" or "father".
Words related to age like "youth" and "the elderly" were also better off avoided, to allow people to remain dignified, the guide added.
Robert Buckland, the Conservative former justice secretary, said: "Most people will find this particular use of valuable time and resources by Oxfam totally bizarre. It would do them well to remember the old adage that actions speak louder than words."

I love how 'people' should be avoided - but 'people who are pregnant' is preferred to anything with mother in it. Total nonsense.

I thought I was the only person who has completely lost faith in Oxfam.

Not so, it seems.

I don't know why PPs are disputing the claims about the use of mother. It literally says in the guide 'we avoid mother/father' policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/inclusive-language-guide-621487/

But it’s specifically in the context of transgender parents, unless they indicate a preference for ‘mother or father’.

“To describe the role in raising children without directly ascribing gendered roles. If trans parents have a preferred specified gender role, such as ‘mother’ or ‘father’, this should be respected. If unsure, it is more inclusive to use ‘parent’.”

“WE AVOID
‘mother’ or ‘father’ (avoid assuming the adoption of gendered roles by transgender parents)”

Where do they say that the word ‘people’ should be avoided? They use it about 450 times in the leaflet.

I am just boggling that someone was sitting piously writing this crap and getting paid for it. It might be a nice little fantasy to run up in your spare time if you believe that language should be amended to such an extent (eg like Esperanto).

Heaven knows how many other charities are haemorrhaging precious funds on this kind of drivel.

That's not true at all. At no point in that section does it state they are talking about trans parents specifically.

The paragraph is called Parent, Parenthood

"To describe the role in raising children without directly ascribing
gendered roles. If trans parents have a preferred specified gender role,
such as ‘mother’ or ‘father’, this should be respected. If unsure, it is
more inclusive to use ‘parent’.

In patriarchal culture, social norms around gender result in designated roles for parents that reflect expectations of that gender. Some transgender and non-binarypeople may identify with these roles. However, some may prefer to use other names to designate parenthood. The important principle
here is to be inclusive in the broader sense by describing people as ‘parents’, but if individual parents have a preference for a role name, to respect their choice.

WE AVOID ‘mother’ or ‘father’ (avoid assuming the adoption of gendered roles by transgender parents)"

What part of that is objectionable?

Wow. That's shocking but I'm not completely surprised. Time to cancel Oxfam I think.

I don't know of any other examples of very large charities who have routinely carried out and then covered up such truly horrific acts of abuse using the charity's funds.

It wasn't just in Haiti and it wasn't a few bad apples. This was systematic rape, child abuse, and cover ups.

14 June
Haiti announces it is withdrawing Oxfam GB’s right to operate in the country “for violation of Haitian law and serious violation of the principle of the dignity of the human beings”.

I mean that's fairly serious. That was in 2018, not 11 years ago.

I remember hearing about Oxfam's awful reputation over 30 years ago. How they are still going is beyond me.

They’re a disgusting, misogynistic, rapey, hypocritical organisation. Should be closed down.

A mother is a female parent, a father is a male parent. If my husband decided to transition he wouldn't be our kids mother. A person who gives birth is a mother, regardless of whether they have a wispy beard.

Language should be simple and describe facts. And that goes a hundred times over for any setting that Oxfam operates in where there are multiple languages being spoken by people who may not have fluent English, people who are under pressure who use words to quickly and accurately convey meaning.

“A mother is a female parent, a father is a male parent. If my husband decided to transition he wouldn't be our kids mother. A person who gives birth is a mother, regardless of whether they have a wispy beard.”
So if the parents are a lesbian couple, the ‘person who gives birth’ is the mother? What’s the other person?

Defaulting to ‘parent’ where gender references are not necessary makes sense to me.

I also note that, in the context of pregnancy, Oxfam’s preferred language is ‘pregnant women’, so we’re not exactly in the realms of ‘uterus-havers’.

Exactly. All organisations have this sort of style guide. If you don't work for them, why are you worried about it? Just get on with your life.

I’m so confused. I’m not a cunning linguist but I’m pretty sure most , if not all, languages have words for mother and father.
Also, I’m guessing people who are in need of help from oxfam have much larger concerns than being called mother or father.

Transgenderism seems to be a western phenomena. other countries have various third genders but no one believes that they are actually literally women.

Lesbian parents are both mothers, just like I said. The mother is the female parent. Someone who gives birth is a mother. Both females, one of whom gives birth.

But agree with you about gender - unnecessary ever to reference it. Sex is the relevant category.

They really do. Its the equivalent of a linguistical style guide. Any publisher would have that.
I'm very shrug about this outrage. You can hate Oxfam but this document is so inoffensive that those trying to critique it here are tying themselves in knots

That's a bit jumbled. Is being a mother about being female or about giving birth?

Syniad gwych!