Olympic committee releases inclusivity guidelines asking broadcasters to avoid 'problematic' terms for transgender athletes



The International Olympic Committee published a series of "portrayal guidelines" to discourage broadcasters from using "problematic" language when describing transgender athletes.

The guidelines said they seek to make print and television broadcasts of the Olympics "gender-equal, fair and inclusive representations" of sport, but simply pushed gender and sexual orientation-based ideologies through the method of controlling speech.

The third edition of the Portrayal Guidelines for "Olympic Movement stakeholders" called for the "gender-equal" portrayal of athletes in all forms of communication and asked for broadcasters to adapt their presentation to adhere to "cultural contexts."

This of course means nearly the entirety of the guidelines is focused on gender ideology.

Among the 30+ pages of religious doctrine were guidelines on "problematic language." This particular section of speech-policing explained that there are many "common language difficulties" tied to reporting on transgender athletes and asked reporters to avoid "common missteps" and otherwise "harmful language."

The guidelines suggested avoiding the following terms:

  • Born male
  • Born female
  • Biologically male/female
  • Genetically male/female
  • Male-to-female (MtF)
  • Female-to-male (FtM)

These phrases were described as "dehumanizing and inaccurate" and claimed that a person's sex is not based on "genetics alone." A bold claim was also made in the document when it said that a person's biology can be altered by undergoing gender-related procedures.

"A person's sex category is not assigned based on genetics alone and aspects of a person's biology can be altered when they pursue gender-affirming medical care," the guidelines claimed.

'Avoid passive, sexy imagery of sportspeople which reinforces stereotypes.'

The text continued, asking broadcasters not to call an athlete's "identity into question by referring to the sex category that was registered on their original birth certificate."

Unironically, other terms to avoid were listed, such as "transsexual." Phrases like "identifies as," "he/she is a transgender," and "the transgenders" were frowned upon. The document even looked down upon the terms "sex change" or "post-operative/surgery."

The guidelines indeed warned broadcasters of "unconscious bias," "gender stereotypes," and "gender bias," while asking journalists to use gender-neutral language. This is advised in order to avoid "words and expressions which could be interpreted as biased, discriminatory or sexist."

For photography, the committee asked that journalists "avoid passive, sexy imagery of sportspeople which reinforces stereotypes." It also asked not to focus on looks and not to focus too much on one athlete. Photographers also must "ensure there are not significantly more images of one gender community." Rather, they should "capture diversity." The document also requested that photographers avoid reinforcing feminine and masculine stereotypes.

The report claimed that a lack of female representation in sports broadcasting is essentially due to discrimination. It pointed out that just 4% of sports media content is dedicated to women, yet 12% of sports news is presented by women. It noted that the highest-earning female athlete in the world, tennis player Coco Gauff, made $22.7 million in 2023, while soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo made $275 million.

The guidelines rivaled even the most extreme activist-backed documents in recent history. The document cited sources like GLAAD, ESPN, and gay activist groups in its references. It also pointed toward several United Nations guidelines as additional resources.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Epic Games requires 'inclusive word choice' in coding; programmers cannot use words like 'blacklist' or 'master'



Video game developer Epic Games released a "coding standard" that requires inclusivity in its programming, which includes referring to singular people with plural pronouns and not using words like "master" or "slave."

As part of the use of Unreal Engine 5, the company's groundbreaking computer graphics engine, Epic Games requires programmers to operate under progressive gender and racial ideologies.

"At Epic Games, we have a few simple coding standards and conventions. This document reflects the state of Epic Games' current coding standards. Following the coding standards is mandatory," the company wrote on its site. "The standard is expected to be followed no matter which language is used," it added.

After copyright notices and naming conventions, programmers are treated to some religious fanaticism that must be adhered to at the company.

'Refer to anything that is not a person as it and its.'

The first subsection of note is "racial, ethnic, and religious inclusiveness." This told programmers not to use metaphors or similes that "reinforce stereotypes."

"Examples include contrast black and white or blacklist and whitelist," with words that "refer to historical trauma or lived experience of discrimination" also being prohibited, such as "slave, master, and nuke."

Who could forget the next subheading, "gender inclusiveness," which makes it mandatory for employees to use "they, them, and their, even in the singular" for hypothetical people.

"Refer to anything that is not a person as it and its. For example, a module, plugin, function, client, server, or any other software or hardware component," the company said.

Assuming a gender is also a violation under Epic Games' language policing, as the company said not to use collective nouns like "guys." Phrases like "a poor man's X" is also against the rules.

Epic Games also said that slang should be avoided due to its work being seen by global audiences that "might not understand the same cultural references."

Another term the general public may not be familiar with is "overloaded words." The gaming company said that words such as "abort, executive, or native" need to be used in "precise" manners while being examined for the context in which they appear.

The developers behind the game "Fortnite" provided a list of new words that are safer for programmers to use. Instead of "blacklist," the company suggested terms like "deny list" or "avoid list."

In place of "whitelist," programmers can use "trust list" or "approved list." As with "master," words like "primary" are preferred. While for "slave," examples included "worker" or "replica."

After providing this re-education, Epic Games stated that its leaders are "actively working to bring our code in line with the principles laid out above."

Epic Games was founded as Potomac Computer Systems in 1991 and is headquartered in Cary, North Carolina, with about 4,000 employees.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Boy Scouts go WOKE to cover up 83,000 SEXUAL misconduct lawsuits



The Boy Scouts of America is no longer the image of Americana innocence — and it now seems that it never actually was in the first place.

The organization has announced that it is now changing its name to “Scouting America” in order to promote inclusivity and explore diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

“Can I remind America that this is an organization that has 83,000 lawsuits against them for sexual misconduct on young boys?” Jaco Booyens asks, adding, “We’re just going to change the name and welcome more dysfunction, because we are welcoming more dysfunction.”

“So, if you’re thinking of your son being in the Boy Scouts — it hasn’t existed for a long time. Pull them out. Pull them out of public school, pull them out of the Boy Scouts,” Booyens says.

The organization has also apparently sought bankruptcy protection because of all the lawsuits against it, and it had a reorganization plan that allowed it to continue its programs while compensating all of the victims.

“You have all of these people who are coming forward with these claims, which clearly have merit to them, and everyone’s just like, ‘Yeah, it’s fine, you can exist. In fact, just rename yourself Scouting America so that you can just completely hide behind that,’” Sara Gonzales says angrily.

“It should be called ‘Pedophiles Scouting America,’” Booyens chimes in.

Matthew Marsden agrees, noting that this is “the degradation of our youth, especially young men.”

“The Boy Scouts was there to prepare you to be a man,” Marsden says. “Of course, the allegations of abuse are really serious, but this a deeper thing to emasculate young men and to take away their manliness. This is what it’s about, really, to raise a generation of wimps.”


Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

This Car Company May Be the Next Boycott as Woke Ad Goes Viral #Shorts

This Car Company May Be the Next Boycott as Woke Ad Goes Viral #Shorts

Report: Democrats’ Reparations Crusade Could Cost Your Household Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars

Reparations talk was at the forefront of 2020 Democratic platforms, and states and localities have adopted their own versions of the policy.

CNBC names Texas worst state to 'live and work' in for not bending to far-left agenda — but census data blows apart that narrative



CNBC has declared that Texas is the worst state in the United States to "live and work."

Last Friday, the news outlet published its annual list of "America's 10 worst states to live and work in for 2023." Unsurprisingly, the list features 10 red states — but, surprisingly, claims the Lone Star State is the worst of them all.

So what exactly makes Texas so bad? Is it the freedom? No income tax? Lots of space to build? Nope. According to CNBC, Texas is the worst U.S. state to live and work in because of its laws protecting unborn life, laws "targeting" LGBT people, and the state's overall issues with "inclusiveness."

From CNBC:

With the nation’s highest percentage of people without health insurance and the second lowest number of primary care physicians per capita, all those new Texans are arriving to find a dismal health care system. Texas has the nation’s thirteenth-highest violent crime rate, and it ranks thirty seventh for licensed childcare facilities per capita.The Lone Star State keeps hacking away at inclusiveness, with laws targeting the LGBTQ+ population, voting rights, and the nation’s strictest abortion ban.

Ironically, CNBC admitted that "there are enormous economic opportunities in Texas." But apparently, that doesn't matter.

"Yes, there are enormous economic opportunities in Texas, and it is attracting people from far and wide," CNBC said. "But this state also has some Texas-sized issues when it comes to life, health and inclusion."

The other states on CNBC's list, from second to tenth worst, are: Oklahoma, Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, Missouri, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Florida. "Inclusiveness" and "reproductive rights" are among the chief problems with each of those states, CNBC claimed.

The list is especially ridiculous when you consider that data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that Texas experienced a net population growth of 230,000 people in 2022, second only to Florida's nearly 319,000 net growth.

Those figures prove average Americans prefer the "enormous economic activity" to whatever CNBC says is desirable for residency and business.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Gay Man Goes Off on the Insanity of LGBTQ Targeted Ads #Shorts | DM Clips | Rubin Report

Gay Man Goes Off on the Insanity of LGBTQ Targeted Ads #Shorts | DM Clips | Rubin Report

FDA 'will likely support' ending ban on blood donation from sexually active homosexuals despite blood banks' difficulty testing for HIV



In 1983, at the height of the AIDS epidemic, the Food and Drug Administration instituted a lifetime ban on homosexuals who had engaged in gay sex since 1977. According to a new report in the Wall Street Journal, the FDA may soon allow certain homosexuals to share their vital fluids.

What are the details?

People said to be familiar with the FDA's plans told the Wall Street Journal that homosexuals in monogamous relationships will soon be allowed to donate blood without having to abstain from sex. The new rules and guidance, which have yet to be finalized, will reportedly be issued sometime in the coming months.

The FDA's forthcoming decision to turn the spigot on a new source of blood reportedly comes after an agency-funded study of approximately 1,600 sexually active homosexuals was launched to "determine if a blood donor history questionnaire based on individual risk would be an acceptable alternative to a time-based deferral in reducing the risk of HIV among gay and bisexual men who present to donate blood."

Although the study conducted by the FDA and three of the largest nonprofit blood centers in the U.S. has not been resolved, it has, according to Brian Custer, director of the Vitalant Research Institute, generated "highly relevant information to envision what an individual risk-based approach would look like.”

All donors, irrespective of their disproportionate likelihood to carry HIV, will have to complete a comparable individualized risk assessment.

An FDA official indicated that the questionnaire, still being drafted, will ask prospective blood donors if they have had any new sexual partners in the past three months. Those who answer in the negative will be able to donate blood.

Those who indicate they have been promiscuous will be prompted to answer to whether they have had anal sex.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "anal sex is the riskiest type of sex for getting or transmitting HIV." Although both participants involved in this particular act of sodomy are at risk, the recipient is at greater risk.

The CDC also noted that normal sex "is less risky for getting HIV than receptive anal sex."

Those who answer in the negative about having anal sex will be able to donate blood. Those who answered in the affirmative will simply have to wait three months before donating blood.

The significance of the three-month window is that an HIV infection would reportedly become apparent in that time.

Risky business

The Wall Street Journal noted that the FDA's likely new change won't necessarily come without risks.

While HIV testing has improved over the years — enabling blood banks to toss out bad blood taken from people long-infected — no available test can presently detect HIV immediately after infection.

Dr. Bruce Walker, an infectious-diseases specialist, told the Wall Street Journal that "with the latest HIV tests, that window is probably no greater than 10 days from the time of exposure."

The CDC noted that antibody tests, which look for antibodies to HIV in a person's blood or oral fluid, can take 23 to 90 days to detect HIV after exposure.

Antigen/body tests, which look for both HIV antibodies and antigens, can take anywhere from 18 to 90 days after exposure.

Nucleic acid tests (NATs), which look for the actual virus in the blood, "can usually detect HIV 10 to 33 days after exposure." Although highly sensitive, there have been incidents documented where NATs have failed to detect infected blood.

Life-saving 'discrimination'

Gay activist groups such as the Human Rights Campaign have long suggested that the policy prohibiting homosexuals from donating blood was discriminatory, even if it prevented healthy homosexuals from receiving bad blood.

Sarah Warbelow, legal director for the Human Rights Campaign, said, "It is a completely outdated policy that doesn't reflect our current ability to test blood for HIV or the medical science around HIV."

When the initial blood ban was first instituted, the purpose was not to discriminate but to save lives.

Marguerita Lightfoot, director of the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, told Men's Health that in the early 1980s, "We were still trying to figure out the transmission of the virus, and all we knew was that this population was disproportionately impacted."

That remains the case today.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, as of 2018, 13,000 people die from AIDS in the U.S. every year, and over 700,000 have died nationwide since the beginning of the HIV epidemic. AIDS is the late stage of HIV infection.

Like the recent rash of monkeypox cases, homosexuals were disproportionately impacted by the spread of the disease.

According to the CDC, in 2019, homosexuals made up nearly 70% of all new HIV diagnoses in the U.S.

Notwithstanding the higher incidence of HIV infections in the demographic, in 2015, the FDA lifted its lifetime ban on homosexuals donating blood, "changing its recommendation that men who have sex with men (MSM) be indefinitely deferred ... to 12 months since the last sexual contact with another man."

Despite its apparent significance, this change was met by derision from gay activists.

The LGBT activist organization GLAAD posted a video of script-reader Alan Cumming to YouTube, wherein he mocked the idea that gay men could abstain from sex for an entire year.

Kelsey Louie, the former CEO of the AIDS service organization Gay Men's Health Crisis, lauded the 2015 decision, saying, "The United States government has to stop reacting to HIV like it is the early 1980s. ... It is time for the FDA to implement a policy that is truly based on science, not blanket bans on certain groups of people."

That 12-month waiting time will likely soon be cut down to 3 months and only apply to non-monogamous homosexual donors.

AP Stylebook clarifies when to use 'pregnant women' instead of 'pregnant people'



Just a few months after updating its style guide to include phrases such as "pregnant people" and "people seeking abortions," the AP has attempted to clarify the context in which such phrases should be used. In most cases, the AP states, gendered phrases that refer to women are "acceptable."

According to a tweet from the @APStylebook account on Wednesday, phrases that specifically identify women as the group of people who can get pregnant may, in fact, be appropriate.

"Pregnant women or women seeking abortions is acceptable phrasing," the AP wrote.

However, there is a catch.

"Phrasing like pregnant people or people seeking abortions is also acceptable to include people who have those experiences but do not identify as women," the AP continued, "such as some transgender men and some nonbinary people."


\u201cWe now have guidance saying that "pregnant women" or "women seeking abortions" is acceptable phrasing. \nPhrases like "pregnant people" or "people seeking abortions" are acceptable when you want to be inclusive of people who have those experiences but do not identify as women.\u201d
— APStylebook (@APStylebook) 1660745199

The AP cautions that men and women alike should "use judgment" in such cases, always keeping in mind that "neutral alternatives" that make no reference to gender are "also acceptable." "Overly clinical language," the AP insists, should be avoided.

This updated style tip comes just three months after the previous updated style tip, which first introduced the gender-neutral phrases "pregnant people" and "people seeking abortions" only for those stories "that specifically address the experiences of people who do not identify as women." Thus, the latest update is not so much a departure from the previous update as a clarification about when to use supposedly more inclusive alternatives.

Still, this update does imply that a generalized association between women and pregnancy is "acceptable," with some notable exceptions.

But most tweet commenters seemed to prefer to keep things simple.

"In the entire history of human beings on this planet, only women have ever been pregnant," replied @DanShreffler.

"I love the continuing efforts to make basic communication as difficult and exhaustive as possible," said another response.

Others took issue with the word women, not because of the gender it connotes, but because of the age.

"Please keep in mind that the use of 'people' is inclusive of *girls* as well as trans/non-binary people. A ten-year-old is not a 'pregnant woman.' Calling her that minimizes the horror of what’s happening in the US," wrote one user, perhaps in reference to the recent alleged rape of a 10-year-old girl in Ohio.

The AP claims that though it publishes a spiral-bound version of its Stylebook updates only every other year, it updates its Stylebook digital services "throughout the year as style changes and updates are made."

Male blood donor, 66, required to state on form if he's pregnant — part of new, woke UK policy. He's turned away from clinic when he refuses to answer.



A 66-year-old man in the United Kingdom who's been donating blood for nearly 50 years was turned away from a clinic last week because he wouldn't answer an apparently new question on a form that asks if the prospective blood donor is pregnant, the Daily Mail reported.

The director of the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service told the outlet that the agency has a "duty to promote inclusiveness — therefore all donors are now asked the same questions."

What are the details?

Leslie Sinclair — who has donated 125 pints of blood in his life — was told he had to answer a part of the form that asks if he's expecting a child or has been pregnant in the past six months, the Daily Mail said, adding that pregnant women must wait six months after giving birth to donate blood.

After he argued that as a man — and as a person age 66 years — the question doesn't apply to him and that he shouldn't have to answer it, Sinclair said clinic staffers replied that they couldn't accept his blood, the outlet said.

With that, Sinclair walked away over the "nonsensical" policy, the Daily Mail reported.

"I am angry because I have been giving blood since I was 18 and have regularly gone along," the father of two from Stirling in central Scotland told the outlet. "I'm very happy to do so without any problem."

Sinclair added the following to the Daily Mail:

There is always a form to fill in and that's fine — they tend to ask about medical conditions or diseases — and clearly that's because the blood needs to be safe. This time around, there was a question I hadn't seen before: "Are you pregnant, or have you been in the last six months?" which required a yes or no answer. I pointed out to the staff that it was impossible for me to be in that position, but I was told that I would need to answer, otherwise I couldn't give blood. I told them that was stupid, and that if I had to leave, I wouldn't be back, and that was it. I got on my bike and cycled away. It is nonsensical, and it makes me angry because there are vulnerable people waiting for blood, including children, and in desperate need of help. But they've been denied my blood because of the obligation to answer a question that can't possibly be answered.

Sinclair added to the outlet that his wife, Margaret, 59, also was appalled: "She just can't understand it, either."

What did a health official have to say?

Professor Marc Turner, director of SNBTS, last week told the Daily Mail about the new policy.

"We appreciate the support of each and every one of our donor community and thank Mr. Sinclair for his commitment over a long number of years," Turner told the outlet. "Whilst pregnancy is only a relevant question to those whose biological sex or sex assigned at birth is female, sex assigned at birth is not always visually clear to staff. As a public body we take cognizance of changes in society around how such questions may be asked without discrimination and have a duty to promote inclusiveness — therefore all donors are now asked the same questions."

Anything else?

The National Health Service in England launched a campaign last week to recruit a million more blood donors over the next five years due to falling numbers during the pandemic, the outlet said, adding that the SNBTS began a drive earlier in June to find 16,000 new donors in the coming year.