Crosswords1 min ago
Nhs Views Father As Offensive And Changes Documents To Partner Political Correctness Gone Mad
89 Answers
NHS Scotland has banned the use of the ward dad in a maternity handbook so as not to offend gay couples and replaced it by partner? It is ridiculous. What do others think
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gordiescotland1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
naomi24
But you're not just a wife.
You are many things. One of these is a wife. You are also (where context applies) a spouse, a partner, a daughter, a (possibly...I don't know your circumstances), a sister, an aunt, a daughter-in-law, a niece...etc.
And more importantly, this website, and it's supporting literature is not aimed at you specifically...it's aimed at everyone who reaches for it as a resource. And because everyone has different concepts and definitions of their relationship status, my guess is that the authors wanted to choose a word which encompasses as many relationships as possible.
I think the point is - you are a wife, and this is how you define yourself. However, it would not be semantically wrong to say that you are not a partner.
However, if your other half were a woman, it *would* be semantically wrong to refer to her as a 'dad' in this context...however, 'partner' would cover both same sex couples and mixed sex couples...
And it would also cover those couples (especially younger people) who are in a relationship, but are not yet married. They tend to refer to each other as partners (boyfriend and girlfriend being a little inappropriate after a certain age).
But you're not just a wife.
You are many things. One of these is a wife. You are also (where context applies) a spouse, a partner, a daughter, a (possibly...I don't know your circumstances), a sister, an aunt, a daughter-in-law, a niece...etc.
And more importantly, this website, and it's supporting literature is not aimed at you specifically...it's aimed at everyone who reaches for it as a resource. And because everyone has different concepts and definitions of their relationship status, my guess is that the authors wanted to choose a word which encompasses as many relationships as possible.
I think the point is - you are a wife, and this is how you define yourself. However, it would not be semantically wrong to say that you are not a partner.
However, if your other half were a woman, it *would* be semantically wrong to refer to her as a 'dad' in this context...however, 'partner' would cover both same sex couples and mixed sex couples...
And it would also cover those couples (especially younger people) who are in a relationship, but are not yet married. They tend to refer to each other as partners (boyfriend and girlfriend being a little inappropriate after a certain age).
Just one other thing I've thought of - I reckon (and this is just guesswork), that the word 'partner' has grown in popularity amongst straight couples,, because so many of them choose to live together prior to getting married.
When I was a teenager, hardly anyone lived 'in sin', but now that attitude doesn't seem to exist any more. Perhaps 'partner' has grown in popularity to define that person who isn't yet your fiancé, or your husband/wife, but is more than someone you're just 'seeing'.
When I was a teenager, hardly anyone lived 'in sin', but now that attitude doesn't seem to exist any more. Perhaps 'partner' has grown in popularity to define that person who isn't yet your fiancé, or your husband/wife, but is more than someone you're just 'seeing'.
// /This website is designed to be a comprehensive online resource for you and your partner from the decision to start trying for a baby,//
Easy, just add '' The above does not apply to same sex couples, get used to it''
As I have said on these pages many, many times, The Lunatics are now running the Asylum.
Easy, just add '' The above does not apply to same sex couples, get used to it''
As I have said on these pages many, many times, The Lunatics are now running the Asylum.
The potty PC industry gets better and better.
Surely it will become so obviously lunatic that people will go back yo using plain English.
I am a husband. If someone referred to me as my wife's partner, an ordinary person might naturally assume we weren't married.
Who could I sue for hurt feelings in this case?
Surely it will become so obviously lunatic that people will go back yo using plain English.
I am a husband. If someone referred to me as my wife's partner, an ordinary person might naturally assume we weren't married.
Who could I sue for hurt feelings in this case?
I see the Family Education Trust are quoted in the article. Not, of course, that they'd have any other agenda going on..
http://
http://
I'm against all this nannyism pandering to make 'one size fits all.' Maternity is fathers and mothers, one cannot become pregnant without the other. So the sperm donor is the father, whether he has an active part before during or after or not at all. Totally unnecessary imo. It's as bad as having to have the expense of translating all this guff into 50 different languages.
This entire business is a farce. To avoid "giving offence" to a few people the pamphlet's authors have already tied themselves in knots before any amendments are made.
The pamphlet is directed towards women going through pregnancy and birth. It refers to "partners" but feels compelled to explain:
"The term partner includes dads, your partner, civil partners, husband or other primary care givers who all have a very important role to play in the care and upbringing of your baby."
It is interesting to note that "husbands" are relegated to last in the explanatory list, but no matter. It seems to overlook the fact that in the vast majority of cases "dad" is also likely to be partner or husband. Much of the content of the pamphlet contains information for those attempting pregnancy via the "conventional" method. It contains no provision for the spouse of a same-sex marriage (it only mentions husbands and neither version of same-sex marriages can be said to include a husband).
There are many circumstances where the father of a child may not be with the mother during pregnancy and childbirth and they do not exclusively involve same-sex couples. However there are many, many more where the father will be present and to exclude any reference to them is unjustified. Those present who are not "Dad" should get over it. After all, it should not come as a great surprise to them that they are not the child's father.
I'm quite with Naomi when it comes to lumping her husband in with the more ubiquitous term of "partner". Of course she is (or may be) a partner, a daughter, a sister, a mother, a secretary or whatever. But she's talking about the term used to describe the person she married. People who are married have partners whom most prefer to be referred to as their husband or wife. It distinguishes them from those who have chosen not to marry and most married people want that distinction to remain. They want others to know that they are married and they do not want their relationship confused with one that does not include marriage. People who are not married do not have husbands or wives. If they want one all they have to do is to get married.
The problem with this pamphlet is that it is trying so hard not to offend anybody in particular when in fact, with a little bit of thought and a stroll away from the ridiculous knots into which the authors have tied themselves, it would be very easy not to offend anybody at all.
The pamphlet is directed towards women going through pregnancy and birth. It refers to "partners" but feels compelled to explain:
"The term partner includes dads, your partner, civil partners, husband or other primary care givers who all have a very important role to play in the care and upbringing of your baby."
It is interesting to note that "husbands" are relegated to last in the explanatory list, but no matter. It seems to overlook the fact that in the vast majority of cases "dad" is also likely to be partner or husband. Much of the content of the pamphlet contains information for those attempting pregnancy via the "conventional" method. It contains no provision for the spouse of a same-sex marriage (it only mentions husbands and neither version of same-sex marriages can be said to include a husband).
There are many circumstances where the father of a child may not be with the mother during pregnancy and childbirth and they do not exclusively involve same-sex couples. However there are many, many more where the father will be present and to exclude any reference to them is unjustified. Those present who are not "Dad" should get over it. After all, it should not come as a great surprise to them that they are not the child's father.
I'm quite with Naomi when it comes to lumping her husband in with the more ubiquitous term of "partner". Of course she is (or may be) a partner, a daughter, a sister, a mother, a secretary or whatever. But she's talking about the term used to describe the person she married. People who are married have partners whom most prefer to be referred to as their husband or wife. It distinguishes them from those who have chosen not to marry and most married people want that distinction to remain. They want others to know that they are married and they do not want their relationship confused with one that does not include marriage. People who are not married do not have husbands or wives. If they want one all they have to do is to get married.
The problem with this pamphlet is that it is trying so hard not to offend anybody in particular when in fact, with a little bit of thought and a stroll away from the ridiculous knots into which the authors have tied themselves, it would be very easy not to offend anybody at all.
No NJ
The article in the link says that the change was made so as not to give offence.
Roll back a minute...
It's only the Sunday Post that have made this claim. The only facts we know is that someone pointed out that the old wording was exclusive and did not reflect all who were using the site.
Furthermore, if people want to refer to their partners as husbands, or partners of spouse they are free to do so. However, I would suggest that it's a backward step for one section of society to dictate a term which deliberately excludes others for no good reason whatsoever.
The word 'dad' excludes.
The word 'partner' doesn't.
It may not be the word that you use to describe your other half, but why on Earth should any official website or government document not encompass the variety of relationships that exist in the UK in 2014?
Should forms be shorn of 'Civil Partner' and only refer to 'Husband/Wife'?
That would be odd, wouldn't it?
And a couple of last points...
The 'storm of protest' amounted to four people complaining. If one hundred people complained, would that be described as a 'cataclysmic end-of-the-world batten down the hatches because we're all going to die any minute now' protest?
And with regard to the website's content...if the word 'partner' had always been used...how many people would have complained?
Do these same people complain when they have to fill in visa waiver forms (as I often have to do when travelling)which read 'NAME OF PARTNER' or 'NAME OF SPOUSE'?
The article in the link says that the change was made so as not to give offence.
Roll back a minute...
It's only the Sunday Post that have made this claim. The only facts we know is that someone pointed out that the old wording was exclusive and did not reflect all who were using the site.
Furthermore, if people want to refer to their partners as husbands, or partners of spouse they are free to do so. However, I would suggest that it's a backward step for one section of society to dictate a term which deliberately excludes others for no good reason whatsoever.
The word 'dad' excludes.
The word 'partner' doesn't.
It may not be the word that you use to describe your other half, but why on Earth should any official website or government document not encompass the variety of relationships that exist in the UK in 2014?
Should forms be shorn of 'Civil Partner' and only refer to 'Husband/Wife'?
That would be odd, wouldn't it?
And a couple of last points...
The 'storm of protest' amounted to four people complaining. If one hundred people complained, would that be described as a 'cataclysmic end-of-the-world batten down the hatches because we're all going to die any minute now' protest?
And with regard to the website's content...if the word 'partner' had always been used...how many people would have complained?
Do these same people complain when they have to fill in visa waiver forms (as I often have to do when travelling)which read 'NAME OF PARTNER' or 'NAME OF SPOUSE'?
Latest Posts
How it Works2 mins ago
Reputable Models Can Come From...
Crosswords9 mins ago
News10 mins ago
Home & Garden22 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.