Nhs Views Father As Offensive And Changes Documents To Partner Political Correctness Gone Mad

[gordiescotland1]

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

[sp1814]

New Judge

You wrote:

"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."

In what way does this informational website dictate how people refer to their spouses?

Unless there's some kind of brainwashing interface, I'm sure that anyone reading the information won't immediately feel the compulsion to change the way they refer to their husbands or wives.

I think we need to understand that people have the right to call their partners whatever they so wish. It's a personal thing.

[pixie373]

I hope that most people about to become parents are able to work out who "partner" might refer to in their situation, without seeing it as a criticism.

[sp1814]

So far, after 48 hours on the Sunday Post site, this article has attracted precisely zero comments from the site's readership.

Tells you something about the so-called 'storm of protest'.

[humbersloop]

^ check earlier my link sp

[sp1814]

humbersloop

Yes, thanks...meant to get back to you on that. The cynic in me almost believes that this story may have been 'orchestrated' somehow.

Because of the apparent lack of any rain, clouds, lightning of thunder in the 'storm of protest'.

;-)

[New Judge]

"In what way does this informational website dictate how people refer to their spouses?"

It does not, sp. I was continuing the (somewhat separate) debate initiated by naomi.

Of course the word "dad" excludes. It excludes people who are not fathers. The word partner also excludes. It excludes people who are fathers but no longer with the child's mother.

"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 term husband or wife excludes those who are not married for a very good reason: they are not married. Those who are do not wish to have the status of their partnerships confused with those who are not because they view their relationship as being different to those involving people who are not married.. It's just a correct term to use. I'm not saying that any particular form of partnership should be excluded from use. Quite the contrary in fact, I'm saying none should.

Lots of people are excluded from various groups. It's no big deal. We can't all be included in everything. Attempts by people to do so end like this one - and the ridiculous nonsense in the pamphlet (even before it is amended) is plain for all to see.

[DaisyNonna]

Business partner, dancing partner. partner in crime?

[naomi24]

//the ridiculous nonsense in the pamphlet (even before it is amended) is plain for all to see. //

Apparently not.

[DaisyNonna]

A birthing partner may not be the baby's father. Partner is too nebulous.

[maggiebee]

Unless things have changed radically, I always understood that the anatomy & physiology of the reproductive system required both a male and a female be involved. By definition surely there must be a father - what you call him is open to debate, but he will always be male.

[venator]

significant other?

silly, but covers anyone, even the pet dog

[Mamyalynne]

They get called worse when you're in the latter stages of labour.

[DaisyNonna]

significant other what?

[venator]

Mrs V is a Salford midwife, and would agree.

PC goes out the door when real life comes in...

[venator]

Daisy - it's a super mealy mouthed term for what we've been discussing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_other

[sp1814]

NJ

You wrote:

"The word partner also excludes. It excludes people who are fathers but no longer with the child's mother."

But in the context of this website, the word partner would not exclude ex-partners, because they would be self-excluded by the fact that they were no longer with the expectant mother.

[sp1814]

NJ

You also wrote:

"The term husband or wife excludes those who are not married for a very good reason: they are not married. Those who are do not wish to have the status of their partnerships confused with those who are not because they view their relationship as being different to those involving people who are not married."

Once again I need to ask...how is someone's relationship status going to be affected by this website?

The word 'partner' is all-encompassing. It excludes no-one, and judging by the responses to the story in the Sunday Post, no-one is appears to be up in arms over the 'controversy'.

So, seeing as so few people object to the word 'partner' and seeing as it more accurately reflects those who are using the resource, and seeing as it has zero impact on straight couples, many of whom are happy with the terms husband/wife/spouse/partner, who is being harmed?

[venator]

sp - Is one in danger of vanishing up one's own definition?

[sp1814]

maggiebee

A man and a woman are both required to produce a child.

However, this NHS website is aimed at those who are expecting a child, not those who necessarily fired their sperm at the egg, or had their egg ready and waiting for the...'shot'.

Biologically, you are absolutely correct...a man and a woman produce a child. However, as we all know, it doesn't necessarily mean that a man and a woman will bring that child up.

There are hundreds of thousands of children who grew up without fathers after the war, for example - and in future there will be more and more same-sex couples who will either adopt, or via egg donors, become parents. It makes sense for government resources to reflect this, in the same way that government resources had to be altered to reflect civil partnerships.

The alternative is to assume that all relationships are built exactly the same and ignore what doesn't fall within predetermined societal rules.

I'm not sure I can see the point of that.

[sp1814]

venator

I don't think so.

However, I will admit, it gets difficult putting the argument across sometimes.

I am absolutely sure I'm right, and I am sure that those who disagree feel exactly the same.

In about fifty years, these discussions will seem quaint...almost like the controversy of mixed race marriages seem to my nephews (teens and twenties - I had to explain the meaning of the Madness song 'Embarrassment' to them...it was a completely alien concept!)