Film, Media & TV4 mins 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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Daisy - it's a super mealy mouthed term for what we've been discussing.
http://
http://
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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!)
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!)
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Rwanda Threat Not Working? Right Oh!
News11 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
ChatterBank13 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.