ChatterBank2 mins ago
Dad Gone?
38 Answers
http://
the latest re-write of the NHS new parent leaflet was allegedly occasioned by a single complaint.
was this the right thing to do - are same-sex couples likely to feel excluded by the word "dad"? or is this a case of cash squandered in the name of an imagined issue?
the latest re-write of the NHS new parent leaflet was allegedly occasioned by a single complaint.
was this the right thing to do - are same-sex couples likely to feel excluded by the word "dad"? or is this a case of cash squandered in the name of an imagined issue?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. 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.
missnemesis
I've tried to explain this before. If you had a lesbian friend and and were introduced to her partner, would you call her the 'husband'?
No, you'd use the word 'partner'.
Similarly, if you were introduced to the male companion of a female friend, you wouldn't call him her husband or boyfriend, you would use the word 'partner' until you had some verification.
On official forms, we should not assume the sex of someone's partner. By using the word 'Dad', we do.
By using the word 'partner' we can be 100% accurate in assigning a relationship to someone.
I've tried to explain this before. If you had a lesbian friend and and were introduced to her partner, would you call her the 'husband'?
No, you'd use the word 'partner'.
Similarly, if you were introduced to the male companion of a female friend, you wouldn't call him her husband or boyfriend, you would use the word 'partner' until you had some verification.
On official forms, we should not assume the sex of someone's partner. By using the word 'Dad', we do.
By using the word 'partner' we can be 100% accurate in assigning a relationship to someone.
flip_flop
Again - you're using words like 'outrage'. That's too dailymailish. You have no reason to assume that the person in this case merely made a suggestion.
If you worked with a woman who preferred to be referred to as Ms Wilson, rather than Miss Wilson, would you say that she was outraged by you using a term she didn't like?
Again - you're using words like 'outrage'. That's too dailymailish. You have no reason to assume that the person in this case merely made a suggestion.
If you worked with a woman who preferred to be referred to as Ms Wilson, rather than Miss Wilson, would you say that she was outraged by you using a term she didn't like?
Flip_flop
Why should numbers matter anyway.
If you saw a pamphlet which referred to a woman's partner as 'partner' it would not in any way be factually incorrect, right?
If however, you were a woman in a relationship with another woman, and you saw your partner referred to a the 'father of the child', that would be inaccurate. Changing to the catch-all 'partner' is the easy way to ensure accuracy across the board...because if you call your other half your wife, missus, boyfriend, girlfriend, ball and chain...the word 'partner' is still 100% accurate.
When you think of it like that, doesn't it make sense?
Why should numbers matter anyway.
If you saw a pamphlet which referred to a woman's partner as 'partner' it would not in any way be factually incorrect, right?
If however, you were a woman in a relationship with another woman, and you saw your partner referred to a the 'father of the child', that would be inaccurate. Changing to the catch-all 'partner' is the easy way to ensure accuracy across the board...because if you call your other half your wife, missus, boyfriend, girlfriend, ball and chain...the word 'partner' is still 100% accurate.
When you think of it like that, doesn't it make sense?
OK, fair enough - for the sake of the argument let's say the (reported) single person merely made a suggestion.
Quite apart from the arrogance of the single person who suggested the change on behalf of everybody else, that fact remains that the majority of children are born to a husband and wife - and as a husband I would object to being called a partner.
But how I prefer to be known is largely irrelevant - what is relevant is that the change was made at all when there was no need to make the change, cost or no cost.
Quite apart from the arrogance of the single person who suggested the change on behalf of everybody else, that fact remains that the majority of children are born to a husband and wife - and as a husband I would object to being called a partner.
But how I prefer to be known is largely irrelevant - what is relevant is that the change was made at all when there was no need to make the change, cost or no cost.
@sp1814
The "Would I?" was in response to your incredibly presumptuous statement that you KNEW which word I would or would not use given your lesbian and heterosexual scenarios.
How do you know which words I would choose to use? Have you been in my company during said scenario and heard what I had to say? No.
At no point did I say I would ever refer to a lesbian as a 'husband' - that's simply ridiculous and you are merely twisting things to suit your own agenda.
Now there's a surprise.
The "Would I?" was in response to your incredibly presumptuous statement that you KNEW which word I would or would not use given your lesbian and heterosexual scenarios.
How do you know which words I would choose to use? Have you been in my company during said scenario and heard what I had to say? No.
At no point did I say I would ever refer to a lesbian as a 'husband' - that's simply ridiculous and you are merely twisting things to suit your own agenda.
Now there's a surprise.
Latest Posts
News6 mins ago
Film, Media & TV15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
Mad Cow Disease Rears Its Ugly Head In...
News20 mins ago
