"Mom," "dad," and "marriage" deemed homophobic terms in Scotland

[The Laughing Man]

Can't wait for this to come to America (and you know it will):

Use of ‘Mom’ and ‘Dad’ Too “Homophobic”, Scottish Nurses Told

EDINBURGH, Scotland, February 16, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Nurses and other health care professionals should avoid using the terms ‘mom’ and ‘dad’ to refer to family relationships since the terms could be offensive to homosexual couples with children, a new directive published by Scotland’s National Health Service recommends.

Issued in conjunction with the country’s leading homosexual activist organization Stonewall Scotland, the publication is entitled Fair For All - The Wider Challenge: Good LGBT Practice in the NHS. Americans for Truth reported Feb.11 on the publication’s release.

The booklet calls for a “zero-tolerance policy to discriminatory language” among Scotland’s health care system. Included in discriminatory language is the use of terms that assume a traditional family structure of mother, father and children, according to the NHS directive.

“LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered] people can and do have children, sexual orientation or gender identity has nothing to do with good parenting or good child care,” the booklet states.

“Individual circumstances lead to varied family structures and parenting arrangements. It is important to be aware of this. When talking to children, consider using ‘parents‘, ‘carers’ or ‘guardians’ rather than ‘mother’ or ‘father‘.

Along the same lines, the directive points out, use of the terms ‘husband’, ‘wife’ and ‘marriage’ is not acceptable since such terms exclude lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Instead, health care workers should use the terms ‘partners’ and ‘next of kin’. Since ‘next of kin’ is often understood to mean nearest blood relative, however, the booklet recommends that it may be preferable to use ‘partner, close friend or close relative’ to avoid confusion.

“This allows the patient to identify and choose who is important to them.”

Other recommendations include ensuring the health care environment is visually reassuring to LGBT people, with posters and magazines on LGBT issues on display.

“Posters with positive images of same-sex couples, alongside similar material depicting opposite-sex couples, should be displayed in all areas e.g. waiting areas, hospital wards.”

In order to better ensure the comfort and security of LGBT people in the health care environment, the NHS calls for sexual identity “monitoring forms” to be included in all registration procedures for both staff and patients. The booklet recommends five reply options to the question of sexual orientation, including ‘Lesbian‘, ‘Gay‘, ‘Bisexual‘, ‘Heterosexual‘, and ‘Other‘. Sections recording gender should be changed to have three reply options, ‘Male‘, ‘Female‘, or ‘Other, “where people can define their own gender.”

Among guidelines for implementing pro-LGBT policies in the health care system, the directive requires that management or team leader job descriptions include a mandatory commitment to combating any “discriminatory” language or attitudes among staff.

The booklet was funded by taxpayers through the NHS Education for Scotland, as part of the Equality and Diversity program.

(news tip http://americansfortruth.com/index.php )

View the full NHS publication here:
http://www.lgbthealthscotland.org.uk.../Good_LGBT_Pra...

See related LifeSiteNews coverage:

Scotland to Indoctrinate School Children with Anti-Homophobia Education
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06061902.html

Scottish Schools to Instruct Children How to Engage in "Safe" Homosexual Sex
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06052306.html"http...

Homosexual Activists Target UK Faith Schools, Adoption Policies
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06060203.html"http...

(c) Copyright: LifeSiteNews.com is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use LifeSiteNews.com).

[TheAnalogman]

This cannot possibly be true. I beg of you to tell me it's from the onion.com. Please?


Edited to add: Let's start a thread on how political correctness will slowly destroy western civilization.
I just can't get over this.

Super liberal: "A-man, get over this!"
A-man:

[Teallaura]

Yeah, we can't be too careful - after all, we wouldn't wanna care about the comfort and security of the majority of expectant parents, now would we?

[Jimmy Higgins]

This cannot possibly be true. I beg of you to tell me it's from the onion.com. Please?

Well, it is from Lifenews.com so it could possibly be just as fictional as if penned by The Onion.

[James Peter]

I doubt it is far from the truth. The fact is that 'non traditional family structures' are common in the UK now and that there is a strong push to encourage people not to just assume that everyone has a mother and a father. It isn't just an issue for LGBT parents though, it can apply to single parent families just as much.

Imagine the situation where a child's mother has died a year or so ago. A doctor asking the child to get her mother to do something can cause entirely avoidable stress...

The situation can get carried away (and often does) but as a general principle I think using inclusive language is entirely appropriate. I also don't think the article or original directive go as far as to describe such language as homophobic. It is (or at least can be) discriminatory but it is not homophobic because it comes simply out of ignorance (people don't think about it) rather than malice.

[Philosophickle]

What do they mean by "LGBT people can and do have children"?

[Ryokan]

This is crazy overboard for tolerance, and I don't support it. On the other hand, if this little bit of political correctness truly presages the end of western civilization then I don't think it is worth saving. Civilizations ought to be made of sterner stuff than minor censorship.

[James Peter]

What do they mean by "LGBT people can and do have children"?

Precisely that LGBT people are perfectly capable of having sex, having babies and being parents. Especially considering the recent change in adoption legislation in the UK the issue is increasingly relevant.

[Darth Executor]

This is crazy overboard for tolerance, and I don't support it. On the other hand, if this little bit of political correctness truly presages the end of western civilization then I don't think it is worth saving. Civilizations ought to be made of sterner stuff than minor censorship.

Look at the bright side, once Europe is completely displaced by a more savage and primitive culture we can go beat the crap out of them and have a great tourist resort.

[TheAnalogman]

This is crazy overboard for tolerance, and I don't support it. On the other hand, if this little bit of political correctness truly presages the end of western civilization then I don't think it is worth saving. Civilizations ought to be made of sterner stuff than minor censorship.

Minor censorship often becomes major censorship. This political correctness has been going on since the late 80's, IIRC, and I don't see much good fruit because of it.

[Philosophickle]

Precisely that LGBT people are perfectly capable of having sex, having babies and being parents. Especially considering the recent change in adoption legislation in the UK the issue is increasingly relevant.

Lesbians can make babies?
Something about plumbing problems.

[Dee Dee Warren]

What a load of stinking crap.

[Minnesota]

How telling that Jinx chose to use LifeSite's paraphrasing and interpretation rather than the actual words. HERE


LifeSite's presentation

Nurses and other health care professionals should avoid using the terms ‘mom’ and ‘dad’ to refer to family relationships since the terms could be offensive to homosexual couples with children, a new directive published by Scotland’s National Health Service recommends.

Doing a search of the entire original material, there is no use of the terms "mom," ("mum," ) or "dad," which LifeSite's use of quote indicates. In short, it's lying to the reader. However, the original DOES use the terms, "husband," and "wife." The original also does not use the term, "offensive" except in the following, which is not relevant to the Lifesite context.
.

Homophobic language can also be used to be
offensive and to discriminate. In the workplace
such language would be unlawful under the
Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation)
Regulations 20038.

So, nothing new here.

So where does LifeSite come off implying, "nurses and other health care professionals should avoid using the terms ‘mom’ and ‘dad’ to refer to family relationships since the terms could be offensive to homosexual couples with children"?

Good question because the closest the original comes to such an issue is

Partners and “next of kin”
Using the terms “husband”, “wife” and “marriage” assumes opposite sex relationships only and will automatically exclude all LGB people. Using the term “partner” and “they/them” to refer to the partner will avoid this problem. This is also inclusive of all heterosexual couples, regardless of their marital status.

Many people hold a mistaken belief that “next of kin” must be a married partner or blood relation. In order to avoid this confusion it may be advisable to use “partner, close friend or close relative”. This allows the patient to identify and choose who is important to them.

Absolutely no message in the original that the suggested change in terminology is to avoid offending homosexual couples with children. The change is to avoid "automatically excluding" homosexual couples with children from vital and pertinent statements because the of the limiting legal terms "husband" and "wife." (Page 7) And, as also stated, the change is also suggested so as to rectify the mistaken belief and possible confusion that “next of kin” must be a married partner or blood relation. Also, the change seeks to establish a more compassionate approach to those who may fear "a negative reaction if the assumptions [that "only opposite sex relationships are valid"]are challenged."

Then there is this from the Jinxy's OP

In order to better ensure the comfort and security of LGBT people in the health care environment, the NHS calls for sexual identity “monitoring forms” to be included in all registration procedures for both staff and patients.

Is this what it says? Guess again. The item says

Action Points

Encourage full participation to ensure
accurate monitoring

• Reassure LGBT people it is safe to provide
information by explaining in your
monitoring forms or questions why you
need the information and how it will be
stored and kept confidential.

So the purpose is NOT to provide "comfort and security . . .in the health care environment" but to "Reassure LGBT people it is safe to provide
information." The spin is subtle, but its intent is to suggest coddling LGBT's because they are simply LGBTs. And, of course, the original says nothing about such "identity" being "included in all registration procedures for both staff and patients." NOTHING AT ALL!! The LifeStyle deceit just goes on and on.

LifeSite has certainly shown its true colors by lying and deceiving its readers--is anyone really surprised? But, of course, the sheep will ignore and try to justify it because they must. How else to hang onto their homophobia in a world that is awakening to is insidious character? Jinx seems to have found a web site right up his ally, and I expect it won't be long before we see more crap coming out of the LifeSite cesspool of intolerance.

What kind a crap ya got next for us, Jinxy?

[Jimmy Higgins]

{Whole large load of debunking fun}
What kind a crap ya got next for us, Jinxy?

Thanks Minnesota. I figured you couldn't typically trust the other website Jinx typically links, if not WND. I just lacked the drive to care about debunking it.

Thanks for doing the legwork... everyone else can admit being fooled by Jinx's source. It's like people on the far right are incapable of telling fact from fiction.

[Ryokan]

Thanks Minnesota. I figured you couldn't typically trust the other website Jinx typically links, if not WND. I just lacked the drive to care about debunking it.

Thanks for doing the legwork... everyone else can admit being fooled by Jinx's source. It's like people on the far right are incapable of telling fact from fiction.

I must say I feel rather sheepish