Is it the end for Mr & Mrs? (From The Argus)

juleshove wrote:
Another very stupid idea from the greens . How can these people be elected !

lillylou wrote:
So what will one call there teacher ?

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
What about those of us who want to be addressed as Mr or Mrs on forms etc and see our title as an integral part of our names. Don't we have any rights?

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
When a lady has Mrs in front of their name, you usually know they are up for a bit of extra marital.
If they are Miss, they have the freedom to be a bit more choosy.
Also, I know employers who use the female title to decide whether to employ a female candidate.

kkj wrote:
Assuming that council forms are filled in without titles, how then are council staff going to address us in person? Calling me by my first name is a privilege reserved for those whom I choose to allow that privilege.

Call me just by my surname and you'll just be ignored.

Similarly, if I receive a letter addressed to Mx kkj, I will assume that its for someone else.

Vigilia wrote:
For Heaven's sake remove my this article before the City becomes the laughing stock of the nation.

jesss2012 wrote:
Blimey what you all getting your knickers (or pants or underwear) in a twist over. Its not gonna happen is it and if it does only the council will adopt it. Is a title really that important to people. And taking a stance against the whole transgender or gay community is hardly an intelligent or necessary reaction. Just my opinion. I'm a lesbian. I'm still married some call me Mrs, some call me Ms most call me idiot. stop stressing the little things huh :)

Fight_Back wrote:
I hate being called Mr Back. I have no problem with being addressed as Dear Fight. As one of my councillors that has assisted me in the past I have the up most respect for Dawn Barnett but she's making a mountain out of a molehill with this. What purpose does Mr, Ms, Miss or Mrs serve ?

John Steed wrote:
what with given names instead of cristian names, family name instead of surname, you can be irish ,welsh, scottish but not english only british or other. it only had to be a short wait for this sort of thing to appear, best treated with the contempt it deserves

deltaP wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:
I hate being called Mr Back. I have no problem with being addressed as Dear Fight. As one of my councillors that has assisted me in the past I have the up most respect for Dawn Barnett but she's making a mountain out of a molehill with this. What purpose does Mr, Ms, Miss or Mrs serve ?

The titles you refer to serve to distinguish those who wish to be distinguished, i.e the majority of the population. In fact, as we allegedly live in a democracy where majority opinion rules, there is no need to change anything.

ruberducker wrote:

deltaP wrote:

Fight_Back wrote: I hate being called Mr Back. I have no problem with being addressed as Dear Fight. As one of my councillors that has assisted me in the past I have the up most respect for Dawn Barnett but she's making a mountain out of a molehill with this. What purpose does Mr, Ms, Miss or Mrs serve ?

The titles you refer to serve to distinguish those who wish to be distinguished, i.e the majority of the population. In fact, as we allegedly live in a democracy where majority opinion rules, there is no need to change anything.

so what happened to british jobs for british workers,housing for our offspring,we cant fly the union jack-but its ok for a rainbow flag in brighton.

jimbobmaginty wrote:
So yet again the Transgender/gay community getting their own way! What about what the straight people want? What happens if the married people want to be Mr & Mrs? I like being called Mr and my Wife likes to be called MRS. Why should I be known by another title because some transgender can’t make up their mind if they want to be a woman or man? I think an opposition group might be needed here! But we are straight so any comments we may have against this will probably fall on deaf ears! After all we don’t want to upset the Gay community!

Martha Gunn wrote:
From the same people that brought you Speciesism and Solar Palm Trees. The Green Party are fast losing their grip.

rolivan wrote:
I would think that with a name like Phelim MacCafferty one doesnt need a title of Mr Mrs or Ms.Give them an inch and they want a yard.Why don't they all go off and build their Shangri La somewhere else and leave the rest of the City in Peace.

Bill in Hanover wrote:
As the Council and myself have never been formally introduced I would be insulted if they called me anything other than Mister.

jimbobmaginty wrote:
So yet again the Transgender/gay community getting their own way!

What about what the straight people want?

What happens if the married people want to be Mr & Mrs? I like being called Mr and my Wife likes to be called MRS.

Why should I be known by another title because some transgender can’t make up their mind if they want to be a woman or man?

I think an opposition group might be needed here! But we are straight so any comments we may have against this will probably fall on deaf ears! After all we don’t want to upset the Gay community!

BornInBrighton1968 wrote:

juleshove wrote:
Another very stupid idea from the greens . How can these people be elected !

You can blame students for that...

Idontbelieveit1948 wrote:
So Steph Scott Mr & Mrs are outdated - I suppose you think "genderqueer" is cutting edge. Me, I just think it's plain bl00dy daft. Please can you and the Greens just go and play somewhere quiet and private so the rest of us can get on with life in the real world witthout having to deal with such rubbish.

AmboGuy wrote:
It's not April 1st again is it?

I saw the headline and just assumed this must all be a joke.

What next, you can't ask someone which part of the city they live in in case it might upset them to admit they live in a crappy area?

The fact is that with more nationalities now living in the city it's not always obvious if a Christian name belongs to a make or female. This PC madness has to stop.

AmboGuy wrote:
It's not April 1st again is it?

I saw the headline and just assumed this must all be a joke.

What next, you can't ask someone which part of the city they live in in case it might upset them to admit they live in a crappy area?

The fact is that with more nationalities now living in the city it's not always obvious if a Christian name belongs to a make or female. This PC madness has to stop.

Idontbelieveit1948 wrote:
So Steph Scott Mr & Mrs are outdated - I suppose you think "genderqueer" is cutting edge. Me, I just think it's plain bl00dy daft.

Please can you and the Greens just go and play somewhere quiet and private so the rest of us can get on with life in the real world witthout having to deal with such rubbish.

Dr.Draconian wrote:
I take extreme offence to the use of the terms "he" & "she" that proliferate the comments left above. I demand that Jo Wadsworth edit the comments removing these offensive & discriminatory labels immediately.

Cyclic wrote:
Perhaps "Comrade" would be better for all. Then we could get rid of all the titles such as Councellor, Sir, lady, Doctor, Reverend, Highness, Prince(ess). I personally wish to be Gender, class, Family and species neutral and therefore wish to be called "Snirk" although this does pigeonhole me as I use the alphabet.

Jacobdog wrote:
Don't make the mistake of blaming the gay community for the views of some transgender activists; I've never heard any gay people mention this issue before, this is a green party idea based on misplaced ideas of what equality means. In fact most transgender people identify as male or female so I'm not sure there will be much support there either.

The equalities lobbysists do so much good work so its a shame that it gets damaged by trivial obsessions by politicians. If the council feels strongly about transgender equality then maybe they could take more action to support people going through the difficult process of finding their identity and living with prejudice.

Proposals like this make no improvement to the lives of transgender people and only make the greens look stupid. Perhaps making the 'title' box in questionnaires optional would achieve the same aim without alienating the people they need to vote for them.

kayleighswift wrote:
The only people that *really* need to know my gender/sex are my doctor and my partner.

Having lived as both sexes, I can clearly state that I don't identify fully with either. But society forces me to pick one. I have to choose one and then I have to advertise it - on my ID, my debit cards, my clothes, my hair, my voice, the way I act, the things I'm in to... the minute I have one of those that doesn't match the others I'm suddenly a freak. Somebody who should be made fun of, spat at, denied service and assaulted.

Personally I like to wear somewhat gender-neutral clothes, wear my hair in what most people would describe as a feminine style, but my voice is a little deep. I also like to take part in male-dominant activities as well as female dominated ones, and sometimes my body language & mannerisms vary. Meeting me in the street, you might not be able to tell my sex. But again, why do you need to know? Unfortunately, because of this, I do suffer abuse and negative treatment from others on a frequent basis. Have I hurt anybody? No, I am simply trying to be myself.

There are *many* things that need to be changed to solve all the problems I face in society because I don't fit into the neat little boxes of "male" or "female", but this is a good start to demonstrate to society that people should not be defined or prejudged based on a few letters in front of the name on their debit card.

If you want to be defined by "Mr" or "Mrs" or whatever, that's fine. Just please don't force me into a box.

kayleighswift wrote:
The only people that *really* need to know my gender/sex are my doctor and my partner.

Having lived as both sexes, I can clearly state that I don't identify fully with either. But society forces me to pick one. I have to choose one and then I have to advertise it - on my ID, my debit cards, my clothes, my hair, my voice, the way I act, the things I'm in to... the minute I have one of those that doesn't match the others I'm suddenly a freak. Somebody who should be made fun of, spat at, denied service and assaulted.

Personally I like to wear somewhat gender-neutral clothes, wear my hair in what most people would describe as a feminine style, but my voice is a little deep. I also like to take part in male-dominant activities as well as female dominated ones, and sometimes my body language & mannerisms vary. Meeting me in the street, you might not be able to tell my sex. But again, why do you need to know? Unfortunately, because of this, I do suffer abuse and negative treatment from others on a frequent basis. Have I hurt anybody? No, I am simply trying to be myself.

There are *many* things that need to be changed to solve all the problems I face in society because I don't fit into the neat little boxes of "male" or "female", but this is a good start to demonstrate to society that people should not be defined or prejudged based on a few letters in front of the name on their debit card.

If you want to be defined by "Mr" or "Mrs" or whatever, that's fine. Just please don't force me into a box.

Jacobdog wrote:

sexyhips69 wrote:
This is so sick! A man is a man and a woman is a woman. For Christ sake Brighton & Hove Council, get your act together before this city is made the laughing stock of the world. Please do not advertise and promote homosexuality. It is so repulsive!

Don't speak another word, freedom of speech is a privilige you don't deserve.

Jacobdog wrote:

sexyhips69 wrote:
This is so sick! A man is a man and a woman is a woman. For Christ sake Brighton & Hove Council, get your act together before this city is made the laughing stock of the world. Please do not advertise and promote homosexuality. It is so repulsive!

Don't speak another word, freedom of speech is a privilige you don't deserve.

john newman wrote:
Yet again a national laughing stock. See Daily Express

PorkBoat wrote:
Google "Cultural Marxism" and "The Frankfurt School" to see the kind of world that the Greens want, as well as all the main political parties do in varying degrees, even the Tories. Also, they are shovelling this crap down the throats of our kids all the way from Primary School to University. Their aim is to destroy Western civilisation and culture. Some people think this is "A Very Good Thing". These people need to swing from lamp posts.

Jacobdog wrote:
Don't make the mistake of blaming the gay community for the views of some transgender activists; I've never heard any gay people mention this issue before, this is a green party idea based on misplaced ideas of what equality means. In fact most transgender people identify as male or female so I'm not sure there will be much support there either.

The equalities lobbysists do so much good work so its a shame that it gets damaged by trivial obsessions by politicians. If the council feels strongly about transgender equality then maybe they could take more action to support people going through the difficult process of finding their identity and living with prejudice.

Proposals like this make no improvement to the lives of transgender people and only make the greens look stupid. Perhaps making the 'title' box in questionnaires optional would achieve the same aim without alienating the people they need to vote for them.

jesss2012 wrote:
Blimey what you all getting your knickers (or pants or underwear) in a twist over. Its not gonna happen is it and if it does only the council will adopt it. Is a title really that important to people. And taking a stance against the whole transgender or gay community is hardly an intelligent or necessary reaction. Just my opinion. I'm a lesbian. I'm still married some call me Mrs, some call me Ms most call me idiot. stop stressing the little things huh :)

saveHOVE wrote:

Jacobdog wrote: Don't make the mistake of blaming the gay community for the views of some transgender activists; I've never heard any gay people mention this issue before, this is a green party idea based on misplaced ideas of what equality means. In fact most transgender people identify as male or female so I'm not sure there will be much support there either. The equalities lobbysists do so much good work so its a shame that it gets damaged by trivial obsessions by politicians. If the council feels strongly about transgender equality then maybe they could take more action to support people going through the difficult process of finding their identity and living with prejudice. Proposals like this make no improvement to the lives of transgender people and only make the greens look stupid. Perhaps making the 'title' box in questionnaires optional would achieve the same aim without alienating the people they need to vote for them.

I'm very much with you on this. You express the argument very sensitively too. Phelim MacCafferty is fast shaping up as some kind of hapless Trojan Horse demolishing the Green Party from within by barging about, head-butting the public with his carelessly narrow interests. He isn't representing the city in any - dare I say it - HOLISTIC - way. That he was elevated to the position of Deputy Leader tells you that what he does and says is supported by the rest and its too bad. He is a deeply intelligent man with a lot to offer. But he is making it clear he is a cultist by nature and a cultist in practice and using the Green Party to advance his hobbyhorse interests quite ruthlessly, relentlessly and without apology to anyone. Pray for him. It'll enrage him.

whatmost of us think wrote:
Transgender (to my understanding) means being unsure of your sex even though you may be physically male or female. It does not mean you are gay, like dressing up as the opposite sex or want to become a person of the opposite sex to what you appear to be.
Are the people who raised this truly transgender rather than transvestite or transsexual? Or just stirring things up for the sake of it?
I am Mr, and proud to be. If someone does not want to be designated Mr, Mrs etc then let them come up with a new title. But do not stop the majority calling themselves what they want to. Equality works all ways.

Just asking! wrote:
Is this suggestion coming from the same Green Party that insists on having one each of male and female leaders/deputy leaders. No sign of gender neutrality there - Cllr Philips was eliminated from the Deputy Leadership election purely on the basis of her gender.

DB Brighton wrote:
Great!
If I don't want to be presumptuous in using someone's first name, how do I pronounce "Mx"?

see and speak sense wrote:

kayleighswift wrote:
The only people that *really* need to know my gender/sex are my doctor and my partner.

Having lived as both sexes, I can clearly state that I don't identify fully with either. But society forces me to pick one. I have to choose one and then I have to advertise it - on my ID, my debit cards, my clothes, my hair, my voice, the way I act, the things I'm in to... the minute I have one of those that doesn't match the others I'm suddenly a freak. Somebody who should be made fun of, spat at, denied service and assaulted.

Personally I like to wear somewhat gender-neutral clothes, wear my hair in what most people would describe as a feminine style, but my voice is a little deep. I also like to take part in male-dominant activities as well as female dominated ones, and sometimes my body language & mannerisms vary. Meeting me in the street, you might not be able to tell my sex. But again, why do you need to know? Unfortunately, because of this, I do suffer abuse and negative treatment from others on a frequent basis. Have I hurt anybody? No, I am simply trying to be myself.

There are *many* things that need to be changed to solve all the problems I face in society because I don't fit into the neat little boxes of "male" or "female", but this is a good start to demonstrate to society that people should not be defined or prejudged based on a few letters in front of the name on their debit card.

If you want to be defined by "Mr" or "Mrs" or whatever, that's fine. Just please don't force me into a box.

Isn't it interesting that you state" please don't force me into a box"... Yet the rest of Brighton and Hove is forced into a box by the removal by mr and mrs ??
Or are we now facing a new reality that actually those who are happy with their gender , title,etc are the majority grouping that are victimised. . Being made a nothing for the purpose of equality??
This greens sounds more and more like animal farm!!

Isn't it interesting that you state" please don't force me into a box"... Yet the rest of Brighton and Hove is forced into a box by the removal by mr and mrs ??

Or are we now facing a new reality that actually those who are happy with their gender , title,etc are the majority grouping that are victimised.

Old Ladys Gin wrote:

kayleighswift wrote:
The only people that *really* need to know my gender/sex are my doctor and my partner.

Having lived as both sexes, I can clearly state that I don't identify fully with either. But society forces me to pick one. I have to choose one and then I have to advertise it - on my ID, my debit cards, my clothes, my hair, my voice, the way I act, the things I'm in to... the minute I have one of those that doesn't match the others I'm suddenly a freak. Somebody who should be made fun of, spat at, denied service and assaulted.

Personally I like to wear somewhat gender-neutral clothes, wear my hair in what most people would describe as a feminine style, but my voice is a little deep. I also like to take part in male-dominant activities as well as female dominated ones, and sometimes my body language & mannerisms vary. Meeting me in the street, you might not be able to tell my sex. But again, why do you need to know? Unfortunately, because of this, I do suffer abuse and negative treatment from others on a frequent basis. Have I hurt anybody? No, I am simply trying to be myself.

There are *many* things that need to be changed to solve all the problems I face in society because I don't fit into the neat little boxes of "male" or "female", but this is a good start to demonstrate to society that people should not be defined or prejudged based on a few letters in front of the name on their debit card.

If you want to be defined by "Mr" or "Mrs" or whatever, that's fine. Just please don't force me into a box.

Yes, but it's not all about you!

brightonbreezy wrote:
I am an old man who cares not one iota what people choose to wear, or indeed whether they physically have poles or holes, but I DO care about wasting time and money on trivialities. My MRS and I are both J, so please send everything to us as MR and MRS, so we don't have any arguments about whose post we are opening. Thanks!

kayleighswift wrote:

see and speak sense wrote:

kayleighswift wrote:
The only people that *really* need to know my gender/sex are my doctor and my partner.

Having lived as both sexes, I can clearly state that I don't identify fully with either. But society forces me to pick one. I have to choose one and then I have to advertise it - on my ID, my debit cards, my clothes, my hair, my voice, the way I act, the things I'm in to... the minute I have one of those that doesn't match the others I'm suddenly a freak. Somebody who should be made fun of, spat at, denied service and assaulted.

Personally I like to wear somewhat gender-neutral clothes, wear my hair in what most people would describe as a feminine style, but my voice is a little deep. I also like to take part in male-dominant activities as well as female dominated ones, and sometimes my body language & mannerisms vary. Meeting me in the street, you might not be able to tell my sex. But again, why do you need to know? Unfortunately, because of this, I do suffer abuse and negative treatment from others on a frequent basis. Have I hurt anybody? No, I am simply trying to be myself.

There are *many* things that need to be changed to solve all the problems I face in society because I don't fit into the neat little boxes of "male" or "female", but this is a good start to demonstrate to society that people should not be defined or prejudged based on a few letters in front of the name on their debit card.

If you want to be defined by "Mr" or "Mrs" or whatever, that's fine. Just please don't force me into a box.

Isn't it interesting that you state" please don't force me into a box"... Yet the rest of Brighton and Hove is forced into a box by the removal by mr and mrs ??
Or are we now facing a new reality that actually those who are happy with their gender , title,etc are the majority grouping that are victimised. . Being made a nothing for the purpose of equality??
This greens sounds more and more like animal farm!!

Isn't it interesting that you state" please don't force me into a box"... Yet the rest of Brighton and Hove is forced into a box by the removal by mr and mrs ??

Are they? Really? I can't tell if you're being serious or not. How does the removal of your gender force you into a box? Mr, Mrs, Miss and Ms are just labels to say what gender you are. Putting that label on a person is akin to sorting them in to a box. Taking those labels off forms doesn't mean you don't get to use them if you so wish - put it in front of your name if it really bothers you that much. None of those labels fit me, so I should be free not to have to use them.

Or are we now facing a new reality that actually those who are happy with their gender , title,etc are the majority grouping that are victimised.

I'm perfectly happy with my gender, it's society that isn't. I simply don't want a title, and don't want to be forced to use one.

Seriously, how are you being 'victimised' by not being required to do something?! Makes no sense.

saveHOVE wrote:

whatmost of us think wrote: Transgender (to my understanding) means being unsure of your sex even though you may be physically male or female. It does not mean you are gay, like dressing up as the opposite sex or want to become a person of the opposite sex to what you appear to be. Are the people who raised this truly transgender rather than transvestite or transsexual? Or just stirring things up for the sake of it? I am Mr, and proud to be. If someone does not want to be designated Mr, Mrs etc then let them come up with a new title. But do not stop the majority calling themselves what they want to. Equality works all ways.

Do you know the word 'hermaphrodite'? How would you deal with the situation if you had a baby and learned your child was born with the equipment of both sexes ? Whilst most of us are born with a clear physical identity - male, female, there are hormonal, physical variations along a spectrum and a lot of mental and emotional pain is experienced by people whose sexuality is not explicitly male or female, whose hormones, etc. whose hardwiring can mean that they are not able to relate sexually with the opposite sex (if they have a clear sex of their own), etc. etc. Decades of campaigning and legal changes (being homosexual is still illegal in some countries) to gain recognition of difference and to gain respect for difference (racial too) has been needed to gain a level playing field for people in this situation. Please be careful of how you argue against this LGBT activist demand which unfairly seeks to erase difference itself.

MuammarQaddafi wrote:
As an LGBT person, one of those on whose behalf all this shouting is happening, I let people address me as Ms, Mr, Mrs, or with no title at all. I don't mind and it lets me know how THEY think of me by what title they choose. Just as you can choose Mr, Mrs, Miss, or Ms now, simply add another tick box that says No Title. Sorted.

chico234 wrote:
Apart from the very reasonableletter from Kaylieghswift,, all the contributions to this debate you have chosen to put on your website are opposed to the Mr./Mrs. suggestion.

With such a number of letters this can only be a reflection of editorial policy.
While you are happy to print a recomendation that 'the greens should swing from lamp posts', you have not the grace to produce a balanced selection of letters.

If your response to this is that this represents the postbag you received, it would suggest that your contributors are a uniformly and alarmingly narrow-minded group of people, which I doubt is the case.

Sam.A.E.L. wrote:
This article seems to be based on a misunderstanding: The council is not banning titles, nor are they removing them completely - they are merely making it and OPTION to remove your title if you wish.

Also, let's get the funding part right: The trans scrutiny wasn't summoned just to get rid of titles in the city, the scrutiny is working across a range of different issues: working with mental health to lower suicide rates, educating people on transgender issues, lowering hate crime towards trans people (many transgender people face a very real risk of being murdered), making health care more accessible etc.
If you want to get productively involved, here's the link to the scrutiny on BHCC website: http://www.brighton-

hove.gov.uk/index.cf

m?request=c1210574

juleshove wrote:
I have met thousands of people in my lifetime and never yet met someone who doesn't know their gender.

For the tiny percentage of people who don't know their gender, i presume there is help available to them from a mental health professional.

Why are the Greens wasting time and OUR money with this nonsense.

Vote for Labour, Liberal democrats or Tories, at least they have some understanding of what a councillor is meant to do even if you don't agree with all of it.

The Greens are just one big embarrasement - even for my 11 year old !

Sam.A.E.L. wrote:
This article seems to be based on a misunderstanding: The council is not banning titles, nor are they removing them completely - they are merely making it and OPTION to remove your title if you wish.

Also, let's get the funding part right: The trans scrutiny wasn't summoned just to get rid of titles in the city, the scrutiny is working across a range of different issues: working with mental health to lower suicide rates, educating people on transgender issues, lowering hate crime towards trans people (many transgender people face a very real risk of being murdered), making health care more accessible etc.
If you want to get productively involved, here's the link to the scrutiny on BHCC website: http://www.brighton-

hove.gov.uk/index.cf

m?request=c1210574

Ced wrote:

DB Brighton wrote:
Great!
If I don't want to be presumptuous in using someone's first name, how do I pronounce "Mx"?

"Muks" perhaps
Too many of the good people of Brighton voted Green and got these crackpot, marxist social engineers in power who should be sectioned under the mental health act. Oh well live and learn.

Valerie Paynter wrote:

chico234 wrote:
Apart from the very reasonableletter from Kaylieghswift,, all the contributions to this debate you have chosen to put on your website are opposed to the Mr./Mrs. suggestion.

With such a number of letters this can only be a reflection of editorial policy.
While you are happy to print a recomendation that 'the greens should swing from lamp posts', you have not the grace to produce a balanced selection of letters.

If your response to this is that this represents the postbag you received, it would suggest that your contributors are a uniformly and alarmingly narrow-minded group of people, which I doubt is the case.

THESE COMMENTS ARE NOT EDITED LETTERS !

The Argus has not removed any pro comments - would not, unless libellous or obscene, as a rule.

You are looking at public reaction as it is. If you can cough up evidence from a person YOU KNOW, who is identifiable in some way who has put a pro post here and had it removed, do tell us with another post of your own - which you will have noticed has not been removed.

Or have you posted this comment in some sad attempt at getting away with black propaganda you think some fool will believe?

Valerie Paynter wrote:

Sam.A.E.L. wrote: This article seems to be based on a misunderstanding: The council is not banning titles, nor are they removing them completely - they are merely making it and OPTION to remove your title if you wish. Also, let's get the funding part right: The trans scrutiny wasn't summoned just to get rid of titles in the city, the scrutiny is working across a range of different issues: working with mental health to lower suicide rates, educating people on transgender issues, lowering hate crime towards trans people (many transgender people face a very real risk of being murdered), making health care more accessible etc. If you want to get productively involved, here's the link to the scrutiny on BHCC website: http://www.brighton- hove.gov.uk/index.cf m?request=c1210574

The Scrutiny Panel you refer to has not even published a report to Full Council yet but the world is getting the info before BHCC Councillors. Do I understand that right? Including from you? Hope you arn't an officer or someone from that Panel! I thought the Panel looked at lesbian, gay, bi-sexual AND trans issues....but your post seems to suggest it was trans-focussed....is that right? How many trans people live in the city and how much did this scrutiny panel cost in terms of officer time, councillor time and cold hard cash? Could the issues you raise not have been raised in a deputation of trans people to a Full Council meeting - the message given in a five minute speech? Just asking.....

chico234 wrote:

Valerie Paynter wrote:

chico234 wrote:
Apart from the very reasonableletter from Kaylieghswift,, all the contributions to this debate you have chosen to put on your website are opposed to the Mr./Mrs. suggestion.


With such a number of letters this can only be a reflection of editorial policy.
While you are happy to print a recomendation that 'the greens should swing from lamp posts', you have not the grace to produce a balanced selection of letters.

If your response to this is that this represents the postbag you received, it would suggest that your contributors are a uniformly and alarmingly narrow-minded group of people, which I doubt is the case.

THESE COMMENTS ARE NOT EDITED LETTERS !

The Argus has not removed any pro comments - would not, unless libellous or obscene, as a rule.

You are looking at public reaction as it is. If you can cough up evidence from a person YOU KNOW, who is identifiable in some way who has put a pro post here and had it removed, do tell us with another post of your own - which you will have noticed has not been removed.

Or have you posted this comment in some sad attempt at getting away with black propaganda you think some fool will believe?

In my letter, in my unfamiliarity with internet form, I assumed that there was some mechanism on line for checking letters before publishing them. While you say this is not the case you do admit that libellous or obscene content is subject to removal.Would this then be after its appearance on line?

The heat generated by what Sam A.E.L. describes as no more than an added option to remove your title if you wish.suggests that some contributors are more emotionally involved in their opposition to LGBT or Green activity than it warrents.

chico234 wrote:

Valerie Paynter wrote:

chico234 wrote:
Apart from the very reasonableletter from Kaylieghswift,, all the contributions to this debate you have chosen to put on your website are opposed to the Mr./Mrs. suggestion.

With such a number of letters this can only be a reflection of editorial policy.
While you are happy to print a recomendation that 'the greens should swing from lamp posts', you have not the grace to produce a balanced selection of letters.

If your response to this is that this represents the postbag you received, it would suggest that your contributors are a uniformly and alarmingly narrow-minded group of people, which I doubt is the case.

THESE COMMENTS ARE NOT EDITED LETTERS !

The Argus has not removed any pro comments - would not, unless libellous or obscene, as a rule.

You are looking at public reaction as it is. If you can cough up evidence from a person YOU KNOW, who is identifiable in some way who has put a pro post here and had it removed, do tell us with another post of your own - which you will have noticed has not been removed.

Or have you posted this comment in some sad attempt at getting away with black propaganda you think some fool will believe?

In my letter, in my unfamiliarity with internet form, I assumed that there was some mechanism on line for checking letters before publishing them. While you say this is not the case you do admit that libellous or obscene content is subject to removal.Would this then be after its appearance on line?

The heat generated by what Sam A.E.L. describes as no more than an added option to remove your title if you wish.suggests that some contributors are more emotionally involved in their opposition to LGBT or Green activity than it warrents.

chico234 wrote:

Valerie Paynter wrote:

chico234 wrote:
Apart from the very reasonableletter from Kaylieghswift,, all the contributions to this debate you have chosen to put on your website are opposed to the Mr./Mrs. suggestion.

With such a number of letters this can only be a reflection of editorial policy.
While you are happy to print a recomendation that 'the greens should swing from lamp posts', you have not the grace to produce a balanced selection of letters.

If your response to this is that this represents the postbag you received, it would suggest that your contributors are a uniformly and alarmingly narrow-minded group of people, which I doubt is the case.

THESE COMMENTS ARE NOT EDITED LETTERS !

The Argus has not removed any pro comments - would not, unless libellous or obscene, as a rule.

You are looking at public reaction as it is. If you can cough up evidence from a person YOU KNOW, who is identifiable in some way who has put a pro post here and had it removed, do tell us with another post of your own - which you will have noticed has not been removed.

Or have you posted this comment in some sad attempt at getting away with black propaganda you think some fool will believe?

In my letter, in my unfamiliarity with internet form, I assumed that there was some mechanism on line for checking letters before publishing them. While you say this is not the case you do admit that libellous or obscene content is subject to removal.Would this then be after its appearance on line?

The heat generated by what Sam A.E.L. describes as no more than an added option to remove your title if you wish.suggests that some contributors are more emotionally involved in their opposition to LGBT or Green activity than it warrents.

chico234 wrote:
Apart from the very reasonableletter from Kaylieghswift,, all the contributions to this debate you have chosen to put on your website are opposed to the Mr./Mrs. suggestion.

With such a number of letters this can only be a reflection of editorial policy.
While you are happy to print a recomendation that 'the greens should swing from lamp posts', you have not the grace to produce a balanced selection of letters.

If your response to this is that this represents the postbag you received, it would suggest that your contributors are a uniformly and alarmingly narrow-minded group of people, which I doubt is the case.

ruberducker wrote:
why cant the "normal" people of brighton be left alone,as brightonions we have allways been exepted community to all walks of life,the pc loooony melons are now taking the preverble urine.
if you want to change your self from a martin into a mary"thats fine your choice"but also "your problem"why do hetrosexual's have to bow down to being all pc so you dont get upset.all you here now is i cant get on in life becuase im black,disabled,gay etc what about the "normal people".

chico234 wrote:
I was moved to write my original 'comment' when I saw the massive imbalance in contributions. I might add that some of the contributors sound unbalanced too.

I have a better understanding of how this forum works but I am still shocked at the lack of generosity shown by such a large proportion of contributors.

Brighton has a reputation for tolerance of eccentricity and difference. If the contributors here are representative of the general public in this town we must assume that this reputation is not founded in the reality.

Fortunately, I know Brighton people to be generally warm and generous,,unlike the overwhelming weight of numbers of contributors to this thread.

Malibu1963 wrote:
When I was growing up we had three people in the house with the same initial 'A'. If no titles were used who would open mail addressed to 'A'? Mrs A, Mr A or Miss A? Confidentiality would no longer exist, it is an integral part of who we are and it is all part of having good manners, something seriously lacking in today's society!!

The Baron Pepperpot wrote:
Folk should remember that the committe involved in this process is cross party.

chico234 wrote:
I was moved to write my original 'comment' when I saw the massive imbalance in contributions. I might add that some of the contributors sound unbalanced too.

I have a better understanding of how this forum works but I am still shocked at the lack of generosity shown by such a large proportion of contributors.

Brighton has a reputation for tolerance of eccentricity and difference. If the contributors here are representative of the general public in this town we must assume that this reputation is not founded in the reality.

Fortunately, I know Brighton people to be generally warm and generous,,unlike the overwhelming weight of numbers of contributors to this thread.

chico234 wrote:
Using the word 'acceptance' instead of 'tolerance' is a reasonable suggestion.

danielleconner wrote:
As both someone who was at the public meeting and took part in one of the small groups who suggested that perhaps was to limited a choose on forms for the diverse populations that Brighton have and also a transgendered person.

I am frankly shocked and amazed and completely saddened, by several points in the current public coverage of this issue, especially when I think my parents and friends will read these articles and there unbalanced opinions.
However I have to say this has not been helped by Steph Scott quote
“LGBT activist Steph Scott said: 'Being called Mr or Mrs forces me to choose between genders.
'It's assuming people live in a binary world where you're either one thing or another and it pigeonholes people.
'I think it's a good idea to expand across the city because it's about getting people to be aware that gender isn't just male or female.'”

I think Steph Scott who is influential in the community should think very carefully before giving sound bites and quotes to reporters about the impact of her words, on the community but enough said about that point.
The point I wish to make is I WANT to be called Ms , I have worked very hard to be called Ms and it is not something I would like to see taken away from me by the application of this policy. I do believe and this was the original point in the meeting that people should be able to select other or to opt out of specifying there gender if it makes them uncomfortable , but personally I would be saddened should my right to be a Ms. be taken away.

redpyjamas wrote:
Please note - this article is extremely misleading - the council is not planning to scrap the use of mr and mrs on forms, but is considering adding in an extra option for people who feel neither fit them. It is considering more choices, not less. And it hasnt been decided, it's just being considered.
Scrapping them entirely would be ridiculous and unfair, but no one has suggested that.