Sigh.

---------------

http://www.washingto...1010706741.html

Parent One, Parent Two to replace references to mother, father on passport forms

Goodbye, Mom and Dad. Hello, Parent One and Parent Two.

The State Department has decided to make U.S. passport application forms "gender neutral" by removing references to mother and father, officials said, in favor of language that describes one's parentage somewhat less tenderly.

The change is "in recognition of different types of families," according to a statement issued just before Christmas

Many years ago I worked as a probation officer. The PC idiots in charge of the Council building decided that the Men and Women signs should be removed from the toilets for similar reasons. The convicted sex offenders found the confusion most amusing. Funnily, the women in the registry didn't see the joke........................

The change is "in recognition of different types of families,"

Sounds sensible. With a number of same-sex parent couples adopting/having children, and for the children, this makes life easier, without affecting hetero parents in the slightest.

This is NOT a case of "PC-gone-to-far", but common sense.

(and don't get me wrong....I am often a critic of "PC-gone-to-far".)

I think names like "John" and "Barry" are a bit of a give away when it comes to gender.

What utter nonsense, no doubt the muppet who dreamt this up is earning a mint.

And besides, somebody should let them know that "parent 1" and "parent 2" is discriminatory against families which have more than 2 parents.

That'll piss on their fireworks.

Anybody who has worked in bureaucracy, will appreciate a move such as this. It's difficult and tedious if people don't fit into one of the boxes to be checked.

And anyway, why should a child be penalized if his/her parents are his/his or her/her?

Anybody who has worked in bureaucracy, will appreciate a move such as this. It's difficult and tedious if people don't fit into one of the boxes to be checked.

And anyway, why should a child be penalized if his/her parents are his/his or her/her?

By the same token, why should the vast majority of children be penalized by having to decide which parent is number one and which is number two?

This is PC on steroids.

Anybody who has worked in bureaucracy, will appreciate a move such as this. It's difficult and tedious if people don't fit into one of the boxes to be checked.

And anyway, why should a child be penalized if his/her parents are his/his or her/her?

By the same token, why should the vast majority of children be penalized by having to decide which parent is number one and which is number two?

This is PC on steroids.

This is true.

Traditionally you'd imagine the Father to be parent number 1, but could that not be deemed sexist?

Definitely elitist.

I would of course be Parent 1 and my wife/girlfriend/current partner would be parent 2.

No way would I accept the designation 2 in such circumstances.

Of course, I have also named my children One, Two, Thee and Four.

This is not in order of age, nor does gender control this.

It is solely whether they were born in the first, second, third or fourth quarter of a year.

Difficult if three were born in July, say. But I'll find a way round that.

If the spell the one backwards................eno, no on can take offence and all will have a settled tummy

Definitely elitist.

I would of course be Parent 1 and my wife/girlfriend/current partner would be parent 2.

No way would I accept the designation 2 in such circumstances.

Of course, I have also named my children One, Two, Thee and Four.

This is not in order of age, nor does gender control this.

It is solely whether they were born in the first, second, third or fourth quarter of a year.

Difficult if three were born in July, say. But I'll find a way round that.

Is that the fiscal year or the calendar year?

Is that the fiscal year or the calendar year?

It was the calendar year, but now that several more are on the way I am changing to the Chinese calendar.

So there will be twelve basics - Rat, Tiger, Horse and so on - plus the four elements Earth, Wind, Fire and water.

That covers a good few kids.

A colleague of mine follows a different principle, calling his kids after their birth date - January Twelfth; March Ninth; so on. That way he never forgets their birthdays.

All this gender neutrality is simply solved by taking such measures.

(Although personally I'd just cut the balls of the guy who proposed this. But his wife did that soon after marriage)

Anybody who has worked in bureaucracy, will appreciate a move such as this. It's difficult and tedious if people don't fit into one of the boxes to be checked.

And anyway, why should a child be penalized if his/her parents are his/his or her/her?

By the same token, why should the vast majority of children be penalized by having to decide which parent is number one and which is number two?

This is PC on steroids.

"Penalised by having to decide which is "one" and which is "two"?????!!!!????

THAT is pc on steroids!

To think that this forces children to "rank" their parents, and to futhermore call it "penalising", is to take a very low-brow, literal, narrow view.

It doesn't matter which parent is labeled "one" or "two"....the parents are still parents, and there are usually 2 of them.....it's not as if this is asking to rank them.

Instead of Parent 1 and Parent 2 the choice should be Mother/Father and Mother/Father just crossing out the irrelevant choice for each but I suspect that even that wouldn't satisfy those who are determined to be offended by progress.

only in America, we hope

Reminds me of these online opinion polls I subscribe to, (I pick up a couple of hundred dollars in book shop vouchers each year), some of them have a small forum to discuss the polls and polling methods.

One of the major sources of contention is the personal details questions that ask "are you married/in a relationship".

You'd be amazed at the people who get really angry claiming "IT'S NOT THE SAME THING".

I find it a bit confusing.

Parent = A father or mother; one who begets or one who gives birth to or nurtures and raises a child; a relative who plays the role of guardian.

Snip:

SUBMIT A PASSPORT APPLICATION FOR A MINOR UNDER AGE 16:

Read and understand Steps 1 - 9 before leaving this page.

1. Complete Form DS-11: Application For A U.S. Passport

2. Submit Form DS-11: Application For A U.S. Passport In Person

3. Submit Child's Evidence of U.S. Citizenship

4. Submit Evidence of Relationship Between Child and Parent(s)/Guardian(s)

5. Present Identification of Parent(s)/Guardian(s)

6. Submit a Photocopy of Each Parent/Guardian ID Document To Be Presented (Step 5)

SUBMIT A U.S. PASSPORT APPLICATION FOR AN ADULT IN PERSON:

Read and understand Steps 1 - 7 before leaving this page.

1. Fill Out Form DS-11: Application For A U.S. Passport

2. Submit Completed Form DS-11 In Person

3. Submit Evidence of U.S. Citizenship

4. Present Identification

5. Submit a Photocopy of the Identification Document(s) Presented (Step 4)

6. Pay the Applicable Fee

7. Provide Two Passport Photos

So when 16 and above there is no need to indicate "Parents" it seems.

When applying for a minor under age 16, both parent(s)/guardian(s) must present acceptable identification at the time of application.

Primary Identification (One of the following):

Previously issued, undamaged U.S. passport

Naturalization Certificate

Valid Driver's License

Current Government Employee ID (city, state or federal)

Current Military ID (military and dependents)

If you cannot present primary identification, you must submit as much secondary identification as possible.

A Combination of Identifying Documents

Present a combination of documents that can be used to verify your personal identity. These documents are not acceptable as secondary identification when presented alone.

Example: Social Security Card + Credit Card + Employee ID + Library Card

An Identifying Witness

An identifying witness is a person who can swear to your identity. He or she must:

* Be present at the time of application

* Have known you for at least 2 years

* Be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident

* Have valid ID

* Fill out Form DS-71: Affidavit of Identifying Witness in the presence of a Passport Agent

That I find the most interesting.

Swear, what exactly does that mean and is any evidence required that the witness knew the applicant for at least two years?

An Identifying Witness

An identifying witness is a person who can swear to your identity. He or she must:

* Be present at the time of application

* Have known you for at least 2 years

* Be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident

* Have valid ID

* Fill out Form DS-71: Affidavit of Identifying Witness in the presence of a Passport Agent

Swear, what exactly does that mean and is any evidence required that the witness knew the applicant for at least two years?

A few years back (2007) I lost my passport (UK) while in Thailand and had to apply for a new one. Knowing no one there very well, and certainly note many British citizens, I got a guy in a bar to sign my photos and application for a new passport. Didn't even have to buy him a beer.

If the US authorities take the same approach, should be no problem.

Of course next up will be ethnicity.

So many inter ratial marriages.

All races to be categorised.

Race 1, 2, 3..... etc.

Mixed Race = Race1 plus Race 7,,,, and so forth.

Hmmmmmmmm, yeah, why not.

Just as logical as the gender nuetral.

.

But what happens with multi-ethnicity?

I have been married several times - wives of Spanish, Polish, Thai and Philippines origin. OK, two are Caucasian, two SE Asian. And if the children marry other races - Chinese, Indian, African?

And if the spouses themselves are multi-racial?

Quite frankly this is an American thing more than a world-wide trait.

I know I've been out of the UK for many years, but when I was there most of the population would respond "I'm British" when asked where they were from, whether their origins/parents origins were West Indian, native British, African or whatever.

Americans do not seem to be satisfied with that - they are Italian-American, African-American, native American, Hispanic-American or whatever. It is only the British-Americans who respond "I'm American" (and maybe only the English - I've known a couple of Scottish-Americans during my travels).

Be proud of who you are - an American. It does not require any qualification, in fact such add-ons demean the 'being American' bit, in my opinion.

So one can't be proud of nationality AND ethnicity?  

Most times when a document asks  about ethnicity, it is an optional question.  

But what happens with multi-ethnicity?

I have been married several times - wives of Spanish, Polish, Thai and Philippines origin. OK, two are Caucasian, two SE Asian. And if the children marry other races - Chinese, Indian, African?

And if the spouses themselves are multi-racial?

Quite frankly this is an American thing more than a world-wide trait.

I know I've been out of the UK for many years, but when I was there most of the population would respond "I'm British" when asked where they were from, whether their origins/parents origins were West Indian, native British, African or whatever.

Americans do not seem to be satisfied with that - they are Italian-American, African-American, native American, Hispanic-American or whatever. It is only the British-Americans who respond "I'm American" (and maybe only the English - I've known a couple of Scottish-Americans during my travels).

Be proud of who you are - an American. It does not require any qualification, in fact such add-ons demean the 'being American' bit, in my opinion.

Let's not forget It wasn't that long ago that racism was rife in America.

Even the pentagon was built with twice as many bathrooms as needed because it was built with racial segregation in mind.

Let's not forget It wasn't that long ago that racism was rife in America.

Not true of the UK and pretty much everywhere else of course.

Let's not forget It wasn't that long ago that racism was rife in America.

Not true of the UK and pretty much everywhere else of course.

At the time of WWII it was not a problem in UK.

In fact the American military were welcomed in one way or another as just that - American.

There are books and articles (I wen into this about thirty years ago - don't ask me for sources now) where the 'coloured' soldiery were amazed at the acceptance by the British that they were the equal of their white confreres.

That has changed in UK now, with the mass immigration and movement of people. We welcomed the East African Asians, kicked out of Uganda by Idi Amin, but their cousins from India/ Pakistan/ Bangladesh are not getting the same treatment. Similarly the Nigerians have a bad name, although there are many NHS nurses who do a superb job.

West Indians were welcomed in the fifties, as they came to work, but there are many newer arrivas, and children of those immigrants, who exist in the drug trade now and in places like Manchester are regarded as American-style gangsters, using guns and so on.

So the problem to me is one of visibility and noticeability. When there were few immigrants of different characteristics to the main population, and those were in UK to work, then there was no discrimination / racism. Now there is a highly visible set of people who do not conform to the requirements of the overall society, be it in religion, dress, law-abiding, whatever - then the whole group is vilified.

In UK this also applies to many recent immigrants from the Balkans - Serbs, Croats, Albanians and so on. Not racially very different, but still vilified.

Personally, I put it down to poor press and TV reporting. It is easy to make up a story about the bad side of these groups, not so easy to show the good that many do. And the public are basically sheep, following the garbage they are fed by the media and some politicians.

The multi-cultural society does not work. A small group of immigrants gets absorbed into the overall fabric of the society in which it arrives, without problems. (Or at least, without problems to that society).

Large numbers of immigrants tend to herd together and retain their original culture, rather than spread around and absorb the culture of the parent country. That way one gets enclaves of people not fitting into the structure of the parent country - ghettoes, self-imposed. This does not bring any understanding of the newly arrived, nor does it help the newly arrived to understand the culture they are expected to conform to.

Personally, I would strongly curtail immigration in every country. Make the ambitious (if that is the ones who emigrate) remain in their own countries and grow there. But I feel that nowadays it is not the ambitious who emigrate, it is the societal misfits who the parent country is glad to be rid of. The one problem that curbing immigration would bring - apart from condemnation from the rest of the world - is "Who would do the dirty jobs?". And that would have to be solved, because the dirty jobs must be done.

Let's not forget It wasn't that long ago that racism was rife in America.

Not true of the UK and pretty much everywhere else of course.

The UK was not a racist place at that time.

In fact, before leaving the US for bases in Britain, US troops were shown videos to show them they should expect equality for the blacks in Britain. It was common for Americans to enter a pub and start fighting with the blacks, only to find to their amazement that the British would side with the blacks.

Regardless, this wasn't a discussion about British passports and equality so I don't quite get the need for the defensiveness.

I guess that calling someone a "<deleted>" must be a compliment then?

England has a history of slave trading and racism that some conveniently ignore while pointing fingers elsewhere.

I guess that calling someone a "<deleted>" must be a compliment then?

England has a history of slave trading and racism that some conveniently ignore while pointing fingers elsewhere.

For goodness sakes.

England had a slave trade. Oh my god, I feel so offended. I must defend my nation (inset sarcasm smilie here)

That's this discussion now dead because UG sees an observation and takes it as an attack.

We've gone from US passports to slave trading all because UG feels the need to defend the mighty you ess offay, just because somebody has said something about them that is not in a fantastically good light. How foolish of me to forget we can't say anything but good about America, ridiculous.

That's me finished in this thread then, unless a mod would like to get it back on track.

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind

- Albert Einstein.

Let's not forget It wasn't that long ago that racism was rife in America.

Of course this unnecessary comment on a thread that is supposed to be about passports is just fine and dandy, because no one but the US is bigoted.

Let's not forget It wasn't that long ago that racism was rife in America.

Of course this unnecessary comment on a thread that is supposed to be about passports is just fine and dandy, because no one but the US is bigoted.

It was ON TOPIC with this thread, PERTINENT to the previous post and NOT an attack. If you wish to choose to be offended then that's up to you, but let everybody else just get on with the discussion without having to be interrupted by this..................Oh, forget it.

***Note to self***

"You should know better than to play in OTB"