poor service from CTC Membershio 'Fullfillment' section

[LANDSURFER74]

yes it is nessesary ...because its causing problems not asking !!!!

Am i missing sonething something here ...Discuss !!!

[alicej]

I hate having to pick, because for a woman the question is whether you would like to be referred to as a married woman, or an unmarried woman. No I would not, thank you.

It also causes problems for some trans people I know, who just don't feel comfortable with any of the options.

Why does there need to be a title on a membership card? Does it affect anything?

[Vorpal]

Actually, I think the British preoccupation with marital status (or title) completely unnecessary.

People and forms don't ask or require titles in other countries. In the US, it would be highly unusual for a form to include a 'title' field. Then it will only be included when title is important.

Why? I think that initially it began as a way to avoid any accusations about bias (based upon gender, title, etc.). If people didn't know or record it, it couldn't influence decisions or preferences.

However, I think that people dealing with information quickly saw that it was an easy way to save data entry time and computing space to drop off a field that was potentially associated with every personnel and customer entry in the database(s).

[Simon L6]

Alice - quite so. It affects nothing. The information serves no purpose whatsoever (except to confirm that the proportion of CTC members who are women is far too low) . It's just a bit of busybodyness.

Landsurfer - if you don't get it, there's no way anybody's ever going to be able to explain it to you. Suffice to say that it has taken a deal of work to run rides that have seen up to 30 women (out of 100 cyclists), a significant number of gay and lesbian cyclists, disabled cyclists and cyclists from a diversity of ethnic backgrounds. That's something that I take a bit of pride in. When you've done the same, get back to me.

[Vorpal]

When I first moved to the UK, I used to put 'Eng' or 'Engineer' as my title on everything. It was my way making a bit of fun of the British preoccupation with titles, and mildly protesting it. However, the lack of humour and/or understanding on the part of people with whom I was interacting just made it too much trouble.

It's bad enough that I refused to use my husband's surname (and I was amazed by the number of people who told me, authoritatively, "In this country, you legally have to change your surname to your husband's."), but to refuse 'Mrs.' as well, made me worse than eccentric. I spent almost an hour arguing with someone at the social services office. she *insisted* that my shiny new national insurance number should be taken out under my husband's surname. Of course her attitude starting out--that it was somehow shameful that I didn't take my husband's name in the first place--got my back up. From then, I flat refused to use it. If she's taken a more reasonable approach, like "Please, would you include your husband's name in your record. It will assist in our record keeping." I might have been reasonable about it.

Maybe it's a good thing that I was already immersed in British culture when I joined the CTC.

[Si]

I'm finding the opposite - so few places these days are worried about a title. Since enduring several years of me being on a flight of fancy in academia, my good lady wife now insists that I use my new silly title whenever possible: 'we worked bloody hard for it, so you'd better damn well use it'. Thankfully the opportunity to drape my name in the robes of pomposity are becoming fewer, although I do find myself caving in now and then, especially when dealing with solicitors for some reason.

[Simon L6]

It's bad enough that I refused to use my husband's surname (and I was amazed by the number of people who told me, authoritatively, "In this country, you legally have to change your surname to your husband's."), but to refuse 'Mrs.' as well, made me worse than eccentric. I spent almost an hour arguing with someone at the social services office. she *insisted* that my shiny new national insurance number should be taken out under my husband's surname. Of course her attitude starting out--that it was somehow shameful that I didn't take my husband's name in the first place--got my back up. From then, I flat refused to use it. If she's taken a more reasonable approach, like "Please, would you include your husband's name in your record. It will assist in our record keeping." I might have been reasonable about it.

Maybe it's a good thing that I was already immersed in British culture when I joined the CTC.

there's a lesson there. My friend Bridget quit the CTC after 24 years because they insisted on addressing every copy of the mag to her partner, and would not change it. I think things have moved on now....

Gone are the time when people are pressed in to shape by organisations. It's not only the Mr. and Mrs, thing that causes me trouble - some names have three parts and some names are reversed - that is to say the given name follows the family name. Once again the correct thing to do is to print what's on the form.

[robgul]

I see no issue with the request for a "title" and for that to be part of the data stored for that person - as well as asking for (as in the US) "first name" and "family name" (Incidentally I have a US visa waiver form here and it does ask for title ...)

With so many names nowadays being "unusual" (this is not racist .. simply a way of stating that to a lot of people the name is not immediately a gender identifier ... in the same way that, for example "Kim" is unclear) - what the lack of title does is prevent the addressing of the person in courteous terms ... as in Dear Mr/Ms/Miss/Mrs/Dr/Professor ... etc

To me letters that are addressed : Dear <firstname> <surname/family name> show a lack of attention to detail and courtesy ... the addressing should be : Dear <title> <surname/family name> or Dear <firstname> if appropriate.

... and for all this we mustn't forget the classic of all time .... a mail-shot that was sent to Prince Charles ... addressed as "Dear Mr Prince" ... it's true, I worked for the company that printed the stuff.

Rob

... even to ask for "sex" .... although of course we always used to fill in that box on the school bus pass applications with "Yes please" !

[alicej]

So which would you like me to be referred to as? Dear Married Woman or Dear Unmarried Woman?

I'd prefer Dear [First name] [Last name] - nothing disrespectful about addressing me by my name.

[Simon L6]

that would be it. Dear (name) (name) is fine.

[robgul]

So which would you like me to be referred to as? Dear Married Woman or Dear Unmarried Woman?

I'd prefer Dear [First name] [Last name] - nothing disrespectful about addressing me by my name.

Perhaps I'm just old fashioned .... this tome has been accepted as the de facto for a long time http://www.debretts.com/debrett%27s-publications/books/correct-form.aspx

Rob ( Mr Married Man )

[hungrydave]

When I first moved to the UK, I used to put 'Eng' or 'Engineer' as my title on everything. It was my way making a bit of fun of the British preoccupation with titles, and mildly protesting it. However, the lack of humour and/or understanding on the part of people with whom I was interacting just made it too much trouble.

It's bad enough that I refused to use my husband's surname (and I was amazed by the number of people who told me, authoritatively, "In this country, you legally have to change your surname to your husband's."), but to refuse 'Mrs.' as well, made me worse than eccentric. I spent almost an hour arguing with someone at the social services office. she *insisted* that my shiny new national insurance number should be taken out under my husband's surname. Of course her attitude starting out--that it was somehow shameful that I didn't take my husband's name in the first place--got my back up. From then, I flat refused to use it. If she's taken a more reasonable approach, like "Please, would you include your husband's name in your record. It will assist in our record keeping." I might have been reasonable about it.

Maybe it's a good thing that I was already immersed in British culture when I joined the CTC.

Perhaps, rather than a pre-occupation, some people consider it good manners to use the correct and formal title. I wouldn't want my bank to start calling me Joe, I'm not their friend. Mr Bloggs or Mr Joe Bloggs is accurate, suitable and my preference.

Of course there are others that prefer not to use their formal title and that's clearly their prerogative (sp?). I guess the system should allow for it to be used, or not, depending.

It's no more a pre-occupation than shaking a strangers hand and introducing yourself - just good manners based on the uk's history and culture. Some want to move on, and that's fine. But not everyone.

[thirdcrank]

Were getting away from any fulfillment from the CTC for its members but I don't have much time for people who accept an hour like a life peerage or a knighthood and then - usually ostentatiously - stick to their original name. It smacks of wanting it both ways.

On the mail merge thing, every so often there is a flurry of letters to The Times from people whose grandiose title has been interpreted as first names or heaven forfend* on an envelope. Not only is this an opportunity to sneer at the system, but it's also an occasion to remind the world that they are the Lord High Executioner or whatever. It might be expected that at least the Very Reverend Deans etc., might show a little of the humilty appropriate to their calling.

* it's inevitably "heaven forfend" in those circes

[alicej]

So which would you like me to be referred to as? Dear Married Woman or Dear Unmarried Woman?

I'd prefer Dear [First name] [Last name] - nothing disrespectful about addressing me by my name.

Perhaps I'm just old fashioned .... this tome has been accepted as the de facto for a long time http://www.debretts.com/debrett%27s-publications/books/correct-form.aspx

Rob ( Mr Married Man )

How does Debretts say that one should address someone who is transgender?

[Vorpal]

I generally don't have a problem with courtesy; as long as people are certain of the title of address. Perhaps we need a non-discriminating title?

"M." instead of "Mr." or "Mrs." would work for printed or written communication. I seem to recall "Mir" used this way in a science fiction novel.

I have to admit that I don't like approach some places (and some chain stores, in particular) in the US where a shop clerk reads one's name off the computer system and adresses one as if they were well-acquainted, "Hi, Janet. How are you today? Did you enjoy your shopping experience with us?"