to be really surprised that the school assumed these things?

[JessieMcJessie]

I emailed a local school to ask about visiting because we are thinking of sending our son there. My email didn’t state my title and referred to “we” and “our son” but didn’t say explicitly that his other parent was male, or that we were married.

The email came back “Dear Mrs McJessie” and asked me to give my husband’s full name if he was joining me on the visit.

AIBU to be very surprised that they just assumed that I (a) went by “Mrs” (b) was married and (c) was heterosexual? In actual fact they were correct on all three counts, but that’s not the point- I thought that people were a bit more careful to assume nothing in this day and age.

On a practical level, it can be quite tricky to know how to address people for whom you don't have all the information.

A lot of people are more affronted by being addressed by their first name than by the wrong title. It's asymmetrical in a lot of cases, if they wish to be addressed as Ms/Mrs/ Miss/ Dr/ Prof. themselves.

"Dear Jessie" would be over familiar and patronising unless the correspondent sighned off "Regards, Sarah" i.e with just their own forename.

Just using Ms or Mr would be good except that you might be Dr or Prof. or Dame... or proud of Mrs (some people are, apparently) and get upset about Ms...

If your name were actually Jessie in real life there might be some ambiguity about whether you were Ms or Mr.

I suppose just addressing everyone with their full name and signing off 8n the same fashion is safest

Dear Jessie Smith

Blah, blah

Regards

Sarah Jones.

Thymeout your case is different. I would find it rude to be referred to as they as a biological women and it is factually incorrect. This is about assumptions not known facts.

God is this really something to get offended about? Who cares - if it's wrong, correct them and if it's not, leave it. FFS

[sigh]

No, it is not something to get offended about. Which is why nobody is!

Bloody hell.
By the way, feel free to teach your own son about not making assumptions about people's marital status, sexuality blah blah blah.

OP, do not send your DS to that school. It’s totally not the right school for your family.

The school sounds stuffy and old fashioned, so if it's an indie that will likely be because it caters to that type of clientele and speaks the language they like to hear.

🙄 oh, good grief!

For this reason I now start every email to parents 'hi'. Far too informal I know but I haven't got time to look at every persons circumstances and decide if they are miss, Mrs or couldn't care less. Letters now start with dear parent/carer for the same reason. I'd never use first names. I do not care what title people give me, or if they get my marital status wrong or right. It doesn't matter to me and I never pull someone up on it.

Thymeout, surely it's easier to refer to you as they? The doctor doesn't have to remember whether patient is male or female. No need to be exasperated on dixtor's behalf.

The only time it ever annoys me is if it's asymmetrical "Hello Suzie, I'm Mr White/ Ms Scarlet/ Reverend Green/ Doctor Black/ Professor Plumb" ...

Antigon they is plural and the doctor was writing about gynecological surgery. It'd be pretty terrifying to rely on the medical expertise of a doctor who couldn't remember that people having gynecological surgery are referred to as she because they are women!

They isn't always used in a plural sense.

It must be shorthand to use they for some doctors.

True you can use they in the singular if you don't know the sex, as in "My child isn't walking yet, should I be worried?" "Well it depends, how old are they?"

However the poster was talking about a detailed letter refering to the individual specifics of her gynecological surgery! If the doctor couldn't remember the patient having gynecological surgery was female the patient would have considerable legitimate grounds to be concerned!

I suppose just addressing everyone with their full name and signing off 8n the same fashion is safest

This is traditional Quaker practice. No titles. It makes a lot of sense.

Correct and move on. I usually refer to women as Ms if I don’t know a woman’s title but I’m sure I’ve used Mrs in past. It would be rude to ignore a correction by you for future communications, however.

@Shriekingbanshee

Good question!! We don't always know the exact number that are planning to attend a visit. The key is that when they all arrive they sign in, and sign out when they go. It's just keeping track for Fire Alarms etc. Sometimes granny can turn up for a tour as well as siblings.

@Menolly My crystal ball is broken I'm afraid!! I'm quite enjoying half term and taking a break from the million of things we have to do 

It's wrong to assume but I don't think that makes it 'right' to default to first name usage. People should decide for themselves how they want to be referred to, advocating first name usage to avoid the pitfalls you have highlighted, is removing an individual's ability to decide when they become informal with somebody, this is not 'progress'.

The other dimension to this is that you are stripping the English language of its nuances and therefore poetry, discarding what doesn't suit your outlook. To suggest use of first names only should be applied universally is arrogant in the extreme. If you work in corporate law I assume it's not international as in large parts of the world it is not the convention to address people by their first name.

This country has gone batshit crazy FFS

They assume as its the Norm , ya know ??!

Fucking HELL

Anelderlylady yes, the 'aggressive offended, misrepresenting, yet denying OP her surprise' pp at lack of inclisivity at somewhere like a school, clearly don't understand irony.

rabbits is the norm just wow! So no inclusivity from you then. The world is full of normal ppl.

Ironic dontcha think

rabbits glad your behaviour's not the 'norm'

whentherabbitswentwild do crawl back into your bigoted little hole my dear.

I think they just go for the most normal of situations.
before being shouted down "normal" = "norms" being the typical norm that most people live in a partnership and are married.

According to the ONS www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2017#number-of-families-in-the-uk-continues-to-grow-with-cohabiting-couple-families-growing-the-fastest , in 2017 64% of families with dependent children consisted of a married couple. Yes, that is the majority, but it’s pretty unwise to work on assumptions that have a 36% chance of being wrong, wouldn’t you think?

And don’t get me started on weaselly attempts to say that “norm” just means “statistically in the majority”. It’s a loaded term and you know it.