What does " She got with a man " mean in English language?

[hello2023]

Please help me understand what this means.
Does it have positive meaning or negative connotation and why ?
Thank you

The interview was recorded and transcribed by a secretary, but I DID NOT SAY THOSE WORDS and I do not see these words as "clerical error" or " typo"

I think you would be justified in commenting that you have reviewed the report and noticed an/some inconsistencies between what was said by you and what has been reported, for example…..

Doesn't sound like the report is a transcript of your conversation. As I understand it it should be a literal word for word copy of what was said. I doubt you'd refer to yourself as 'she'..

Any opportunity to challenge or comment on the report? I would state that you feel the report mischaracterizes the nature of your relationship with your boyfriend during university and suggests it was some kind of casual sexual arrangement when it was not.

Who was the author of this report, a lawyer, child custody professional? Were they retained by your ex for this report or the court, or you?

Are you in North America? This phraseology seems more common over there but is still not very formal and as others have said can have negative implications.

It is a phrase that means the "She" in question began a relationship, but the phrase carries a negative bias. I would question the use of that phraseology in any official context.

She got with a man?? To me that phrase sounds as though it was written by a teenager and I would be very unhappy about it in the context of an official report for court, OP.

I would dispute the report and ask why the original taping had been destroyed and this inaccurate written version presented instead.

Got with a man has a very negative connotation - which had boyfriend doesn't.

It is a family evaluation by a neutral expert jointly appointed by the Ex and I for the court re. custody of children in a toxic divorce. Expert asked if he could record and that the recording be destroyed after the report issued to which we both consented. When I received the report, this is one of the many things that got my attention.

Then the EX. filed it into court !

Did you explicity say you wouldn't allow the report to be submit unless you gave consent after you read the report?

It had to be filed into court and he filed it first. But these inaccuracies should be corrected because I did not say it. I thought that the recordings would be destroyed after I had read the report and agreed that what I said was accurate. Granted that there was time pressure to get the report done and a lot of material, but it is being transcribed by a secretary. I would never say "I got with a man" and neither would anyone else here on mumsnet I think.

Well of course the ex filed it if it was full of leading comments like that about your past. Don't even see what having a boyfriend in uni had to do with the price of beans in a child custody case but there we go.

I see your concern op. I wouldnt want that read out before a judge either.

OP, who sourced this professional? Was it you or the ex? Was it a recommendation from the court? Is there a professional standards organisation governing their work?

But you did say you had a boyfriend. So you did get with a man. To split hairs over the context seems pointless now? Having a boyfriend is getting with a man.

As others have said, it's definitely negative in British English. But the question is, what does it mean in the context where you live? For example I lived overseas in a country where English was one of the official languages, yet colloquially 'boyfriend' was the male equivalent of a mistress, and implied you were married to someone else. It definitely didn't refer to a male partner. You may need to check how the phrase would be understood locally.

It is not a local word. The point is I DID NOT SAY THIS SO HOW CAN IT GET TRANSCRIBED THAT I DID ?

AND no woman would describe herself like that in a document to be submitted to court and which the ex has access to .

For what it's worth, I'm in the USA (where I do suspect this originated) and while I wouldn't say it myself I've heard "get with/got with" in several different contexts.

It's informal (colloquial, slang) and would be completely inappropriate to use in a court document here, unless as a direct quote, because it's vague and unspecific and HAS no established meaning and therefore is likely to be misinterpreted unless used it a very clear context. Could you challenge it on that basis?

Some examples of uses:

(1) A sexual encounter, or something physical short of sex (kissing, touching, etc.) Not necessarily negative. "I want to get with Jake at the Spring Dance - help me pick out a sexy outfit."

(2) The start of some kind of relationship: "I first got with Jake at the Spring Dance, and we've been together ever since" doesn't necessarily mean we had sex then, more that that's when our relationship as a couple started. But if someone else says "Wackamole got with Jake at the Spring Dance" - yeah, it means sex or something approaching it.

(3) A sexual encounter (could be repeated, or a full-blown relationship) with someone who is already in a relationship: "I can't believe Jake got with Katie while his wife was pregnant!"

(4) It COULD be nonsexual - for example in a work context: "get with Jake in AV and see if he has any visuals we can use for this marketing campaign..." However you would absolutely NOT say "I got with Jake" without qualifying the context, because people would assume it was sexual.

If a new friend said "I got with Jake back in college..." I would have no idea if she meant that she had had a one night stand with Jake or that she'd had a long, serious relationship with Jake, or something in between.

I'll also say "she got with a man" sounds like a very odd thing to record - if it's relevant, why not specify the man's name? This is the part - along with the lack of context - that gives the negative/shaming impression and implies something exclusively sexual.

Who on earth wrote the report? It’s ungrammatical and insulting.

It's just short hand for 'got together with'. Not necessarily negative. But lazy and unprofessional

I agree with @wackamole - it is very vague and has a range of meanings. That alone is a reason why it shouldn’t be used. But in the context you describe, it sounds judgmental and disapproving: as you say, if you had a boyfriend at university, why not just say that?

The point is I DID NOT SAY THIS SO HOW CAN IT GET TRANSCRIBED THAT I DID ?

By the transcriptionist's failure to be accurate, for whatever reason - sloppy work, injecting their own bias, error, any number of reasons. As none of us know the details around when, how, and by whom the interview was transcribed, no one's going to know the answer.

All anyone can say is that as it's not a true and accurate transcription, you are well within your rights to object.

If it’s a professional report the person writing it should be sacked.

Thank you for your responses.

To add to this, there was also career background information of another person. And this is considered to be a "clerical error". Would you consider this a clerical error when the ex is described as a distinguished lawyer blah blah blah working around the world from top law school etc?
Is this a clerical error ?

Yes. The transcriptionist transcribing the wrong thing entirely is the definition of a clerical error. Why that error occurred is anyone’s guess and it’s not likely you’ll ever have an answer.

Once again, you should object to the incorrect information. That’s your path forward.