Manholes are gender neutral now

leitrim4life

Everyday that goes by makes me feel that Isis was on to something.

lbc2019

leitrim4life wrote: »

Everyday that goes by makes me feel that Isis was on to something.

Nuke Leitrim?

Bob24

Ninthlife wrote: »

When will manslaughter be renamed. Im outraged men get labelled with such a name.

Humanslaughter? Person of no definitive gender slaughter?

The world is gone stupid to be honest

Would you fell less offended with gender neutral slaughter, or maybe inclusive slaughter?

punisher5112

lbc2019 wrote: »

???

Can't be the gays, they love manholes tbf!

True but they are all under one banner now a to z and fook the rest of ya normal folk

Autecher

Bob24 wrote: »

Would you fell less offended with “gender neutral slaughter”, or maybe “inclusive slaughter” would provide a safe space for you?

How about Sergeant Slaughter?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Could everyone stop being so offensive for two minutes, you're triggering me.

Sleeper12

rireland wrote:

No more manholes lads. Too offensive!

Jasus, call me modern all you want but I'd rather a womanhole over a manhole any day of the week. Maybe that's just me

punisher5112

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Could everyone stop being so offensive for two minutes, you're triggering me.

Oh spill...

The goggles do nothing!!!

is_that_so

Bob24 wrote: »

Would you fell less offended with gender neutral slaughter, or maybe inclusive slaughter?

Etymology of the word comes from old English meaning man slaying. We could go back to the Middle English form of man quelling ( without the man!) and just go all Hunger Games!

Yer Da sells Avon

punisher5112 wrote: »

I'll go to my grave calling a man hole what it is and that's a MAN HOLE....

I'll probably go to my grave crying out for more morphine, but each to their own.

punisher5112

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

I'll probably go to my grave crying out for more morphine, but each to their own.

Wooss

is_that_so

punisher5112 wrote: »

Wooss

Nah, depends what's taking you out! Morphine may be your very last BFF!

Ted Johnson

Just another day in clown world. Lets have a parade of 10 year old drag queens to celebrate the progress.

Honk honk!

Sonny noggs

Ted Johnson wrote: »

Just another day in clown world. Lets have a parade of 10 year old drag queens to celebrate the progress.

Honk honk!

Drag monarch you mean?

antodeco

My friends Personila (instead of Sheila), Personuel (instead of Manuel) and Personry (instead of Henry) will be very upset.

2019newspeak

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Language changes all the time. It was different before you started speaking it, it'll change during your lifetime and it will continue to change after you're gone.

You say the other people are "arseholes" who "who find victimhood everywhere". But you're getting cross about it. So how would you characterise your view on it? Typically people tend to say something along the lines of "I'm amused", or "I'm just pointing it out". So what makes you so different from the arseholes who find victimhood everywhere?

Lanugage does change all the time. Lanugage usual changes due to how we speak natually.

I doubt anyone was ever insulted by the use of the word manhole, the word may come from the fact that mainly men entered the hole and as a whole that might now be arachic but so are lots of words that are non-genered. I never even put manhole as a gendered object.

Lanugage also is different from country to country. For example we call the Fire Brigade, but in American English its the Fire Department, and with more and more people using american English here Fire Department may well become the natural default for the Fire Brigade, long before anyone changes the title.

As for policeman or policewoman, largely this has fallen out of favour, most call them police officers or in Ireland Gardaí or Garda or Gaurds (I don't ever remember Ban-Garda taking off here). In terms of slang its the cops, the pigs etc.

In this case we seem to have institutianlized use of words, before they are natural defaults.

Pregnant woman to become Pregnant Employee really makes no natural sence. Are all pregant people employed? In terms of Materity Leave does a trans-man get the same materity leave as men or as a woman? Though as paterity leave comes in this will be less of an issue.

I never really understood he/she or him/her when refering to a position when they or them would be more approiate, but to use the title/job position seems excessive, particularly in a job advertisiment. Your duties may include or the poisition holders duties may include or Their duties may include

punisher5112

antodeco wrote: »

My friends Personila (instead of Sheila), Personuel (instead of Manuel) and Personry (instead of Henry) will be very upset.

That hurts my man brain!!!

50HX

Can't say ballcock either:D

El_Duderino 09

2019newspeak wrote: »

Lanugage does change all the time. Lanugage usual changes due to how we speak natually.

So language does Change for whatever reason. I suppose it was a terrible injury when the dreaded 'N' word was phased out of normal usage due to PC gone mad. Or calling Irish people "Paddy" or "Mick" was phases out by the PC brigade.

Language changes, usage of words change. The fact that you or I like the set of words we currently use and don't want anything to.cha ge, is beside the point. Things will change regardless. It's really not worth getting upset about.

Ted Johnson

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do language does Change for whatever reason. I suppose it was a terrible injury when the dreaded 'N' word was phased out of normal usage due to PC gone mad. Or calling Irish people "Paddy" or "Mick" was phases out by the PC brigade.

Language changes, usage of words change. The fact that you or I like the set of words we currently use and don't want anything to.cha ge, is beside the point. Things will change regardless. It's really not worth getting upset about.

Erasing gender is insane.

punisher5112

50HX wrote: »

Can't say ballcock either:D

Tie the thingy ma jiggy up there....

El_Duderino 09

Ted Johnson wrote: »

Erasing gender is insane.

Is that what it is? And there was me thinking I'm still a bloke while all this is going on.

Ted Johnson

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is that what it is? And there was me thinking I'm still a bloke while all this is going on.

Whats so terrible about saying 'pregnant woman' why does it have to be changed to 'pregnant employee'?

Bobblehats

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Ted Johnson wrote: »

Just another day in clown world. Lets have a parade of 10 year old drag queens to celebrate the progress.

Honk honk!

It’s not a pride parade unless the 10 year old is waving a huge dildo around.

El_Duderino 09

Ted Johnson wrote: »

Whats so terrible about saying 'pregnant woman' why does it have to be changed to 'pregnant employee'?

Neither bothers me. I'm not married to the language as I learned it.

What's so terrible about saying pregnant employee instead of pregnant woman?

Ted Johnson

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Neither bothers me. I'm not married to the language as I learned it.

What's so terrible about saying pregnant employee instead of pregnant woman?

Its wrong to erase women so as not to offend transexuals.

Kinda odd how you claim not to care and yet every post of yours is 'guys don't get angry over this, please!'

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What's so terrible about saying pregnant employee instead of pregnant woman?

Why are they making woman a dirty word? You do know men can’t get pregnant? “Pregnant employee” is absolutely redundant.

hatrickpatrick

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Neither bothers me. I'm not married to the language as I learned it.

What's so terrible about saying pregnant employee instead of pregnant woman?

It's formalising the "gender is a social construct" agenda which a very large proportion of people, whether a majority or a very significant minority, are ideologically opposed to and yet seem to be utterly powerless to even oppose on an ideological or political level without being harassed and punished as a result.

punisher5112

Without a woman you won't have a baby and without a man you won't have a baby so why pander to all the rubbish going on.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

punisher5112 wrote: »

Without a woman you won't have a baby and without a man you won't have a baby so why pander to all the rubbish going on.

99.9% of the public agree with you but it’s the incrediblely loud .1% and the media that pander to them that makes this newsworthy. I will not change my speech to cater for a minority of people who’s only intent is to make themselves feel important. They can all **** off.

punisher5112

Hunky Monster wrote: »

99.9% of the public agree with you but it’s the incrediblely loud .1% and the media that pander to them that makes this newsworthy. I will not change my speech to cater for a minority of people who’s only intent is to make themselves feel important. They can all **** off.

Boom..... This is it.....


Oh my what are we going to have to put up with in 5 years never mind 20

garyscargo

Hunky Monster wrote: »

More PC bollocks. Who’s actually offended by the term manhole, nobody, that’s who.

Bullshít.

I take exception to your use of the term bullshít. Cowshít would avoid the toxic masculinity inherent in that misogynistic word, and instead harness the inner goddess power (or something) of the (much better) feminine. Or, indeed, one could use bovineshít if one chooses to dissipate gender entirely.

But then again, said bovine may have species identity issues, and instead identify as a pig or something. Or sow, of course (my bad with that toxic masculinity again in reaching for (yuck!) male pig before (yea!) female sow; mea culpa). Or porcine as a catch all once again to sidestep that sticky gender issue.  But not just porcine, of course, but possibly feline, canine, equine, etc. So perhaps the term xineshít is best to describe excrement emanating from a gender and species fluid (if biological) bovine.

Anyway, enough xineshít from me.

El_Duderino 09

Ted Johnson wrote: »

Its wrong to erase women so as not to offend transexuals.

Kinda odd how you claim not to care and yet every post of yours is 'guys don't get angry over this, please!'

Erasing women? Crikey and there was me thinking my wife was still a womam while all this was going on. Hold on a sec and I'll check.... You'll be surprised to hear my Mrs is still a woman. At what point should I expect her gender to be erased?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

garyscargo wrote: »

I take exception to your use of the term bullshít. Cowshít would avoid the toxic masculinity inherent in that misogynistic word, and instead harness the inner goddess power (or something) of the (much better) feminine. Or, indeed, one could use bovineshít if one chooses to dissipate gender entirely.

But then again, said bovine may have species identity issues, and instead identify as a pig or something. Or sow, of course (my bad with that toxic masculinity again in reaching for (yuck!) male pig before (yea!) female sow; mea culpa). Or porcine as a catch all once again to sidestep that sticky gender issue.  But not just porcine, of course, but possibly feline, canine, equine, etc. So perhaps the term xineshít is best to describe excrement emanating from a gender and species fluid (if biological) bovine.

Anyway, enough xineshít from me.

Sorry “Gary” I saw that you identified as a man and completely discarded your entire post.

Mansplaining at its finest. You were probably manspreading at the time too.
Pig.

punisher5112

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Erasing women? Crikey and there was me thinking my wife was still a womam while all this was going on. Hold on a sec and I'll check.... You'll be surprised to hear my Mrs is still a woman. At what point should I expect her gender to be erased?

I can totally check this out for you.... Just need your address oh wait boom I got the address off her already ;-)

Ted Johnson

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Erasing women? Crikey and there was me thinking my wife was still a womam while all this was going on. Hold on a sec and I'll check.... You'll be surprised to hear my Mrs is still a woman. At what point should I expect her gender to be erased?

So you would have no issue with being compelled to say 'pregnant employee' instead of 'pregnant woman'?

How does your wife feel about this? Hey maybe she has bigger balls than you...

El_Duderino 09

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's formalising the "gender is a social construct" agenda which a very large proportion of people, whether a majority or a very significant minority, are ideologically opposed to and yet seem to be utterly powerless to even oppose on an ideological or political level without being harassed and punished as a result.

Surely the concept of holes in the ground having to be named after a gender, is a social construct?

I can't for the life of me see why an access hatch in the ground has to be named after a gender. Strange convention really, but the opposition to it is really Interesting.

klaaaz

Ted Johnson wrote: »

So you would have no issue with being compelled to say 'pregnant employee' instead of 'pregnant woman'?

So what, no compelling anywhere? Men have become pregnant and have had babies hence saying employee or person would be accurate.

El_Duderino 09

Ted Johnson wrote: »

So you would have no issue with being compelled to say 'pregnant employee' instead of 'pregnant woman'?

How does your wife feel about this? Hey maybe she has bigger balls than you...

Ive no idea what she thinks about it.

Will she get a set of balls due to the erasure of gender? Will you sprout a vagina? Sounds serious alright.

Ted Johnson

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Surely the concept of holes in the ground having to be named after a gender, is a social construct?

I can't for the life of me see why an access hatch in the ground has to be named after a gender. Strange convention really, but the opposition to it is really Interesting.

No the opposition is to state compelling you to use pc language.

Since I am in a benign mood today, I will assume you are deliberately misinterpreting this thread and not just being thick.

punisher5112

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Surely the concept of holes in the ground having to be named after a gender, is a social construct?

I can't for the life of me see why an access hatch in the ground has to be named after a gender. Strange convention really, but the opposition to it is really Interesting.

Suppose it had something to do with men being the only sex that went down there....

Obviously now things have changed but taking the name away is silly to be honest it's not like they're saying no woman allowed.

Ted Johnson

klaaaz wrote: »

So what, no compelling anywhere? Men have become pregnant and have had babies hence saying employee or person would be accurate.

Haha no, men have never been pregnant.

Why force people to use pc language? Doesn't sound very liberal to me.

Ted Johnson

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ive no idea what she thinks about it.

Will she get a set of balls due to the erasure of gender? Will you sprout a vagina? Sounds serious alright.

So you'd have no issue with being compelled to say 'pregnant employee'? Why force people?

lbc2019

punisher5112 wrote: »

I'll go to my grave calling a man hole what it is and that's a MAN HOLE....

You could call your grave a man hole!

El_Duderino 09

Ted Johnson wrote: »

No the opposition is to state compelling you to use pc language.

Since I am in a benign mood today, I will assume you are deliberately misinterpreting this thread and not just being thick.

Oh gowd let's all be thankful for your benign mood. Long may it last, please God.

But you will surely accept that the convention of naming an access hatch with a gender is a strange one to begin with. Were they always called manholes or are you only interested in maintaining the current name?

El_Duderino 09

punisher5112 wrote: »

Suppose it had something to do with men being the only sex that went down there....

Obviously now things have changed but taking the name away is silly to be honest it's not like they're saying no woman allowed.

Ah so if women go down them too, then it makes perfect sense to change the name, right?

lbc2019

Reax guy, I dont think it is MANdatory...

El_Duderino 09

Ted Johnson wrote: »

So you'd have no issue with being compelled to say 'pregnant employee'? Why force people?

Funny enough, I don't force anyone to say anything.

What are the proposed penalties for non Compliance in the example in the US?

Ted Johnson

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh gowd let's all be thankful for your benign mood. Long may it last, please God.

But you will surely accept that the convention of naming an access hatch with a gender is a strange one to begin with. Were they always called manholes or are you only interested in maintaining the current name?

I will continue to refer to them as manholes and you can refer to them how you like.

But I don't like the idea of the state compelling you to use certain language.