Manholes are gender neutral now

slipperyox

does anyone know why a manhole is round?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Canada is going to prosecute people in the US? And Is Peterson in prison?

Crikey this is more serious than I was giving credit for. Unless you're taking a single piece of legislation from Canada and applying it to another country. Then you're just going out of your way to create a Conspiracy theory. Which is it?

Who said anything about the US?

This is Canada. If you've any interest take your time to watch the video or google it yourself. It's not a conspiracy theory, legislation has passed in Canada, you can lose your job and go to prison for using "wrong speech".

Google.

Woodsie1

klaaaz wrote: »

Yes some men do have wombs, that has been proven no need for any wishes.

Hahaha no they dont have wombs,its pretty simple biology.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

klaaaz wrote: »

Poor you stuck in the era of yesteryear, has the wonders of the modern world like electricity reached you yet?

What year did men start having wombs?

El_Duderino 09

Bob24 wrote: »

If you think terminology is always a trivial matter which should never get anyone worked up, I assume you would agree that consequently there was no justification for this renaming exercice in the first place?

I accept that terms change, names change. Absolutely nothing to worry about. I wouldn't have advocated for the change and I wouldn't care if it changes.

klaaaz

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Hahaha no they dont have wombs,its pretty simple biology.

Nothing funny about it, men having babies is quite a similar torturous experience just like when women have babies.

Hunky Monster wrote: »

What year did men start having wombs?

Read the link, the first man to have a baby as in 2008. 21st century stuff.

slipperyox

Hunky Monster wrote: »

What year did men start having wombs?

I think the miss understanding, is that most men spend their life trying to get back into a womb:D

Woodsie1

klaaaz wrote: »

Nothing funny about it, men having babies is quite a similar torturous experience just like when women have babies.



Read the link, the first man to have a baby as in 2008. 21st century stuff.

Whats funny is you believing a man can have a baby.
Its biologically impossible.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

klaaaz wrote: »

Read the link, the first man to have a baby as in 2008. 21st century stuff.

I'm sorry to break this to you but that's a woman. Just because a woman takes massive doses of hormones it doesn't make her a man. She can feel like one, people can call her a man but it's not a man.

If I ate hay and lived in a stable from now on I wouldn't be a horse in 10 years.

Rodin

klaaaz wrote: »

That man has a womb and had the baby, of course men and women are different in some areas but that number is narrowing.

That is not a man.
Men do not have uterii.
That person has a uterus and is therefore not a man.

I can not make it any more clear.

El_Duderino 09

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Who said anything about the US?

This is Canada. If you've any interest take your time to watch the video or google it yourself. It's not a conspiracy theory, legislation has passed in Canada, you can lose your job and go to prison for using "wrong speech".

Google.

Ah I see where you're going wrong. The manholes issue is taking place in the US, not Canada.

The argument has been made repeatedly that the state is Compelling people to use the new terms and will sanction people who don't do it. I think we've established that Canada won't be enforcing this in the US. This manholes story is a bit of a non issue, isn't it?

slipperyox

Ok I'll answer my own question...

A manhole is round, so that it cannot fall into the hole it covers...

klaaaz

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Whats funny is you believing a man can have a baby.
Its biologically impossible.

Men have been popping out babies since about 11 years now, biologically possible.

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I'm sorry to break this to you but that's a woman. Just because a woman takes massive doses of hormones it doesn't make her a man. She can feel like one, people can call her a man but it's not a man.

If I ate hay and lived in a stable from now on I wouldn't be a horse in 10 years.

You'd be a donkey?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah I see where you're going wrong. The manholes issue is taking place in the US, not Canada.

The argument has been made repeatedly that the state is Compelling people to use the new terms and will sanction people who don't do it. I think we've established that Canada won't be enforcing this in the US. This manholes story is a bit of a non issue, isn't it?

I agree totally. It's a non issue because nobody is being compelled to use this speech...so far. Precedent is there though in Canada showing things like this could be made into law. That's where the references to 1984 come in. This story is just clickbait as far as I can see BUT it is in Berkley...one search of that place will make your head spin.

Woodsie1

slipperyox wrote: »

Ok I'll answer my own question...

A manhole is round, so that it cannot fall into the hole it covers...

My old man always has these random nuggets of info,i must tell him not to call them manholes anymore though.
Id say he'll laugh in my face in fairness:D

klaaaz

Rodin wrote: »

That is not a man.
Men do not have uterii.
That person has a uterus and is therefore not a man.

I can not make it any more clear.

So according to you a woman is not a woman unless they have an uterus? Hope you told all the women who have no uterii that they are not women based on your conclusions.

Woodsie1

klaaaz wrote: »

Men have been popping out babies since about 11 years now, biologically possible.

They are not men having these babies.

hetuzozaho

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Yeah its all well and good until you call some woman who identifies as a man the wrong pronoun and you find yourself with no job or in prison. Google this for yourself and see what's happening in Canada.

New to me.. But from what I've googled this is inaccurate. Do you have links you could share of someone going to prison. Thanks man

slipperyox

klaaaz wrote: »

Men have been popping out babies since about 11 years now, biologically possible.



You'd be a donkey?

just 11 years have passed and 500 million years of evolution has been revolved. What an amazing time we live in.

Rodin

klaaaz wrote: »

So according to you a woman is not a woman unless they have an uterus? Hope you told all the women who have no uterii that they are not women based on your conclusions.

I said men do not have uterii.
I made no comment on what women do or do not have.

I really did make that quite clear.

klaaaz

Woodsie1 wrote: »

They are not men having these babies.

Yes they are, have you not read the news that men have given birth and have been raising their natal children?

Shemale

klaaaz wrote: »

Poor you stuck in the era of yesteryear, has the wonders of the modern world like electricity reached you yet?

They clearly have, you are replying to the poster on the friggin internet

Woodsie1

klaaaz wrote: »

Yes they are, have you not read the news that men have given birth and have been raising their natal children?

They are not men,how you cant grasp this very simple concept is hilarious

slipperyox

its trolling peeps.

leave it alone

slipperyox

it

Rodin

Woodsie1 wrote: »

They are not men,how you cant grasp this very simple concept is hilarious

I doubt they did well in biology in school.
Their reading comprehension is exceedingly poor also.

Shemale

So snowflakes in California get offended by gender words no matter what they ****ing refer to.

Man hole is now maintainence hole.

Looking forward to what they concoct for female, human, she and they.

Woodsie1

Rodin wrote: »

I doubt they did well in biology in school.
Their reading comprehension is exceedingly poor also.

They are from the school of "so what your saying is"

klaaaz

Woodsie1 wrote: »

They are not men,how you cant grasp this very simple concept is hilarious

It's quite simple and quite ludicrous that you don't understand. They are masculine people who have bravely took on the role of giving birth.

Woodsie1

klaaaz wrote: »

It's quite simple and quite ludicrous that you don't understand. They are masculine people who have bravely took on the role of giving birth.

Oh I see youve dropped calling them men to now masculine people.
Good progress.
Not men having babies,masculine women.

El_Duderino 09

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I agree totally. It's a non issue because nobody is being compelled to use this speech...so far. Precedent is there though in Canada showing things like this could be made into law. That's where the references to 1984 come in. This story is just clickbait as far as I can see BUT it is in Berkley...one search of that place will make your head spin.

Deal with the state compelling people to say things when they actually happen. Picking worst case scenarios from around the world and pretending they're ubiquitous, is really silly.

That's what this thread has been about all along. Imagining victim hood and sharing the delusion among the group

klaaaz

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Oh I see youve dropped calling them men to now masculine people.
Good progress.
Not men having babies,masculine women.

It was an attribute of masculinity to describe those men who give birth.

Calhoun

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Oh I see youve dropped calling them men to now masculine people.
Good progress.
Not men having babies,masculine women.

This is closer to being correct, masculine women. Biologically they are female because they have reproductive organs.

I suppose it is brave considering the stigma that comes with having an outward male shell but making the decision to get pregnant.

If they were really male though they would opt out from giving birth as its not something we can naturally do.

Woodsie1

klaaaz wrote: »

It was an attribute of masculinity to describe those men who give birth.

No it was a feeble attempt to backtrack from your hilarious idea that men can have babies.
Men cant have babies,women can,trans men can but actual real biological men cant.

SEPT 23 1989

The devil makes work for idle hands

klaaaz

Woodsie1 wrote: »

No it was a feeble attempt to backtrack from your hilarious idea that men can have babies.
Men cant have babies,women can,trans men can but actual real biological men cant.

Nope, you've been backtracking yourself from insulting men with language like that they cannot give birth which itself not exclusive to women.

Woodsie1

klaaaz wrote: »

Nope, you've been backtracking yourself from insulting men with language like that they cannot give birth which itself not exclusive to women.

This is an insane post.
ive not backtracked one bit.

Men cant have babies,ive said this from the start and still saying it now.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

klaaaz wrote: »

Yes they are, have you not read the news that men have given birth and have been raising their natal children?

Biological women them would be.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Deal with the state compelling people to say things when they actually happen. Picking worst case scenarios from around the world and pretending they're ubiquitous, is really silly.

That's what this thread has been about all along. Imagining victim hood and sharing the delusion among the group

Canada is quite mad though.

https://twitter.com/hjjoyceecon/status/1152106709562925056?s=21

Woodsie1

Woodsie1 wrote: »

This is an insane post.
ive not backtracked one bit.

Men cant have babies,ive said this from the start and still saying it now.

A donkey with a party hat on its head will never be a unicorn, even if some kinds of people think it can be.

A man, complete, intact, whole, doesn't have the reproductive organs to bear a child. If a person can in fact conceive/carry/give birth to a child, they are not a man, not in the biological sense of the word which as far as I'm concerned is the only one that matters in this particular line of discussion.

Dress whatever way you like. Call yourself what you like. But don't try to argue that the common and accurate linguistic terminology as it refers to human biology is adaptable and flexible in the way some fools would like it to be.

We all know that when it comes to human reproduction, only women have babies and men simply can't. There are no exceptions to this clear-cut biological fact. None.

Thankfully, there are very few people who are stupid enough to think that men can carry children.

Hunky Monster

Hunky Monster wrote: »

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

Bullshít.

A couple of blue haired, butt ugly leftist retards who believe in more than 2 genders and somehow are afforded credence with the mainstream media... thats who

bloodless_coup

How does a male give birth to a baby? Does the baby come out of the tip of his penis or his arsehole?

Calhoun

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Canada is quite mad though.

https://twitter.com/hjjoyceecon/status/1152106709562925056?s=21

The bit in that article about the trans woman with male genitals wanting to help teens insert tampons is quite disturbing .

I hope to God it's not true because it reads like a sexual predator abusing their sexuality to get close to kids and abuse women.

punisher5112

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Homer Simpson paved the way for us all when he called his garage his "Car Hole".

Credit where credit is due.

Moe called it a car hold ;-)

hatrickpatrick

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.

I was quoting your post with regard to how to describe pregnant women who work for someone, as opposed to the issue in the OP. The manhole thing I'm fairly ambivalent about. But the vast majority of the public do not subscribe to the idea that gender and sex are distinct concepts, and things like this are essentially ramming that ideology down everyones' throats without a proper public debate about it.

In the minds of the vast, vast, vast majority of the public, a person who can get pregnant is by definition a woman, and a man by definition cannot get pregnant. No ambiguity about it or clarification required. It understandably irritates those people when mainstream discourse essentially rewrites those concepts without allowing anyone to object, and jumps down the throats of anyone who tries.

slipperyox

99.99% of people that use manholes are men.

Apt name

punisher5112

slipperyox wrote: »

99.99% of people that use manholes are men.

Apt name

Man trucks.... Do they need to change????

Woodsie1

punisher5112 wrote: »

Man trucks.... Do they need to change????

M...A...N trucks not Man trucks....they were way ahead of the curve:pac:

Still a man that cant have babies though.

slipperyox

punisher5112 wrote: »

Man trucks.... Do they need to change????

No

gctest50

punisher5112 wrote: »

Man trucks.... Do they need to change????

Nein


Maschinenfabrik Augsburg-Nürnberg