Manholes are gender neutral now

rob316

jmayo wrote: »

FFS.
The ultimate one has to be "pregnant employees".

How many fooking pregnant men has anyone ever met ?
Oh yeah a couple of people out of the entire human race of 7.5 odd billion claimed they were guys even though they didn't have a mickie, had ovaries and a baby in their wombs.

Loons, freaking loons.

The westerner world has more to worry about than this type of shyteology.

Don't you know genatalia doesn't define your gender! You might a look like a pregnant woman but indentify as a man.

Jesus when you type it out you realize how stupid it sounds.

quokula

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

Nothing’s been forced down anyone’s throats. A council has decided to change the wording in their own documents, that’s all.

It’s amazing how outraged some people get at the tiniest thing like what wording a council on the other side of the world decides to use for a hole in the ground.

swarlb

Maybe it's been mentioned before, I've not read all the posts, but should the 'Mr Robinson' in the article, who tweeted in praise of the move to change the titles, not offer his resignation, and issue an apology for referring to himself as 'Mr' ?
Should it not simply be 'Robinson' ?

El_Duderino 09

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Canada is quite mad though.

Maybe it is. And how's it working out for them? Have you seen what's going in Turkmenistan though? Bananas altogether. It's not here and it's not related to the manholes issue.

The Canada law us a but if a mess though. Has misgendering some be actually been demonstrated to qualify as gate speech it us if just an assumption of erst care scenario? Strikes me as being a bit like the Irish blasphemy law. But honestly, I'm not a Canadian legal experts d as far as I've heard, Canadian legal experts are not in agreement on whether misgendering someone could even qualify as hate speech.

Anyway, there were a pages and pages of discussion on c.16 in other threads and I've no interest in discussing it because it's just legal theory as it's never been tested (as far as I know)

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

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

And who's offended by the proposed changes? Lot's of people posting in this thread. Exactly the same thing, minus the insults.

El_Duderino 09

slipperyox wrote: »

99.99% of people that use manholes are men.

Apt name

Made up statistic aside, what if the we it'd man doesn't refer go men, but is a shortened version of manual. E.g manual access hole.

Then would posters be less offended by the change as it was never named a manhole because of the gender of those who use it?

El_Duderino 09

swarlb wrote: »

Maybe it's been mentioned before, I've not read all the posts, but should the 'Mr Robinson' in the article, who tweeted in praise of the move to change the titles, not offer his resignation, and issue an apology for referring to himself as 'Mr' ?
Should it not simply be 'Robinson' ?

No. Next

is_that_so

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And who's offended by the proposed changes? Lot's of people posting in this thread. Exactly the same thing, minus the insults.

Suggesting that something is monumentally stupid is really not being offended. Being PS you know how poor they are with clear language. The real aim of this is avoid lawsuits and offend nobody.

El_Duderino 09

is_that_so wrote: »

Suggesting that something is monumentally stupid is really not being offended.

But the other side are offended? How do we know they weren't just suggesting that the term manhole is stupid and ought to be changed?

is_that_so

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

But the other side are offended? How do we know they weren't just suggesting that the term manhole is stupid and ought to be changed?

Eh, I think most of us have moved on past the obsession with manhole. I've made my suggestion on it. Take a look at some of the rest of them. This is not improving their terminology, it's avoiding lawsuits.

El_Duderino 09

is_that_so wrote: »

Being PS you know how poor they are with clear language. The real aim of this is avoid lawsuits and offend nobody.

I don't agree. In the reports we write, the language is agreed with the stakeholders. It's a simple matter of making sure we're all talking about the same thing. Not doing so would be a disaster.

A member of the public might think the terms used are a barrier to clear communication, but first and foremost, the actual Stakeholders have to agree to the terms. Otherwise they could later claim a different understanding of the terms and render the report useless.

El_Duderino 09

is_that_so wrote: »

Eh, I think most of us have moved on past the obsession with manhole. I've made my suggestion on it. Take a look at some of the rest of them. This is not improving their terminology, it's avoiding lawsuits.

Is it? Have a lot of councils been successfully sued over manholes?

Cape Clear

Big implications here for Mehole Martin ypu would think

is_that_so

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't agree. In the reports we write, the language is agreed with the stakeholders. It's a simple matter of making sure we're all ralkknv about the same thing. Not doing so would be a disaster.

A member of the public might think the terms used are a barrier to clear communication, but first and foremost, the actual Stakeholders have to agree to the terms. Otherwise they could later claim a different understanding of the terms and render the report useless.

Yeah , have seen these types of things. An awful lot of waffle, verbiage and the latest "best terminology" while not saying very much at all - but same wherever you are, public or private.

is_that_so

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is it? Have a lot of councils been successfully sued over manholes?

Again you seem to be obsessed with your manhole. This is the US we are talking about here - you don't need to be doing anything for someone to sue you.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Maybe it is. And how's it working out for them? Have you seen what's going in Turkmenistan though? Bananas altogether. It's not here and it's not related to the manholes issue.

The Canada law us a but if a mess though. Has misgendering some be actually been demonstrated to qualify as gate speech it us if just an assumption of erst care scenario? Strikes me as being a bit like the Irish blasphemy law. But honestly, I'm not a Canadian legal experts d as far as I've heard, Canadian legal experts are not in agreement on whether misgendering someone could even qualify as hate speech.

Anyway, there were a pages and pages of discussion on c.16 in other threads and I've no interest in discussing it because it's just legal theory as it's never been tested (as far as I know)

It is here to an extent as we do have self id. What we don’t have is as many trans activists. To me, legally, if a trans woman is in fact a woman then the law has no choice but to treat biological and trans the same.

El_Duderino 09

is_that_so wrote: »

Again you seem to be obsessed with your manhole. This is the US we are talking about here - you don't need to be doing anything for someone to sue you.

OK. But that doesn't answer the question of whether many (or any) councils in the US have been successfully sued over manholes. If you know there were such cases it would be evidence for your claim that they're just Changing the name to avoid lawsuits.

In the absence of any such evidence I'll probably just dismiss the claim as baseless. Probably best you do likewise

El_Duderino 09

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

It is here to an extent as we do have self id. What we don’t have is as many trans activists. To me, legally, if a trans woman is in fact a woman then the law has no choice but to treat biological and trans the same.

So you're advocating for hastening a c.16 type law in Ireland? Or just enjoying the idea of being persecuted already?

Let's be clear, there is no compulsion by law to refer to people by preferred pronouns, on Ireland, at present. Nor is there any evidence of planning for such legislation. Are we agreed on that? Serious question.

tedpan

Allinall wrote:

What'll the cool kids say now when they're stoned?

Allinall wrote:

Ahh Person ?

Pretty sure it's dude..

Franz Von Peppercorn II

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So you're advocating for hastening a c.16 type law in Ireland? Or just enjoying the idea of being persecuted already?

Where did I say I was persecuted. Self ID is a disaster for women though.

Let's be bleat, there is no compulsion by law to refer to people by preferred pronouns, on Ireland, at present. Not is there any evidence of planning for such legislation. Are we agreed on that?

Yeh. That’s not really the worry thing about trans ideology though.

El_Duderino 09

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Where did I say I was persecuted. Self ID is a disaster for women though.



Yeh. That’s not really the worry thing about trans ideology though.

Good. So we're in agreement that there is no such law as c.16 in Ireland nor is there any evidence of a plan for one.

So it's not here and it's not related to the manholes.

Is preferred pronouns in force in ireland and can you be prosecuted for not using Preferred pronouns?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Good. So we're in agreement that there is no such law as c.16 in Ireland nor is there any evidence of a plan for one.

So it's not here and it's not related to the manholes.

Is preferred pronouns in force in ireland and can you be prosecuted for not using Preferred pronouns?

There’s no c.16 law. There’s self Id. That’s all I’ve said about Ireland.

El_Duderino 09

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

There’s no c.16 law. There’s self Id. That’s all I’ve said about Ireland.

That's grand. So given there is no law similar to c.16 in Ireland, what's the problem with self ID?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's grand. So given there is no law similar to c.16 in Ireland, what's the problem with self ID?

That’s possibly for another thread but self id is probably the most radical departure in law from rationality, something which could have a massive effect on sports, schools, changing rooms, women’s refuges and businesses. For instance the Canadian case with regard to the waxing could happen here and be found discriminatory here, as a legal female is a legal female.

That said I’m not too worked up about it. Women are often sanguine (for now) about self id. So let them off and pass the pop corn.

Charmeleon

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

OK. But that doesn't answer the question of whether many (or any) councils in the US have been successfully sued over manholes. If you know there were such cases it would be evidence for your claim that they're just Changing the name to avoid lawsuits.

In the absence of any such evidence I'll probably just dismiss the claim as baseless. Probably best you do likewise

Personally, I don’t think it’s directly intended to avoid lawsuits around the exact terminology used.

The main reason behind the resurgence of PC mumbo jumbo is to project a superficial image of PC cred as protective cover against the kind of crap coming down the line as PC/SJW fundamentalism gains more ground.

They hire diversity and inclusion indoctrination specialists and these make recommendations like this rubbish. These specialists have to justify their own existence and ‘usefulness’ somehow. The organisations then implement it so they can say they were always pro-active in inclusion and diversity when a devout SJW does sue them or tries to burn them on the stake on Twitter further down the line.

It’s very like how junk food companies sponsor sports and health initiatives so they look like they actually care about the real people who eat their fake crap.

suicide_circus

you know a civilization has lost all respect for itself when it is reduced to this kind of thing. Rome is burning.

Panthro

I'd call them HIGs.
Hole In Ground.

Possibly offensive to holes, or indeed offensive to the ground but fcuk it, them be the breaks.

El_Duderino 09

Charmeleon wrote: »

Personally, I don’t think it’s directly intended to avoid lawsuits around the exact terminology used.

The main reason behind the resurgence of PC mumbo jumbo is to project a superficial image of PC cred as protective cover against the kind of crap coming down the line as PC/SJW fundamentalism gains more ground.

They hire diversity and inclusion indoctrination specialists and these make recommendations like this rubbish. These specialists have to justify their own existence and ‘usefulness’ somehow. The organisations then implement it so they can say they were always pro-active in inclusion and diversity when a devout SJW does sue them or tries to burn them on the stake on Twitter further down the line.

It’s very like how junk food companies sponsor sports and health initiatives so they look like they actually care about the real people who eat their fake crap.

Yeah. The idea that they're doing it to avoid being sued, is guff. No evidence of that.

suicide_circus

should be doing stuff like this

https://www.thisiscolossal.com/2014/03/the-beauty-of-japans-artistic-manhole-covers/

hatrickpatrick

quokula wrote: »

Nothing’s been forced down anyone’s throats. A council has decided to change the wording in their own documents, that’s all.

It’s amazing how outraged some people get at the tiniest thing like what wording a council on the other side of the world decides to use for a hole in the ground.

Again, I wasn't talking about the manhole issue mentioned in the OP, that doesn't bother me - I was responding to El Duderino's point specifically about changing "pregnant woman" to "pregnant employee".

As far as nothing being shoved down anyone's throats, try publicly objecting to the ideological concept that gender is a state of mind and not a physical attribute (and how this is being pushed in public life, in education, etc) and see how quickly the mob sets out to destroy your life in any way they can. It absolutely is being shoved down peoples' throats.

drunkmonkey

El_Duderino 09

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Again, I wasn't talking about the manhole issue mentioned in the OP, that doesn't bother me - I was responding to El Duderino's point specifically about changing "pregnant woman" to "pregnant employee".

As far as nothing being shoved down anyone's throats, try publicly objecting to the ideological concept that gender is a state of mind and not a physical attribute (and how this is being pushed in public life, in education, etc) and see how quickly the mob sets out to destroy your life in any way they can. It absolutely is being shoved down peoples' throats.

To clarify, my point was that I don't really care about pregnant women/person. Total non issue for me.

I really don't think anyone will destroy your life if you hold that opinion. If you give your opinion about gender in the pub tonight, do you know what will happen? Absolutely nothing, that's what.

Public life is different, I'll grant you. People will go to town on celebrities like Jordan Peterson. But they do to town on love island contestants too so I don't really know what exactly that tells us

Danzy

I remember when the Left and progressive side of politics weren't full of rich tossers acting like priests.

I miss those days.

4068ac1elhodqr

Now they're giving out awards for making (stupid) chairs that compress men folks jingly janglies into an awkward overheated seating position.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-49037135
Can someone send a distress signal out to the nearest Galaxy for alien intervention.

drunkmonkey

I'm organising a Crusade

Hobosan

Royce Round Printer wrote: »

Now they're giving out awards for making (stupid) chairs that compress men folks jingly janglies into an awkward overheated seating position.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-49037135
Can someone send a distress signal out to the nearest Galaxy for alien intervention.

As expected, the designers spacial reasoning is on par with their cognition. The chair encourages what it's designed to prohibit!

Annasopra

Royce Round Printer wrote: »

Now they're giving out awards for making (stupid) chairs that compress men folks jingly janglies into an awkward overheated seating position.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-49037135
Can someone send a distress signal out to the nearest Galaxy for alien intervention.

No big deal really just make the chairs gender neutral and people can sit in whichever one they want.

Sonny noggs

drunkmonkey wrote: »

She’s no Megan Fox.

is_that_so

Royce Round Printer wrote: »

Now they're giving out awards for making (stupid) chairs that compress men folks jingly janglies into an awkward overheated seating position.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-49037135
Can someone send a distress signal out to the nearest Galaxy for alien intervention.

If you flip it around it gives you something to lean on as you manspread!

Bob24

Royce Round Printer wrote: »

Now they're giving out awards for making (stupid) chairs that compress men folks jingly janglies into an awkward overheated seating position.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-49037135
Can someone send a distress signal out to the nearest Galaxy for alien intervention.

Already posted on the thread. You are manreapeting here.

4068ac1elhodqr

Bob24 wrote: »

Already posted on the thread. You are manreapeting here.

Ah ok, thanks for manspalining this.


Can't believe it's 50yrs since it was one small step for homo sapien, and one giant leap for those of homo sapien variant kind like or kinship type.

juice1304

El_Duderino 09

Royce Round Printer wrote: »

Ah ok, thanks for manspalining this.


Can't believe it's 50yrs since it was one small step for homo sapien, and one giant leap for those of homo sapien variant kind like or kinship type.

Manspreading and mansplaining are 2 terms that only exist on the internet as far as I'm concerned. I've never heard them in real life and have only ever seen them used ironically as above.

Had anyone here ever been accused of manwhatever in earnest?

Bob24

Royce Round Printer wrote: »

Ah ok, thanks for manspalining this.


Can't believe it's 50yrs since it was one small step for homo sapien, and one giant leap for those of homo sapien variant kind like or kinship type.

No worries. I actually find this thread is good to mantertain myself while my other half is having her manicure ... oops apologies for my sexist remark there, I if course meant her womanicure.

hatrickpatrick

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Manspreading and mansplaining are 2 terms that only exist on the internet as far as I'm concerned. I've never heard them in real life and have only ever seen them used ironically as above.

Had anyone here ever been accused of manwhatever in earnest?

I have, but I was hanging out with a fairly toxic crowd at the time in fairness. They started out as normal, cool, friendly people but got sucked progressively further and further down the SJW rabbit hole as time went on, went from a group of really nice people to the types who'd put photos of themselves reading books like "How To Date Men When You Hate Men" on Instagram.

SJW indoctrination is f*cking depressing to witness in real time.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Manspreading and mansplaining are 2 terms that only exist on the internet as far as I'm concerned. I've never heard them in real life and have only ever seen them used ironically as above.

Had anyone here ever been accused of manwhatever in earnest?

If you want to see someone get "rekt".

kikilarue2

Being offended by the term manhole and being offended by the decision to update the terminology to maintenance hole are both ridiculous and snowflake-y as f**K. Anyone who has time to worry about this stuff is a lucky human being indeed.

OldGoat

In the greater scheme of things I'd say "That’s one small step for a person — one giant leap for all of the humankind".

El_Duderino 09

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I have, but I was hanging out with a fairly toxic crowd at the time in fairness. They started out as normal, cool, friendly people but got sucked progressively further and further down the SJW rabbit hole as time went on, went from a group of really nice people to the types who'd put photos of themselves reading books like "How To Date Men When You Hate Men" on Instagram.

SJW indoctrination is f*cking depressing to witness in real time.

Fair enough. I don't have any friends like that.

What about other posters? You might be the only person I've ever heard claim to have directly experienced this stuff in real life.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What about other posters? You might be the only person I've ever heard claim to have directly experienced this stuff in real life.

He isn't. I have encountered it on many different occasions.