Manholes are gender neutral now

Ted Johnson

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Has anyone found whee the state has said it will compel people to use the new terms? And sanction those who don't comply.

So far we've got an assumption that the state will adopt those terms in official business. Doesn't really merit the 1984 references, does it?

If you work for Berkley city council you will be compelled to use the newspeak.

Honest question, how broken are you on the inside to have no problem with this?

punisher5112

Oh my it fell down the pleasure hole....

Emergency services get back a few hours later after going through the LGBTQ plus a to z list and eventually figure it out....

The it is now well dead as they had sent and ice cream van 1st....

Ted Johnson

klaaaz wrote: »

Yes, men have had babies since about 2008, a wonderful thing to happen for humankind. https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1005891/itv-this-morning-eamonn-holmes-ruth-langsford-pregnant-man-thomas-beatie

That is grotesque.

El_Duderino 09

Ted Johnson wrote: »

I would consider it a dangerous precedent if your state employer can restrict you from using harmless words like manhole and pregnant woman in your place of work.

But hey, you go be a submissive bootlicker.

There are loads of accepted terms in my work. It wouldn't make sense to freestyle our own language because it creates ambiguity. Once a term is agreed upon, it's what we use because it leads to clear, effective communication. Bootlicking as you call it. Lol.

Can't for the life of me see why you would get so worked up about such a trivial issue. If someone can be injured by this, they'll probably spend half their life upset about one thing or another.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Has anyone found whee the state has said it will compel people to use the new terms? And sanction those who don't comply.

So far we've got an assumption that the state will adopt those terms in official business. Doesn't really merit the 1984 references, does it?

Again... Bill C16 in Canada where the state COMPELLS you to use certain language. Prison terms for you if you don't use another persons preferred pro-nouns. Yes, prison terms.
This is your 1984.

Woodsie1

klaaaz wrote: »

Yes, men have had babies since about 2008, a wonderful thing to happen for humankind. https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1005891/itv-this-morning-eamonn-holmes-ruth-langsford-pregnant-man-thomas-beatie

Thats a woman,men have no wombs.

El_Duderino 09

punisher5112 wrote: »

Ok I'll fold... PLEASURE HOLE.... How's that sound ;-)

Sounds grand to me. Probably depends on how much pleasure you get from them. Not sure it will catch on.

klaaaz

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Thats a woman,men have no wombs.

That's a man who had the baby, all masculinity evident.

Woodsie1

klaaaz wrote: »

That's a man who had the baby, all masculinity evident.

Its a woman,men dont have wombs.
Basic biology,surprised you dont know that men and women are different.

punisher5112

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sounds grand to me. Probably depends on how much pleasure you get from them. Not sure it will catch on.

Pleasure hole it is so....

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

punisher5112 wrote: »

Pleasure hole it is so....

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

Credit where credit is due.

El_Duderino 09

Ted Johnson wrote: »

If you work for Berkley city council you will be compelled to use the newspeak.

Honest question, how broken are you on the inside to have no problem with this?

Newspeak. Lol. Still banging the 1984 drum. Sounds like you're really being victimised.

How broken an I? Honestly loaded question.

I just don't really worry about this kind of thing. I watch blokes get their knickers twisted til their pips squeek over this kind of thing.

Terms change all the time. I recently looked at a report we published a decade ago and there were loads of terms that were different. Nothing to worry about.

Bob24

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Can't for the life of me see why you would get so worked up about such a trivial issue. If someone can be injured by this, they'll probably spend half their life upset about one thing or another.

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?

klaaaz

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Its a woman,men dont have wombs.
Basic biology,surprised you dont know that men and women are different.

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

Woodsie1

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.

Men dont have wombs no matter how much you wish it.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Newspeak. Lol. Still banging the 1984 drum. Sounds like you're really being victimised.

How broken an I? Honestly loaded question.

I just don't really worry about this kind of thing. I watch blokes get their knickers twisted til their pips squeek over this kind of thing.

Terms change all the time. I recently looked at a report we published a decade ago and there were loads of terms that were different. Nothing to worry about.

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.
Yeah sure, language changes, you don't hear the word "N****R" or "F****T" much these days and for good reason. We're talking about manholes here...manholes.

El_Duderino 09

punisher5112 wrote: »

Pleasure hole it is so....

OK. I won't be getting upset like other posters.
You seem to have come around to the idea of changing the name. Good for you

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

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.

You're monumentally stupid.

El_Duderino 09

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Again... Bill C16 in Canada where the state COMPELLS you to use certain language. Prison terms for you if you don't use another persons preferred pro-nouns. Yes, prison terms.
This is your 1984.

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?

klaaaz

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Men dont have wombs no matter how much you wish it.

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

Hunky Monster wrote: »

You're monumentally stupid.

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

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.