Manholes are gender neutral now

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

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.