Manholes are gender neutral now

klaaaz · 19-07-2019 10:12PM

Ted Johnson wrote: »

Haha no, men have never been pregnant.

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

You don't have to use the term pregnant employee, the alternative to use is pregnant man or a pregnant woman. Hope you're not offended.

Ted Johnson · 19-07-2019 10:12PM

klaaaz wrote: »

You don't have to use the term pregnant employee, the alternative to use is pregnant man or a pregnant woman. Hope you're not offended.

I'll just use he or she. Wait, you actually said ''pregnant man'

hahahaha!

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 19-07-2019 10:13PM

What are we gonna call the classic 80s band “Men at work” now?

El_Duderino 09 · 19-07-2019 10:14PM

Ted Johnson wrote: »

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.

Thanks.

What means is the state proposing to enforce the use of this language. That's a claim that's been made repeatedly, so has anyone seen where they propose to e force it and punish non Compliance?

Ted Johnson · 19-07-2019 10:16PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Thanks.

What means is the state proposing to enforce the use of this language. That's a claim that's been made repeatedly, so has anyone seen where they propose to e force it and punish non Compliance?

You'll no doubt be sanctioned if you don't get with the program my bootlicking friend.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 19-07-2019 10:20PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Thanks.

What means is the state proposing to enforce the use of this language. That's a claim that's been made repeatedly, so has anyone seen where they propose to e force it and punish non Compliance?

C16 Canada.

Google it.

El_Duderino 09 · 19-07-2019 10:20PM

Ted Johnson wrote: »

You'll no doubt be sanctioned if you don't get with the program my bootlicking friend.

Sure. Just show me where they said they will sanction People.

It should be a really easy request to fulfil because the main premise of the argument seems to be that the state is Compelling people to say things. Just show us where you hot that from.

El_Duderino 09 · 19-07-2019 10:22PM

Hunky Monster wrote: »

C16 Canada.

Google it.

The Canadians are going to sanction people for their use of language in the US. This is more serious than I thought.

Any suggestion that the US is planning to sanction people to do with the manholes language?

Woodsie1 · 19-07-2019 10:24PM

klaaaz wrote: »

Men have become pregnant and have had babies

Wait,what?!!?

Ted Johnson · 19-07-2019 10:25PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure. Just show me where they said they will sanction People.

It should be a really easy request to fulfil because the main premise of the argument seems to be that the state is Compelling people to say things. Just show us where you hot that from.

It will be banned from official documents issued by the city council so of course you will be punished if you don't go along with the newspeak.

How does this new policy benefit anyone?

Woodsie1 · 19-07-2019 10:28PM

klaaaz wrote: »

You don't have to use the term pregnant employee, the alternative to use is pregnant man or a pregnant woman. Hope you're not offended.

Too bad I caught your insane post before you edited it,but its still insane.
Where are these pregnant men?

Edit: Sorry it was another post and you doubled down on the pregnant man thing,insanity on display here for all to see.

blackcard · 19-07-2019 10:28PM

Will it be okay to use the term 'manly'? Or to call someone a male chauvinist pig?

Sittingpretty · 19-07-2019 10:30PM

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Wait,what?!!?

It’s infuriating isn’t it.

Men have never become pregnant and had babies because men do not have uteruses.

Women who identify as men have become pregnant and had babies. Not men. You are not a biological man just because you decide you want to be or you feel like a man. Ergo you are not a man becoming pregnant and having a baby.

El_Duderino 09 · 19-07-2019 10:34PM

Ted Johnson wrote: »

It will be banned from official documents issued by the city council so of course you will be punished if you don't go along with the newspeak.

How does this new policy benefit anyone?

Private individuals will be punished if they do t go along with it?

I work in the public sector and there are loads of official terms that we use. Not a problem for me.

I don't know who benefits. I would have said nobody is harmed either but the twisted knickers in reaction to it might cause some harm. Do you consider yourself harmed by the change?

klaaaz · 19-07-2019 10:35PM

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Too bad I caught your insane post before you edited it,but its still insane.
Where are these pregnant men?

Edit: Sorry it was another post and you doubled down on the pregnant man thing,insanity on display here for all to see.

I didn't edit my post nor have doubled down on anything, men have had babies for at least a couple of decades now. Surprised that you are surprised by that, 21st century and all.

Woodsie1 · 19-07-2019 10:39PM

klaaaz wrote: »

I didn't edit my post nor have doubled down on anything, men have had babies for at least a couple of decades now. Surprised that you are surprised by that, 21st century and all.

No they quite simply havent.
Men have never had babies.They are not capable of having babies.

Monty Python were right all them years ago,seems klaaz you are struggling with reality!

Ted Johnson · 19-07-2019 10:39PM

klaaaz wrote: »

I didn't edit my post nor have doubled down on anything, men have had babies for at least a couple of decades now. Surprised that you are surprised by that, 21st century and all.

Typical man, stealing the credit from women

Jimbob1977 · 19-07-2019 10:41PM

It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words

1984

Sittingpretty · 19-07-2019 10:41PM

klaaaz wrote: »

I didn't edit my post nor have doubled down on anything, men have had babies for at least a couple of decades now. Surprised that you are surprised by that, 21st century and all.

Have they? Really? Can you link me one instance where a biological man has become
Pregnant and delivered a baby?

Ted Johnson · 19-07-2019 10:42PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Private individuals will be punished if they do t go along with it?

I work in the public sector and there are loads of official terms that we use. Not a problem for me.

I don't know who benefits. I would have said nobody is harmed either but the twisted knickers in reaction to it might cause some harm. Do you consider yourself harmed by the change?

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.

meeeeh · 19-07-2019 10:42PM

Is that Barkley's contribution to Trump re-election?

punisher5112 · 19-07-2019 10:43PM

lbc2019 wrote: »

You could call your grave a man hole!

Oh I do like that..... I'm going to have that and Philips hue lights with hue disco on loop going 24/7....

Sittingpretty · 19-07-2019 10:43PM

On second thoughts, don’t bother, it’s late and I’d rather be sleeping than pointing out the glaringly obvious.

punisher5112 · 19-07-2019 10:44PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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

But do they ..

Only woman I seen going down was the one that fell down the open one.

El_Duderino 09 · 19-07-2019 10:44PM

Ted Johnson wrote: »

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

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?

Faugheen · 19-07-2019 10:47PM

Another thread of people bitching and moaning about something that has absolutely zero impact on their lives.

Imagine whinging over a manhole not being called a manhole?

Get a grip ffs.

El_Duderino 09 · 19-07-2019 10:47PM

punisher5112 wrote: »

But do they ..

Only woman I seen going down was the one that fell down the open one.

That doesn't answer the question though. If they were dubbed manhole because men went down them, wouldn't it be equally sensible to rename them if women also use them?

It's probably not a question of what you've personally seen though. Thinga probably happens without you seeing them.

meeeeh · 19-07-2019 10:47PM

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?

Ah come on, it smells of local inclusivity committee finding some work for themselves so nobody gets the idea they are not doing much. It might not be 1984 but it is bloody ridiculous.

klaaaz · 19-07-2019 10:49PM

Woodsie1 wrote: »

No they quite simply havent.
Men have never had babies.They are not capable of having babies.

Monty Python were right all them years ago,seems klaaz you are struggling with reality!

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

punisher5112 · 19-07-2019 10:50PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That doesn't answer the question though. If they were dubbed manhole because men went down them, wouldn't it be equally sensible to rename them if women also use them?

It's probably not a question of what you've personally seen though. Thinga probably happens without you seeing them.

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

Manholes are gender neutral now

Comments