Manholes are gender neutral now

punisher5112 · 19-07-2019 9:09pm

50HX wrote: »

Can't say ballcock either:D

Tie the thingy ma jiggy up there....

El_Duderino 09 · 19-07-2019 9:12pm

Ted Johnson wrote: »

Erasing gender is insane.

Is that what it is? And there was me thinking I'm still a bloke while all this is going on.

Ted Johnson · 19-07-2019 9:16pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is that what it is? And there was me thinking I'm still a bloke while all this is going on.

Whats so terrible about saying 'pregnant woman' why does it have to be changed to 'pregnant employee'?

Bobblehats · 19-07-2019 9:17pm

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 19-07-2019 9:24pm

Ted Johnson wrote: »

Just another day in clown world. Lets have a parade of 10 year old drag queens to celebrate the progress.

Honk honk!

It’s not a pride parade unless the 10 year old is waving a huge dildo around.

El_Duderino 09 · 19-07-2019 9:25pm

Ted Johnson wrote: »

Whats so terrible about saying 'pregnant woman' why does it have to be changed to 'pregnant employee'?

Neither bothers me. I'm not married to the language as I learned it.

What's so terrible about saying pregnant employee instead of pregnant woman?

Ted Johnson · 19-07-2019 9:27pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Neither bothers me. I'm not married to the language as I learned it.

What's so terrible about saying pregnant employee instead of pregnant woman?

Its wrong to erase women so as not to offend transexuals.

Kinda odd how you claim not to care and yet every post of yours is 'guys don't get angry over this, please!'

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 19-07-2019 9:28pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What's so terrible about saying pregnant employee instead of pregnant woman?

Why are they making woman a dirty word? You do know men can’t get pregnant? “Pregnant employee” is absolutely redundant.

hatrickpatrick · 19-07-2019 9:29pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Neither bothers me. I'm not married to the language as I learned it.

What's so terrible about saying pregnant employee instead of pregnant woman?

It's formalising the "gender is a social construct" agenda which a very large proportion of people, whether a majority or a very significant minority, are ideologically opposed to and yet seem to be utterly powerless to even oppose on an ideological or political level without being harassed and punished as a result.

punisher5112 · 19-07-2019 9:33pm

Without a woman you won't have a baby and without a man you won't have a baby so why pander to all the rubbish going on.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 19-07-2019 9:43pm

punisher5112 wrote: »

Without a woman you won't have a baby and without a man you won't have a baby so why pander to all the rubbish going on.

99.9% of the public agree with you but it’s the incrediblely loud .1% and the media that pander to them that makes this newsworthy. I will not change my speech to cater for a minority of people who’s only intent is to make themselves feel important. They can all **** off.

punisher5112 · 19-07-2019 9:44pm

Hunky Monster wrote: »

99.9% of the public agree with you but it’s the incrediblely loud .1% and the media that pander to them that makes this newsworthy. I will not change my speech to cater for a minority of people who’s only intent is to make themselves feel important. They can all **** off.

Boom..... This is it.....

Oh my what are we going to have to put up with in 5 years never mind 20

garyscargo · 19-07-2019 9:51pm

Hunky Monster wrote: »

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

Bullshít.

I take exception to your use of the term bullshít. Cowshít would avoid the toxic masculinity inherent in that misogynistic word, and instead harness the inner goddess power (or something) of the (much better) feminine. Or, indeed, one could use bovineshít if one chooses to dissipate gender entirely.

But then again, said bovine may have species identity issues, and instead identify as a pig or something. Or sow, of course (my bad with that toxic masculinity again in reaching for (yuck!) male pig before (yea!) female sow; mea culpa). Or porcine as a catch all once again to sidestep that sticky gender issue. But not just porcine, of course, but possibly feline, canine, equine, etc. So perhaps the term xineshít is best to describe excrement emanating from a gender and species fluid (if biological) bovine.

Anyway, enough xineshít from me.

El_Duderino 09 · 19-07-2019 9:53pm

Ted Johnson wrote: »

Its wrong to erase women so as not to offend transexuals.

Kinda odd how you claim not to care and yet every post of yours is 'guys don't get angry over this, please!'

Erasing women? Crikey and there was me thinking my wife was still a womam while all this was going on. Hold on a sec and I'll check.... You'll be surprised to hear my Mrs is still a woman. At what point should I expect her gender to be erased?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 19-07-2019 9:54pm

garyscargo wrote: »

I take exception to your use of the term bullshít. Cowshít would avoid the toxic masculinity inherent in that misogynistic word, and instead harness the inner goddess power (or something) of the (much better) feminine. Or, indeed, one could use bovineshít if one chooses to dissipate gender entirely.

But then again, said bovine may have species identity issues, and instead identify as a pig or something. Or sow, of course (my bad with that toxic masculinity again in reaching for (yuck!) male pig before (yea!) female sow; mea culpa). Or porcine as a catch all once again to sidestep that sticky gender issue. But not just porcine, of course, but possibly feline, canine, equine, etc. So perhaps the term xineshít is best to describe excrement emanating from a gender and species fluid (if biological) bovine.

Anyway, enough xineshít from me.

Sorry “Gary” I saw that you identified as a man and completely discarded your entire post.

Mansplaining at its finest. You were probably manspreading at the time too.
Pig.

punisher5112 · 19-07-2019 9:54pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Erasing women? Crikey and there was me thinking my wife was still a womam while all this was going on. Hold on a sec and I'll check.... You'll be surprised to hear my Mrs is still a woman. At what point should I expect her gender to be erased?

I can totally check this out for you.... Just need your address oh wait boom I got the address off her already ;-)

Ted Johnson · 19-07-2019 9:56pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Erasing women? Crikey and there was me thinking my wife was still a womam while all this was going on. Hold on a sec and I'll check.... You'll be surprised to hear my Mrs is still a woman. At what point should I expect her gender to be erased?

So you would have no issue with being compelled to say 'pregnant employee' instead of 'pregnant woman'?

How does your wife feel about this? Hey maybe she has bigger balls than you...

El_Duderino 09 · 19-07-2019 9:59pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's formalising the "gender is a social construct" agenda which a very large proportion of people, whether a majority or a very significant minority, are ideologically opposed to and yet seem to be utterly powerless to even oppose on an ideological or political level without being harassed and punished as a result.

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.

klaaaz · 19-07-2019 10:00pm

Ted Johnson wrote: »

So you would have no issue with being compelled to say 'pregnant employee' instead of 'pregnant woman'?

So what, no compelling anywhere? Men have become pregnant and have had babies hence saying employee or person would be accurate.

El_Duderino 09 · 19-07-2019 10:01pm

Ted Johnson wrote: »

So you would have no issue with being compelled to say 'pregnant employee' instead of 'pregnant woman'?

How does your wife feel about this? Hey maybe she has bigger balls than you...

Ive no idea what she thinks about it.

Will she get a set of balls due to the erasure of gender? Will you sprout a vagina? Sounds serious alright.

Ted Johnson · 19-07-2019 10:03pm

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.

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

Since I am in a benign mood today, I will assume you are deliberately misinterpreting this thread and not just being thick.

punisher5112 · 19-07-2019 10:04pm

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.

Suppose it had something to do with men being the only sex that went down there....

Obviously now things have changed but taking the name away is silly to be honest it's not like they're saying no woman allowed.

Ted Johnson · 19-07-2019 10:04pm

klaaaz wrote: »

So what, no compelling anywhere? Men have become pregnant and have had babies hence saying employee or person would be accurate.

Haha no, men have never been pregnant.

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

Ted Johnson · 19-07-2019 10:05pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ive no idea what she thinks about it.

Will she get a set of balls due to the erasure of gender? Will you sprout a vagina? Sounds serious alright.

So you'd have no issue with being compelled to say 'pregnant employee'? Why force people?

lbc2019 · 19-07-2019 10:07pm

punisher5112 wrote: »

I'll go to my grave calling a man hole what it is and that's a MAN HOLE....

You could call your grave a man hole!

El_Duderino 09 · 19-07-2019 10:09pm

Ted Johnson wrote: »

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

Since I am in a benign mood today, I will assume you are deliberately misinterpreting this thread and not just being thick.

Oh gowd let's all be thankful for your benign mood. Long may it last, please God.

But you will surely accept that the convention of naming an access hatch with a gender is a strange one to begin with. Were they always called manholes or are you only interested in maintaining the current name?

El_Duderino 09 · 19-07-2019 10:10pm

punisher5112 wrote: »

Suppose it had something to do with men being the only sex that went down there....

Obviously now things have changed but taking the name away is silly to be honest it's not like they're saying no woman allowed.

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

lbc2019 · 19-07-2019 10:11pm

Reax guy, I dont think it is MANdatory...

El_Duderino 09 · 19-07-2019 10:11pm

Ted Johnson wrote: »

So you'd have no issue with being compelled to say 'pregnant employee'? Why force people?

Funny enough, I don't force anyone to say anything.

What are the proposed penalties for non Compliance in the example in the US?

Ted Johnson · 19-07-2019 10:12pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh gowd let's all be thankful for your benign mood. Long may it last, please God.

But you will surely accept that the convention of naming an access hatch with a gender is a strange one to begin with. Were they always called manholes or are you only interested in maintaining the current name?

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.

Manholes are gender neutral now

Comments