Berkley takes the next step in gender neutral

Well it is official,it is no longer a manhole cover,it is a maintenance hole cover.

"Bondsman" will now be "bonds-person," "firemen" and "firewomen" will now both be referred to as "firefighters," and "manpower" will be replaced with "human effort" or "workforce." Sororities and fraternities will now go by "Collegiate Greek system residence" and a pregnant woman will be referred to as a "pregnant employee."

Notice a pregnant woman is referred to as a pregnant employee.

Think of the ramifications of that,and they say words have meaning.

Right there they are implying that women can only be employees.

To highlight a few.

You no longer have a brother or sister,it will be sibling.

Makes sense why would you want to upset the tiny percentage of those who do not know if they are a man or woman,it is easier to force millions of others to comply.

I guess no more woman’s movement or woman’s soccer team,no more woman’s underwear,ladies it will now be boxers or briefs,cannot even say lady really.

What about the last names from the past?

like Johnson which was dirived from the son of John?

So you cannot call a woman a woman anymore or a she.

You can do catcalls when a woman walks by because she is not longer a woman so you are not disrespectful to her because of her gender,because she has no gender.

No more extra woman’s rights,no more woman owned businesses receiving contracts based on being a woman owned business.

Politicians can no longer claim that we need more women in office,because they are not women any more,just considered another gender that needs to attempt like all the other genders.

Nobody can say that businesses need to have more women as CEOs because they are not women anymore.

This could get really interesting.

What about women’s current names? Can Pam still be considered a woman or does she need to change her name to a more gender neutral name?

What happens to the women that are proud of being a woman they now become just another gender,nothing special.

Its a slippery slope when you choose to remove self identity from a population,it’s kinda like producing a bunch of machines that are easy to control.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/berkele...r-and-firemen/

I guess in theory it is okay for women to walk around topless,they are not women anymore just another gender with extra bits,it’s only fair because the other gender walks around with no shirt on,how exactly does one produce a gender neutral bra,might as well ditch them also.

No more “woman’s rights” because in the world of gender neutral they cannot form a gender specific campaign.

California,as much as you try,to us old school folks a woman will always be a woman and if we wanted to spend time with a non specific,no identity object we would buy a blow up doll,so stick your all imposing regulations up your maintenance hole and leave the rest of the country out of your silliness.

^^^ And you're pilloried should you make any mistake in the use and application of these new options. Oh my -:eek:-!!

In the mean time, there's increasing concern and complaint from feminists and women in general to loosing identity as women, and sharing it with transgenders [[specifically identity and former physical equity in sports).

No one saw any of this coming around the corner I suppose? I did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

...I guess no more woman’s movement or woman’s soccer team, no more woman’s underwear, ladies it will now be boxers or briefs, cannot even say lady really.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

I guess I'm theory it is okay for women to walk around topless, they are not women anymore just another gender with extra bits, it's only fair because the other gender walks around with no shirt on, how exactly does one produce a gender neutral bra,might as well ditch them also.

---

I like your thinking here. Free the girls. It's too dang hot to layer up and strap 'em down.

"Fireman" is also the job title for guys who shoveled coal or wood into steam engines or ships. Unlike the firemen at the fire station who put fires out [[fire fighters), these firemen made fires. I propose "arsonists" to cover this oversight and earn my stripes with regard to creating a workable Newspeak vocabulary.

Speaking of "arsonists", the Big Boy* will be coming to Chicago next weekend. If anyone has any children who love steam engines and arsonists, its time for a pilgrimage.

*From Newspeak dictionary: Big Child = formerly Big Boy, Largest steam engine in the world.

Yep, more than one way to look at firemen [[eh, um I meant fireperson)!

https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP.HHcYx...S&pid=Api&rs=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

Well it is official,it is no longer a manhole cover,it is a maintenance hole cover.

"Bondsman" will now be "bonds-person," "firemen" and "firewomen" will now both be referred to as "firefighters," and "manpower" will be replaced with "human effort" or "workforce." Sororities and fraternities will now go by "Collegiate Greek system residence" and a pregnant woman will be referred to as a "pregnant employee."

Notice a pregnant woman is referred to as a pregnant employee.

---

A couple of these are silly but most are fine and normal. Toronto has had 'firefighters' for years just as we have 'police officers', 'guards' etc.

These terms are perfectly reasonable and simply suggest that the person filling the job could be of either sex [[don't tell the binary police I phrased it that way)

The sorority/fraternity thing is rather silly; as in the one about pregnancy.......but most of the rest are ordinary words used properly, and in many cases make more sense that a sex-specific term. Do you really need to say 'fireman' and 'firewoman'?

Who cares.......by all means call out the stupid ones, but most are fine.

Btw, where do you get this 'forcing millions to comply business? This is a directive to City staff on how to use language in City documents. Its an employer/employee thing, not binding on the general public.

Specifically from your link:

and other gender-specific language will be eliminated from the municipal code. ......

Note that this does not change how people talk, nor does it affect anyone who is not a City staffer.

Quote:

---

I guess no more woman’s movement or woman’s soccer team,no more woman’s underwear,ladies it will now be boxers or briefs,cannot even say lady really.

What about the last names from the past?

like Johnson which was dirived from the son of John?

So you cannot call a woman a woman anymore or a she.

You can do catcalls when a woman walks by because she is not longer a woman so you are not disrespectful to her because of her gender,because she has no gender.

No more extra woman’s rights,no more woman owned businesses receiving contracts based on being a woman owned business.

Politicians can no longer claim that we need more women in office,because they are not women any more,just considered another gender that needs to attempt like all the other genders.

Nobody can say that businesses need to have more women as CEOs because they are not women anymore.

This could get really interesting.

What about women’s current names? Can Pam still be considered a woman or does she need to change her name to a more gender neutral name?

What happens to the women that are proud of being a woman they now become just another gender,nothing special.

Its a slippery slope when you choose to remove self identity from a population,it’s kinda like producing a bunch of machines that are easy to control.

---

Quote:

---

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/berkele...r-and-firemen/

---

Where do you get all this nonsense from? I have no idea what drugs you are on, but their use by the general population should surely be criminalized.

Walk all that back.

This is a directive to City staff, as to how to use language in City documents or how to address co-workers.

That's it.

The purpose is not to wipe out sex or gender, its to remove arbitrary and erroneous terms......[[fireman, where there are women on the force) .....

As well as use terms that are inclusive of a WIDER range of identities, not fewer. ie. Firefighter would cover someone who is trans, you don't need an extra adjective or exception, because every firefighter is a firefighter.

There is simply no need for the distinction.

The change does not remove or ban the distinction between sexes where it is material.

Again, they got some wrong......maiden name does not make sense in the era of gay marriage.

But 'family name' is not the correct replacement term. Maiden name refers to one's last name at birth, as opposed to one's married name.

"Birth name" would have made more sense.

Quote:

---

I guess in theory it is okay for women to walk around topless,they are not women anymore just another gender with extra bits,it’s only fair because the other gender walks around with no shirt on,how exactly does one produce a gender neutral bra,might as well ditch them also.

---

In Canada women have had the right to go topless in public for years. This was the result of a court case involving Gwen Jacobs.

That decision was 1991. Shockingly, outside of the beach most women don't exercise that right. It happens the odd time on a hot day.

Even the beach you don't see it that often outside of the clothing optional beaches.

No big deal.

Also.....is there a law mandating women where bras? I must have missed that.

Quote:

---

No more “woman’s rights” because in the world of gender neutral they cannot form a gender specific campaign.

---

Again, not what this is about at all. Its about encompassing men, women, trans, gay, lesbian, queer, 2S etc. without needing extra terms.

Women's rights are women's rights.

Though some might be covered by 'sexual equality' rights, some would not be.

Actually, there is no real reason for why women can't go topless; breasts are there on men as well as women and would perform the same function if men could produce children. Breasts are a functional organ; mankind made them sexual. Men can get breast cancer and other breast diseases the same as women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carolyn.F

I like your thinking here. Free the girls. It's too dang hot to layer up and strap 'em down.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcole

Actually, there is no real reason for why women can't go topless; breasts are there on men as well as women and would perform the same function if men could produce children. Breasts are a functional organ; mankind made them sexual. Men can get breast cancer and other breast diseases the same as women.

---

You could have added a few links to National Geographic.

Blame Larry Flynt!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcole

...Breasts are a functional organ; mankind made them sexual.

---

^ he just took it to the next level,the movie industry figured out real quick sex sells,and nobody even needed to speak.

Theda Bara


In 1915 alone, Bara starred in eleven films. They were the studio’s most profitable pictures, rivalling the success of Charlie Chaplin films. She became so famous that Nicola Tesla promised to send her image to Mars.

https://www.messynessychic.com/2016/...as-first-goth/


Berkley has also now banned natural gas.

The city of Berkeley will no longer allow natural gas pipes in many new buildings starting Jan. 1, 2020. It’s the first city in California to pass such a law, officials said.

https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/07...ome-exceptions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

A couple of these are silly but most are fine and normal. Toronto has had 'firefighters' for years just as we have 'police officers', 'guards' etc.

These terms are perfectly reasonable and simply suggest that the person filling the job could be of either sex [[don't tell the binary police I phrased it that way)

The sorority/fraternity thing is rather silly; as in the one about pregnancy.......but most of the rest are ordinary words used properly, and in many cases make more sense that a sex-specific term. Do you really need to say 'fireman' and 'firewoman'?

Who cares.......by all means call out the stupid ones, but most are fine.

Btw, where do you get this 'forcing millions to comply business? This is a directive to City staff on how to use language in City documents. Its an employer/employee thing, not binding on the general public.

Specifically from your link:

and other gender-specific language will be eliminated from the municipal code. ......

Note that this does not change how people talk, nor does it affect anyone who is not a City staffer.



Where do you get all this nonsense from? I have no idea what drugs you are on, but their use by the general population should surely be criminalized.

Walk all that back.

This is a directive to City staff, as to how to use language in City documents or how to address co-workers.

That's it.

The purpose is not to wipe out sex or gender, its to remove arbitrary and erroneous terms......[[fireman, where there are women on the force) .....

As well as use terms that are inclusive of a WIDER range of identities, not fewer. ie. Firefighter would cover someone who is trans, you don't need an extra adjective or exception, because every firefighter is a firefighter.

There is simply no need for the distinction.

The change does not remove or ban the distinction between sexes where it is material.

Again, they got some wrong......maiden name does not make sense in the era of gay marriage.

But 'family name' is not the correct replacement term. Maiden name refers to one's last name at birth, as opposed to one's married name.

"Birth name" would have made more sense.



In Canada women have had the right to go topless in public for years. This was the result of a court case involving Gwen Jacobs.

That decision was 1991. Shockingly, outside of the beach most women don't exercise that right. It happens the odd time on a hot day.

Even the beach you don't see it that often outside of the clothing optional beaches.

No big deal.

Also.....is there a law mandating women where bras? I must have missed that.



Again, not what this is about at all. Its about encompassing men, women, trans, gay, lesbian, queer, 2S etc. without needing extra terms.

Women's rights are women's rights.

Though some might be covered by 'sexual equality' rights, some would not be.

---

So much going on in that reply,if the government creates a directive then yes you are forced to comply.

If women are to be considered equal then why do they need specific rights that set them apart same as gay,transgender people,who do not know what they were born as,or have not decided yet.

Equal but recognized as a separate entity protected by special rights.

Does not really make one equal.

How about spending the same amount of time and resources by promoting the treat everybody as you would like to be treated.

Religion used to promote that concept until it was removed as much as possible from daily life.

So now,yes it is mandated and enforced,treat everybody equal or suffer the consequences,next it will be lash them to the pole and break out the cat-o-nines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

So much going on in that reply,if the government creates a directive then yes you are forced to comply.

If women are to be considered equal then why do they need specific rights that set them apart same as gay,transgender people,who do not know what they were born as,or have not decided yet.

Equal but recognized as a separate entity protected by special rights.

Does not really make one equal.

How about spending the same amount of time and resources by promoting the treat everybody as you would like to be treated.

Religion used to promote that concept until it was removed as much as possible from daily life.

So now,yes it is mandated and enforced,treat everybody equal or suffer the consequences,next it will be lash them to the pole and break out the cat-o-nines.

---

Clearly you neither read, nor understood my post.

Which surprises no one.

For those who are very learning-challenged.

The City Council did NOT issue a directive to the general population.

Period. Full-Stop.

It issued a directive to municipal staff to alter a City document [[The Municipal Code) so as to remove language which was not gender neutral.

That's it. That's all. Nothing more except in your furtive imagination.

^ are you really that oblivious to how things actually work ?

and what’s with that whole “Period Full stop” thing,is that even proper English that you champion for? Or is it just a Canadian thing?

I guess if they meen the same thing,is it like internet stuttering?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

and what’s with that whole “Period Full stop” thing,is that even proper English that you champion for? Or is it just a Canadian thing?

---

It's a proper British English thing.

Final result: It's Pat!

^^^ Say what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pjbear05

Final result: It's Pat!

---

..........
https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.u...sign_1f44d.png

Oh, of SNL culture.

Drat's I missed that one and feel less enriched ...:rolleyes:...

An English teacher tries to teach the 62 new gender pronouns to a class of foreign, non-English speaking students.

https://youtu.be/IzNGkwGYE4E

Linked from the Peggy Noonan article about SJWs changing English.

"There is a tone of, “I am your moral teacher. Because you are incapable of sensitivity, I will help you, dumb farmer. I will start with the language you speak.”

An odd thing is they always insist they’re doing this in the name of kindness and large-spiritedness. And yet, have you ever met them? They’re not individually kind or large-spirited. They’re more like messianic schoolmasters."

^^^ Hah-post-modern academe! But is anyone teaching or lifting up concepts such gratitude or basic manners like "Excuse me" and "Thank you"?

Nope that's all too conventional...:rolleyes:...

In respect of the two posts above...........

Can I remind folks that there is nothing to do with schools going on Berkley, ie. the subject of this thread.

There are no new gendered pronouns in their municipal code either. Not one.

This is what induces a certain measure of condescension from the well educated.......completely off-topic, fake-news, paranoia.

Yes, there are SJW folks who go to far, but they aren't in the story that is the subject of this thread.

Can we now bring this thread to a close please. Surely it has run its course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

In respect of the two posts above...........

Can I remind folks that there is nothing to do with schools going on Berkley, ie. the subject of this thread.

---

Answer: yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

There are no new gendered pronouns in their municipal code either. Not one.

This is what induces a certain measure of condescension from the well educated.......completely off-topic, fake-news, paranoia.

Yes, there are SJW folks who go to far, but they aren't in the story that is the subject of this thread.

Can we now bring this thread to a close please. Surely it has run its course.

---

You are ignoring the humor involved by snowflakes intent on renaming things. I took the Berkeley story as an example of larger phenomena. Everyone knows what a 'manhole' is but what range of covers might 'maintenance hole cover' involve? Manhole is one word and is more specific. There are probably panels on a lot of machinery and airplane wings that can be removed for maintenance too. I would have opted for 'sewer lid' if I was offended by the term 'manhole'. Peggy Noonan addressed the larger PC Newspeak phenomena in her article [[link post 19).

That was my take on it. For certain it is a subject expansive in implication, and pending politic-to-policy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

...You are ignoring the humor involved by snowflakes intent on renaming things. I took the Berkeley story as an example of larger phenomena.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

In respect of the two posts above...........

Can I remind folks that there is nothing to do with schools going on Berkley, ie. the subject of this thread.

There are no new gendered pronouns in their municipal code either. Not one.

This is what induces a certain measure of condescension from the well educated.......completely off-topic, fake-news, paranoia.

Yes, there are SJW folks who go to far, but they aren't in the story that is the subject of this thread.

Can we now bring this thread to a close please. Surely it has run its course.

---

Actualy the two posts are relevant.

How did Hitler and others rise to power?

Conditioning,take a group of people and useing conditioning get them to comform to your way of thinking.

If they do not,pass laws and force them,in order to be successful we must all think as one,devoid of individual thought.

Religion preaches treat everybody as you would like to be treated.

Schools teach or are teaching that we are comprised of sub groups and we must take every sub group as a separate entity that has rules and regulations that must be followed.

Some sub groups seeking reconigition are doing it in a way that removes everybody’s identity so we are all as one like little drones.

So what it is called a man hole cover,just because you do not know if you are a man or a woman the rest of the world should change the way they think in order as to not offend you?

Guess what there are men and women and they also identify as a man or a woman,so they should stop identifying as such?

So what happens if you are a man that identifies as a woman,a man hole cover offends you,then you decide a few years down the road that you want to identify as a man,then you have no problem calling a man hole cover a man hole cover as it is no longer offensive.

In the meantime the rest of the world had to bend to your offensiveness.

A man hole cover actually has zero to do with gender,but because it reads man then it is gender related.

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-manholes-called-manholes

So most of it is getting offended and forcing laws on others to comply when they do not know thier man hole cover from a maintenance hole in the ground.

How about if you are confused to what you are,maybe wait until you personally figure it out before forcing others to comply to your personal confusion.

The city changing terminology is no different then the links of school conditioning.

CV ask yourself,do you believe that in both Canada and the United States history taught in schools is accurate or is it taught in order to make you believe in the way they feel you should believe in.

Baby it is hot outside ....