Berkley takes the next step in gender neutral

[Canadian Visitor]

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.

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/

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.

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.

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.