Berkley to cease using gendered language like "manhole"

[Duhon]

This has a lot more weight than others.

I mean, having a beef with fucking "manhole".

FUCKING.

MANHOLE.

So basically what we're saying is it's dangerous to accept that not everyone who works in the sanitation department is a man.

And basically what I for one am saying is that words like fucking "manpower" and fucking "manhole" aren't fucking loaded terms, ready to inculcate sexism into the vulnerable like fucking linguistic stinkbombs.

I mean, look at me, I pepper almost every decent interval between fucking words with fucking variations of fucking "fuck", but does that mean I wanna fuck tonight?

[Highever]

This has a lot more weight than others.

I mean, having a beef with fucking "manhole".

FUCKING.

MANHOLE.

So basically what we're saying is it's dangerous to accept that not everyone who works in the sanitation department is a man.

Pretty sure they are just showing how absurd it is to find an issue with what to call a hole leading to a sewer system but, sure, label them as a misogynist or something.

[Vassenor]

So basically what we're saying is it's dangerous to accept that not everyone who works in the sanitation department is a man.

Pretty sure they are just showing how absurd it is to find an issue with what to call a hole leading to a sewer system but, sure, label them as a misogynist or something.

Who said anything about misogyny?

[Highever]

Pretty sure they are just showing how absurd it is to find an issue with what to call a hole leading to a sewer system but, sure, label them as a misogynist or something.

Who said anything about misogyny?

Oh of course I forgot, you only vaguely imply things or toe the line so that you can always deny that you technically said it. Unless something else was meant by saying Duhon was saying they don't want to accept that it isn't only men who work in sanitation.

[Purgatio]

This has a lot more weight than others.

I mean, having a beef with fucking "manhole".

FUCKING.

MANHOLE.

So basically what we're saying is it's dangerous to accept that not everyone who works in the sanitation department is a man.

No one, literally no one, who uses the word "manhole" thinks that everyone who works in the sanitation department is a man or that women cannot work in sewers. No one. Changing the word does nothing to change mindsets or mentalities.

[Vassenor]

Who said anything about misogyny?

Oh of course I forgot, you only vaguely imply things or toe the line so that you can always deny that you technically said it. Unless something else was meant by saying Duhon was saying they don't want to accept that it isn't only men who work in sanitation.

Or we're just assuming that this must be the work of those evil feminists trying to erase the mens from history.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Soon, there will be no more manholes in the city of Berkeley, California. There will also be no chairmen, no manpower, no policemen or policewomen.

"I was stopped and frisked by a policeman."

"I was stopped and frisked by a policewoman."

Do these statements sound the same to you?

People are not "gender neutral." Hormones plainly influence us, and it is idiotic to ignore them.

[Vassenor]

Soon, there will be no more manholes in the city of Berkeley, California. There will also be no chairmen, no manpower, no policemen or policewomen.

"I was stopped and frisked by a policeman."

"I was stopped and frisked by a policewoman."

Do these statements sound the same to you?

People are not "gender neutral." Hormones plainly influence us, and it is idiotic to ignore them.

Yes, actually, they do. Same as if you'd said "I was stopped and frisked by a police officer".

[Duhon]

"I was stopped and frisked by a policeman."

"I was stopped and frisked by a policewoman."

Do these statements sound the same to you?

People are not "gender neutral." Hormones plainly influence us, and it is idiotic to ignore them.

Yes, actually, they do. Same as if you'd said "I was stopped and frisked by a police officer".

There is no reason, utterly no reason, to be this suspicious of words that have no freight of bigotry in them nor were ever intended to be so freighted. I mean, "man" was used to specifically mean "any one human being" or "mankind as a whole" irrespective of differences of sex till the end of the nineteenth century, without the added freight of it meaning "all males belonging to Homo sapiens sapiens".

[Galloism]

Isn’t manhole a shortening of “manual access”; etymology for ‘hand’ as in the word ‘manual’?

No, it's literally just man and hole put together, because men go through the hole. Any etymology authority will tell you this. I don't know where you are getting this alt-history of the word. I certainly don't see how "access" gets shortened to "hole".

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

The term manhole comes from the 19th century and originally referred to a small access hole in the top or side of a boiler that was covered with a heavy metal plate bolted in place. These holes were not meant to provide access for a man to pass through, but for an arm and hand to reach the inner parts of the boiler. “Man” in this case refers not to the gender of the worker, but is from the root word that means “hand,” as in the word “manual.” Indeed, some old boiler manuals use the words “manhole” and “handhole” synonymously. Sewer manholes were probably so-called as an extension of the general term that meant “an access hole” and the gender-specific meaning followed naturally, albeit somewhat erroneously.

This is the same error one sees in the claim that terms such as “man the rudder” or “man the post” are gender-specific when in fact they simply refer to the actual holding of something with the hand (like a rudder), or are instances of synecdoche where “man,” meaning “hand,” is used to refer to a (gender-neutral) person (as in “all hands on deck.”)

Manholes, mostly found in the streets of cities, serve as access points to various underground utilities including sewers, electricity, telephone lines, gas lines and storm drains.

The Name
The term "manhole" comes from the simple idea of how the hole was used--by men who entered the hole to locate the tunneled area beneath the ground.

Other Names
A manhole may also be called an access chamber, utility hole, maintenance hole or inspection chamber.

Name Issue
According to The New York Times, leaders in Sacramento, California, decided in 1990 that the word "manhole" was sexist, and the city now refers to manholes as "maintenance holes."

The Covers
Manhole covers are noted for more than their original role as coverings for in-ground holes. Their covers often display complex, detailed patterning considered to be artwork by fans and photographers.

This is an excerpt taken from What’s in a name?—The Controversy Over “Manholes”

[Vassenor]

Yes, actually, they do. Same as if you'd said "I was stopped and frisked by a police officer".

There is no reason, utterly no reason, to be this suspicious of words that have no freight of bigotry in them nor were ever intended to be so freighted. I mean, "man" was used to specifically mean "any one human being" or "mankind as a whole" irrespective of differences of sex till the end of the nineteenth century, without the added freight of it meaning "all males belonging to Homo sapiens sapiens".

Where is anyone claiming the word is bigoted?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

"I was stopped and frisked by a policeman."

"I was stopped and frisked by a policewoman."

Do these statements sound the same to you?

People are not "gender neutral." Hormones plainly influence us, and it is idiotic to ignore them.

Yes, actually, they do. Same as if you'd said "I was stopped and frisked by a police officer".

The former would feel gross. The latter would feel fun, even with the fear of your keys being mistaken for knives hanging over your head.

As anyone who's been to Beijing Airport can attest to.

[United States of Americanas]

Manhole is a generic slang term that should have never gotten into official use.

It’s printed on the metal it’s self here. It typically says SEWER MAINTENANCE HATCH or SEWER ACCESS.

As for chairman, I’m not even in Berkeley and we refer to them as chairpersons.

Police officers here generally are referred to as such in any generic context unless you are speaking directly to an officer and not a group of mixed officers and or citizens.

I got pulled over by a police officer for running a stop sign and got off with a warning is the proper way to speak.

A policeman pulled me over last night just sounds too specific. They are people with need for privacy. I don’t remember their names nor their genders for more than a day or two unless I am friends with them and even then I keep that information to myself to protect their safety and privacy on the job.

So yeah, I agree with Berkeley. They’re not the government they’re not forcing people to do it, it’s encouragement to move in a direction away from our gender obsessed world.

As a private institution of higher education they have a legal right to regulate what speech is permissible on their property.

If you’re out on the street and you say “hey someone left that manhole open” it could be confusing to someone from Britain or Europe as across the pond and in almost all other countries they are sewer access or maintenance hatches.

America has a problem with misogyny built into American English. It’s time to strip that out and fix it. Better yet let’s get rid of American English all together and start using the British English dictionary and for the love of God GO METRIC! Beyond sick of the imperial measurement system!

[Galloism]

So yeah, I agree with Berkeley. They’re not the government they’re not forcing people to do it, it’s encouragement to move in a direction away from our gender obsessed world.

As a private institution of higher education they have a legal right to regulate what speech is permissible on their property.

This is Berkeley the city government, not the university. Also, they’re not regulating speech, only changing their municipal codes.

America has a problem with misogyny built into American English.

Manhole is not a misogynist word. It’s a little confusing because “man” can mean person, or human person, or hand - as in “manual” or “manufacture” or “manacle”.

[Ifreann]

It is weird how you are so literal yet fail to read my post.

I'm not literal. At least in my opinion. I just don't understand how I've failed to read your post. You said I'm acting like gendered words killed someone, when nowhere in my posts have I even implied that. I've also asked you a question that you have yet to answer. I believe you're trying to divert away from it.

Okay, I will spell this out for you, once, but this is very tiresome.

You said "I've lost people I know because I've used "Gendered" words."

The phrase "I've lost someone" is often used to mean "Someone I know has died".

And I think it's funny to read your post as saying "People I know have died because I've used "Gendered" words."

[Saint Arsenio]

I'm not literal. At least in my opinion. I just don't understand how I've failed to read your post. You said I'm acting like gendered words killed someone, when nowhere in my posts have I even implied that. I've also asked you a question that you have yet to answer. I believe you're trying to divert away from it.

Okay, I will spell this out for you, once, but this is very tiresome.

You said "I've lost people I know because I've used "Gendered" words."

The phrase "I've lost someone" is often used to mean "Someone I know has died".

And I think it's funny to read your post as saying "People I know have died because I've used "Gendered" words."

It's tiresome for you because you're fighting for a point you have yet to make clear. Do you know what's funny? How, in the beginning I said "I've lost people I know because I used "Gendered Words," and you assumed they died, yet you call me the literal one. You used a key word in your second to last sentence: often.

The definition of often: frequently; many times -- Not all the time.

You may find what I said funny (which, I don't see how someone losing someone they knew is funny, but I can see we both have different sense's of humor), but personally, I find it quite funny that the majority of people on this forum understood what I meant, yet you can't understand it. It's a simple sentence, person.

[Shofercia]

Then why change the words in the first place? Why change the terminology if there's no reason to do so?

It's Berkeley. Do you really think there's a conspiracy to make everyone hate men, even including men themselves?

In Berkeley? Absolutely.

I.e, the change is ideologically motivated. Extend feminist misandry to even the most trivial corner of society.

This is what we call fearmongering, people. Learn to recognize it.

Fearmongering is when people are supposed to be scared, hence the usages of the word "fear" in fearmongering. This is more like calling out the demand of radical feminists to have their way in everything, even something as trivial as a term used in a municipal code. I'm not sure about you, but I don't find municipal codes daunting.

Then why change the words in the first place? Why change the terminology if there's no reason to do so?

So what harm does this change cause?

It's a waste of money to utilize resources to reprint the manual code of those terms, to have staff members change them online, and so on. I understand that dearest Gavin Newsom believes that money magically grows on trees, but that's not really the case.

. Libs will try to "equalize" STEM by setting up strict racial quotas and trads will simply attempt to ban STEM due to the misguided belief that it is a part of liberalism or something..

No, they won't, since the use of racial quotas in college admissions was ruled unconstitutional in 1978.

And no college has challenged it ever since... https://www.thecollegefix.com/clemson-u ... em-fields/

Clemson University’s College of Engineering, Computing and Applied Sciences has rolled out quota goals for faculty hiring and student enrollment rates in an effort to increase racial diversity and assist other “underrepresented” groups, according to a draft proposal obtained by The College Fix.

https://cei.org/blog/quotas-limiting-ma ... ar-science

Quotas limiting the number of male students in science may be imposed by the Education Department in 2013. The White House has promised that "new guidelines will also be issued to grant-receiving universities and colleges" spelling out "Title IX rules in the science, technology, engineering and math fields." These guidelines will likely echo existing Title IX guidelines that restrict men's percentage of intercollegiate athletes to their percentage in overall student bodies, thus reducing the overall number of intercollegiate athletes.

That took me all of two minutes to find. Imagine what I can find in ten minutes. Drop that bullshit line of argument right now. Gracias, amigo.

[Shofercia]

Haha. They are already de facto doing that through AA. Neither libs nor trads believe in meritocracy.

Affirmative action does not necessarily mean "racial quotas." Racial quotas are a form of affirmative action. Your claim that affirmative action constitutes de facto racial quotas is just ignorant, and if it were true, many universities would have been sued already.

Nor does support of affirmative action necessarily constitute a rejection of meritocracy. Merits have to be considered in context.

If affirmative action is based primarily on race, then yes, it is racism, but stated in a friendlier way. Why didn't the Confederates try that? "Slavery's not racism, it's just affirmative action to enhance the rights of rich white people!"

This has a lot more weight than others.

I mean, having a beef with fucking "manhole".

FUCKING.

MANHOLE.

So basically what we're saying is it's dangerous to accept that not everyone who works in the sanitation department is a man.

So after whining about how everyone's overreacting, you're claiming that women would feel uncomfortable going into a manhole, because it's called a manhole? That would be an overreaction, wouldn't it?

So basically what we're saying is it's dangerous to accept that not everyone who works in the sanitation department is a man.

And basically what I for one am saying is that words like fucking "manpower" and fucking "manhole" aren't fucking loaded terms, ready to inculcate sexism into the vulnerable like fucking linguistic stinkbombs.

I mean, look at me, I pepper almost every decent interval between fucking words with fucking variations of fucking "fuck", but does that mean I wanna fuck tonight?

Probably

Pretty sure they are just showing how absurd it is to find an issue with what to call a hole leading to a sewer system but, sure, label them as a misogynist or something.

Who said anything about misogyny?

So basically what we're saying is it's dangerous to accept that not everyone who works in the sanitation department is a man.

That was the quote he was responding to.

Oh of course I forgot, you only vaguely imply things or toe the line so that you can always deny that you technically said it. Unless something else was meant by saying Duhon was saying they don't want to accept that it isn't only men who work in sanitation.

Or we're just assuming that this must be the work of those evil feminists trying to erase the mens from history.

Damn. I think all of the straw in California just went missing.

[Shofercia]

Soon, there will be no more manholes in the city of Berkeley, California. There will also be no chairmen, no manpower, no policemen or policewomen.

"I was stopped and frisked by a policeman."

"I was stopped and frisked by a policewoman."

Do these statements sound the same to you?

People are not "gender neutral." Hormones plainly influence us, and it is idiotic to ignore them.

So do you propose that we mandate a change for all American high schools, and demand that the freshmen designation is changed into freshpeople?

There is no reason, utterly no reason, to be this suspicious of words that have no freight of bigotry in them nor were ever intended to be so freighted. I mean, "man" was used to specifically mean "any one human being" or "mankind as a whole" irrespective of differences of sex till the end of the nineteenth century, without the added freight of it meaning "all males belonging to Homo sapiens sapiens".

Where is anyone claiming the word is bigoted?

So why change it?

[Kowani]

It's a waste of money to utilize resources to reprint the manual code of those terms, to have staff members change them online, and so on. I understand that dearest Gavin Newsom believes that money magically grows on trees, but that's not really the case.

Yeah, those 600 dollars are really crucial to the continued function of the city.
Also-What does Gavin Newsom have to do with anything? He’s the state governor, not mayor of Berkley.

[Ifreann]

Okay, I will spell this out for you, once, but this is very tiresome.

You said "I've lost people I know because I've used "Gendered" words."

The phrase "I've lost someone" is often used to mean "Someone I know has died".

And I think it's funny to read your post as saying "People I know have died because I've used "Gendered" words."

It's tiresome for you because you're fighting for a point you have yet to make clear. Do you know what's funny? How, in the beginning I said "I've lost people I know because I used "Gendered Words," and you assumed they died, yet you call me the literal one. You used a key word in your second to last sentence: often.

The definition of often: frequently; many times -- Not all the time.

You may find what I said funny (which, I don't see how someone losing someone they knew is funny, but I can see we both have different sense's of humor), but personally, I find it quite funny that the majority of people on this forum understood what I meant, yet you can't understand it. It's a simple sentence, person.

I found it. This is where humour goes to die.

[Saint Arsenio]

It's tiresome for you because you're fighting for a point you have yet to make clear. Do you know what's funny? How, in the beginning I said "I've lost people I know because I used "Gendered Words," and you assumed they died, yet you call me the literal one. You used a key word in your second to last sentence: often.

The definition of often: frequently; many times -- Not all the time.

You may find what I said funny (which, I don't see how someone losing someone they knew is funny, but I can see we both have different sense's of humor), but personally, I find it quite funny that the majority of people on this forum understood what I meant, yet you can't understand it. It's a simple sentence, person.

I found it. This is where humour goes to die.

Diverting away from the actual topic again, are we?

[Cappuccina]

There is no reason, utterly no reason, to be this suspicious of words that have no freight of bigotry in them nor were ever intended to be so freighted. I mean, "man" was used to specifically mean "any one human being" or "mankind as a whole" irrespective of differences of sex till the end of the nineteenth century, without the added freight of it meaning "all males belonging to Homo sapiens sapiens".

Where is anyone claiming the word is bigoted?

You did.

This has a lot more weight than others.

I mean, having a beef with fucking "manhole".

FUCKING.

MANHOLE.

So basically what we're saying is it's dangerous to accept that not everyone who works in the sanitation department is a man.

That's implying that the word is intended to mean that it's an access hole for men to use.

[Vassenor]

Where is anyone claiming the word is bigoted?

You did.

So basically what we're saying is it's dangerous to accept that not everyone who works in the sanitation department is a man.

That's implying that the word is intended to mean that it's an access hole for men to use.

Did you pull something reaching that hard?

[Cappuccina]

You did.



That's implying that the word is intended to mean that it's an access hole for men to use.

Did you pull something reaching that hard?

Let's not play dumb, we all know what you're getting at here. But you're going to keep using the "I didn't say that" card.