Berkley to cease using gendered language like "manhole"

[Galloism]

I don't think anyone's argued anything of the sort. This seems like an utter strawman.

Hmmm? Well? I took your comment of manhole being gender neutral. It isn't really.

It really is. We often use "man" or "men" as a gender neutral term, and did so even more frequently in the 1700s when the term was invented, and as the dictionary definition already shows.

The name probably wasn't a slam against women and yet MRA/Incels/Whatever seem to think changing the name is a slam against men.

Have they? I haven't seen that yet.

Call it an access point. Problem solved.

Sure. That's fine. But let's not pretend this is some great strive for equality - Berkley has de jure sexism in their city code, which they've retained, and de facto sexism and racism in enforcement in the city, which no one is talking about.

They changed up a few words. That's fine. But let's not pretend this is some grand strive toward equality in Berkley. The city is doing nothing of the sort - it's lip service.

[Galloism]

Indeed. Mankind speaks for all. Manhole? Not really. Only men did the jobs.

I mean, that's true of a lot of jobs though. Doctors, for starters, and train engineers, and politicians.

If the criteria is "men did the jobs when the word was invented so the word is now sexist", we have a lot of words to change.

And if it needs to have "man" in it to qualify, we still have a lot of words to change - like "manufacturing" and "manager".

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Besides, if we're arguing that "manhole" is not a gendered term, you're arguing that men are being oppressed because the official documents swapped one gender neutral term for another (or rather swapping a colloquial term for a technical term in this case) and that isn't making much sense to me.

I don't think anyone's argued anything of the sort. This seems like an utter strawman.

Pun intended?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Indeed. Mankind speaks for all. Manhole? Not really. Only men did the jobs.

I mean, that's true of a lot of jobs though. Doctors, for starters, and train engineers, and politicians.

If the criteria is "men did the jobs when the word was invented so the word is now sexist", we have a lot of words to change.

And if it needs to have "man" in it to qualify, we still have a lot of words to change - like "manufacturing" and "manager".

I remember when I was a (very) young child, thinking that doctors were what they called the men and nurses were what they called the women in a hospital.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

It seems logical for words that are used for a concept for which gender is irrelevant, gendered words/grammar should not apply. Why does anyone consider it immoral to use non-gendered language?
Edit in an attempt to be less ambiguous:
"man" should not necessarily be changed in words where it does not imply gendered-ness (such as manually, which is from the latin (or latin-descended) root man-, meaning hand). However, I am not opposed to people doing that. Even things done without a good reason are not necessarily wrong in and of themself.

In the case of "manhole", it is more common where I live for one to simply say "porthole"; does anyone object to that?

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

The Berkeley sub-city state is so totalitarian. Why don't we just invade them and liberated these hapless souls from clear oppression.

[Galloism]

I don't think anyone's argued anything of the sort. This seems like an utter strawman.

Pun intended?

Heh. Haha.

Not intentionally no, but I'll pretend it was.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

It seems logical for words that are used for a concept for which gender is irrelevant, gendered words/grammar should not apply. Why does anyone consider it immoral to use non-gendered language?
Edit in an attempt to be less ambiguous:
"man" should not necessarily be changed in words where it does not imply gendered-ness (such as manually, which is from the latin (or latin-descended) root man-, meaning hand). However, I am not opposed to people doing that. Even things done without a good reason are not necessarily wrong in and of themself.

In the case of "manhole", it is more common where I live for one to simply say "porthole"; does anyone object to that?

It just seems that it's a move designed to create publicity because it could annoy some rightwingers. It's like trolling on a city level.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Pun intended?

Heh. Haha.

Not intentionally no, but I'll pretend it was.

How does 'strawperson' sound?

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

It seems logical for words that are used for a concept for which gender is irrelevant, gendered words/grammar should not apply. Why does anyone consider it immoral to use non-gendered language?
Edit in an attempt to be less ambiguous:
"man" should not necessarily be changed in words where it does not imply gendered-ness (such as manually, which is from the latin (or latin-descended) root man-, meaning hand). However, I am not opposed to people doing that. Even things done without a good reason are not necessarily wrong in and of themself.

In the case of "manhole", it is more common where I live for one to simply say "porthole"; does anyone object to that?

It just seems that it's a move designed to create publicity because it could annoy some rightwingers. It's like trolling on a city level.

Ah yes, they're out to get you and will stop at nothing.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

It just seems that it's a move designed to create publicity because it could annoy some rightwingers. It's like trolling on a city level.

Ah yes, they're out to get you and will stop at nothing.

Not 'out to get' anybody, create more publicity for themselves.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

It seems logical for words that are used for a concept for which gender is irrelevant, gendered words/grammar should not apply. Why does anyone consider it immoral to use non-gendered language?
Edit in an attempt to be less ambiguous:
"man" should not necessarily be changed in words where it does not imply gendered-ness (such as manually, which is from the latin (or latin-descended) root man-, meaning hand). However, I am not opposed to people doing that. Even things done without a good reason are not necessarily wrong in and of themself.

In the case of "manhole", it is more common where I live for one to simply say "porthole"; does anyone object to that?

It just seems that it's a move designed to create publicity because it could annoy some rightwingers. It's like trolling on a city level.

No one should do something simply to annoy. I would have preferred much less publicity; there is no publicity for "porthole" being in much more common use than "manhole" here.

[Ors Might]

It seems logical for words that are used for a concept for which gender is irrelevant, gendered words/grammar should not apply. Why does anyone consider it immoral to use non-gendered language?
Edit in an attempt to be less ambiguous:
"man" should not necessarily be changed in words where it does not imply gendered-ness (such as manually, which is from the latin (or latin-descended) root man-, meaning hand). However, I am not opposed to people doing that. Even things done without a good reason are not necessarily wrong in and of themself.

In the case of "manhole", it is more common where I live for one to simply say "porthole"; does anyone object to that?

No one objects to it. One would find it silly, however, if you changed the term manhole to porthole in official documents in an attempt to be inclusive. That’s really what my position is here. This isn't so much objectionable as it is silly and dumb.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

It seems logical for words that are used for a concept for which gender is irrelevant, gendered words/grammar should not apply. Why does anyone consider it immoral to use non-gendered language?
Edit in an attempt to be less ambiguous:
"man" should not necessarily be changed in words where it does not imply gendered-ness (such as manually, which is from the latin (or latin-descended) root man-, meaning hand). However, I am not opposed to people doing that. Even things done without a good reason are not necessarily wrong in and of themself.

In the case of "manhole", it is more common where I live for one to simply say "porthole"; does anyone object to that?

No one objects to it. One would find it silly, however, if you changed the term manhole to porthole in official documents in an attempt to be inclusive. That’s really what my position is here. This isn't so much objectionable as it is silly and dumb.

Some people do object to it, I was just addressing them in advance. Yes, there are potentially more important things to do, but people seem to complain about this quite a bit if it is only for the silliness apparently involved. Fewer people complained about the small towns electing a young child as mayor by random selection or the other town that elected a dog. It is far sillier to burn something that one claims to revere because it barely touched the ground. Would you consider it silly for official documents to change wording to more commonly used words from uncommon, yet understandable?

[Galloism]

No one objects to it. One would find it silly, however, if you changed the term manhole to porthole in official documents in an attempt to be inclusive. That’s really what my position is here. This isn't so much objectionable as it is silly and dumb.

Some people do object to it, I was just addressing them in advance. Yes, there are potentially more important things to do, but people seem to complain about this quite a bit if it is only for the silliness apparently involved. Fewer people complained about the small towns electing a young child as mayor by random selection or the other town that elected a dog.

Personally I know quite a few dogs that would make better mayors than quite a few mayors.

It is far sillier to burn something that one claims to revere because it barely touched the ground. Would you consider it silly for official documents to change wording to more commonly used words from uncommon, yet understandable?

I wish someone would change this wording to make it understandable.

[Galloism]

In the case of "manhole", it is more common where I live for one to simply say "porthole"; does anyone object to that?

Honestly if you said porthole I'd probably be confused. Porthole makes me think of a ship, like the little round windows where you can look out over the sea.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Some people do object to it, I was just addressing them in advance. Yes, there are potentially more important things to do, but people seem to complain about this quite a bit if it is only for the silliness apparently involved. Fewer people complained about the small towns electing a young child as mayor by random selection or the other town that elected a dog.

Personally I know quite a few dogs that would make better mayors than quite a few mayors.

It is far sillier to burn something that one claims to revere because it barely touched the ground. Would you consider it silly for official documents to change wording to more commonly used words from uncommon, yet understandable?

I wish someone would change this wording to make it understandable.

In the USA, extreme patriotic people will burn the flag which they claim to revere and honour very highly, if it barely touches the ground for any reason at all. It is far sillier to do that than to officially require non-gendered language be used when/where gender is irrelevant.
Would you consider it silly for the wording in official documents to be changed to use a commonly used word from using an uncommonly used word which is just as understandable as the more commonly used one?

---

In the case of "manhole", it is more common where I live for one to simply say "porthole"; does anyone object to that?

Honestly if you said porthole I'd probably be confused. Porthole makes me think of a ship, like the little round windows where you can look out over the sea.

And I did not remember that use of the word before I searched to see how widespread the use of it that I am accustomed to is. Dialectal differences. Older people have even more differences than I from you ("r" is rarely pronounced between two vowels by people over about 65 years old, and "stark", although uncommon, is a synonym of "strong").

[Galloism]

Personally I know quite a few dogs that would make better mayors than quite a few mayors.



I wish someone would change this wording to make it understandable.

In the USA, extreme patriotic people will burn the flag which they claim to revere and honour very highly, if it barely touches the ground for any reason at all. It is far sillier to do that than to officially require non-gendered language be used when/where gender is irrelevant.

Ok, I'll admit that custom is sillier.

Would you consider it silly for the wording in official documents to be changed to use a commonly used word from using an uncommonly used word which is just as understandable as the more commonly used one?

Actually "maintenance hole" is a lot less commonly used than "manhole" on our side of the pond, so they'd be changing it to an uncommonly used from a commonly used word. In fact, if you search the dictionary for "maintenance hole", it redirects to manhole (this is also true on wikipedia). It's also less understood, given manhole gives a very specific image (a hole about the size of a person, which provides access to something, typically a sewer), whereas maintenance hole is more broad, and conjures the image of some kind of hole or hatch through which maintenance can be performed (which can be hand sized or person sized).

Given, if all the government documentation changed to maintenance hole, in 50 years or so it would become the common word, but that will take time. Currently, they're moving from a commonly used word to an uncommonly used word.

"Human effort" is pretty well understood, but thought of less mathematically than manpower. If someone asked me how much manpower a particular task would take, I might say something like "2 engineers 2 weeks", whereas if they asked me how much "human effort" it would be, I'd probably have to think about what they were asking me.

Honestly if you said porthole I'd probably be confused. Porthole makes me think of a ship, like the little round windows where you can look out over the sea.

And I did not remember that use of the word before I searched to see how widespread the use of it that I am accustomed to is. Dialectal differences. Older people have even more differences than I from you ("r" is rarely pronounced between two vowels by people over about 65 years old, and "stark", although uncommon, is a synonym of "strong").

See, I looked up porthole just now because I wondered if there was some definition I didn't know about.

I can't even find a definition for porthole that includes a "manhole" or "maintenance hole".

porthole noun
port·​hole | \ ˈpȯrt-ˌhōl \
Definition of porthole
1 : an opening (such as a window) with a cover or closure especially in the side of a ship or aircraft
2 : a port through which to shoot
3 : PORT entry 2 sense 2

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/porthole

Admittedly, I did not consider the hole a gun or cannon would shoot through, although I've heard that too.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

In the USA, extreme patriotic people will burn the flag which they claim to revere and honour very highly, if it barely touches the ground for any reason at all. It is far sillier to do that than to officially require non-gendered language be used when/where gender is irrelevant.

Ok, I'll admit that custom is sillier.

Would you consider it silly for the wording in official documents to be changed to use a commonly used word from using an uncommonly used word which is just as understandable as the more commonly used one?

Actually "maintenance hole" is a lot less commonly used than "manhole" on our side of the pond, so they'd be changing it to an uncommonly used from a commonly used word. In fact, if you search the dictionary for "maintenance hole", it redirects to manhole (this is also true on wikipedia). It's also less understood, given manhole gives a very specific image (a hole about the size of a person, which provides access to something, typically a sewer), whereas maintenance hole is more broad, and conjures the image of some kind of hole or hatch through which maintenance can be performed (which can be hand sized or person sized).

Given, if all the government documentation changed to maintenance hole, in 50 years or so it would become the common word, but that will take time. Currently, they're moving from a commonly used word to an uncommonly used word.

"Human effort" is pretty well understood, but thought of less mathematically than manpower. If someone asked me how much manpower a particular task would take, I might say something like "2 engineers 2 weeks", whereas if they asked me how much "human effort" it would be, I'd probably have to think about what they were asking me.

I was referring to making the official documents use porthole, as that is the predominately used term here. "Human effort" seems to mean difficulty. "Manpower" in the context you said would probably seem odd to me; people-hours or even the gendered man-hours would make sense.
Maybe the use of porthole that I am used to is much more regional/local than I thought. I thought it might cover a few states, but apparently is likely only my county and maybe a few others. It seems like it might have started to be a word more similar to pothole, as it refers to roads as well.

[Galloism]

"Human effort" seems to mean difficulty. "Manpower" in the context you said would probably seem odd to me; people-hours or even the gendered man-hours would make sense.

No, if they said manhours i'd probably say (given the example of 2 engineers 2 weeks) 160 manhours. That's the specific unit of time I would expect the project to take.

I'd take "manpower" to equal how many people and how much time. It's kind of weird, but if a particular project took both an infrastructure engineer and a dev, and they asked manpower, I'd say "two engineers two weeks each", because it specifically takes two separate people two weeks. If they asked manhours, I'd tell them 160, which would be correct, but not a complete picture. I could also tell them 80 hours in dev and 80 hours in infrastructure engineering.

Manpower refers to people, manhours refers to time. At least, that's how I've always interpreted.

Maybe the use of porthole that I am used to is much more regional/local than I thought. I thought it might cover a few states, but apparently is likely only my county and maybe a few others. It seems like it might have started to be a word more similar to pothole, as it refers to roads as well.

I must be extremely regional, as I can't find a reference to it anywhere.

It might be regional to your house.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

"Human effort" seems to mean difficulty. "Manpower" in the context you said would probably seem odd to me; people-hours or even the gendered man-hours would make sense.

No, if they said manhours i'd probably say (given the example of 2 engineers 2 weeks) 160 manhours. That's the specific unit of time I would expect the project to take.

I'd take "manpower" to equal how many people and how much time. It's kind of weird, but if a particular project took both an infrastructure engineer and a dev, and they asked manpower, I'd say "two engineers two weeks each", because it specifically takes two separate people two weeks. If they asked manhours, I'd tell them 160, which would be correct, but not a complete picture. I could also tell them 80 hours in dev and 80 hours in infrastructure engineering.

Manpower refers to people, manhours refers to time. At least, that's how I've always interpreted.

Maybe the use of porthole that I am used to is much more regional/local than I thought. I thought it might cover a few states, but apparently is likely only my county and maybe a few others. It seems like it might have started to be a word more similar to pothole, as it refers to roads as well.

I must be extremely regional, as I can't find a reference to it anywhere.

It might be regional to your house.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/manhole and https://thesaurasize.com/manhole have porthole listed as a synonym for manhole, between peephole and venthole in the third column.

[Shofercia]

So have we actually established what makes this bad beyond it triggering rightists?

As you've been repeatedly told, Vassenor, it costs money, and money doesn't grow on trees. Similarly to that, Vassenor, facts you don't like don't magically disappear because you don't like them.

It says "will try to" rather than "will succeed" doesn't it, Recidivism? Weren't you the one talking about the importance of reading?

Ok Wittgenstein. His implication was that they would both try and succeed, which is why is it would be dangerous to let them have power.

That was his implication? Are we talking about reality or your imagination again? Where exactly did he imply that they will succeed? He said that if they succeed, it would be awful, but nowhere did he imply that they would succeed, as such a post would effectively annihilate Kekistan's argument in this thread. I understand that it might not apply to you, but most posters tend to avoid annihilating their own argument.

Either side is going to do that for that's what moral crusaders of any kind and those who pretend to be moral crusaders do. If you allow any side to get full victory they will try to transform the entire society to fit their ideology.

Hell I can imagine what trads can do if they can get away with it. They will probably shut down Harvard, MIT and Stanford due to the absurd belief that these schools are nothing but bastions of liberalism. There is already a guy who wants to push Berkeley and its world-class research centers into the Pacific Ocean here..

Having any moralist putting their hands on STEM is awful. 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..

In any case, I told you what I meant. I think it would be much more interesting for us (and everyone else) to debate what I meant rather than squabble over textual minutiae that occurred in a fast-paced conversation. Also, if you thought that I literally meant liberals wouldn't even attempt to instill racial quotas, which is an incredibly low bar to meet, then that is a ridiculously uncharitable interpretation.

Hmm, why would I give you a ridiculously uncharitable interpretation? Perhaps it might just be because you make posts like this:

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.

By the way, my claim was that racial quotas in college admissions are unconstitutional. Your claim is that Clemson had racial quotas for hiring faculty members. This has nothing to do with college admissions, just like gender quotas have nothing to do with racial quotas either. All of your information was completely irrelevant to my claims. Please learn how to read.

Yeah. That just might be the reason.

Once again, you're imagining things. I said that it was "not an easy task against a billion dollar institution" which isn't the same as claiming that it's too difficult. My point was that universities are engaging in it, despite the SCOTUS ruling, not that universities are too difficult to oppose.

Imprecise phrasing, but the basic point remains. You are pointing out ways in which the task would be made easier.

I'm pointing out that a gallant task is tough, and showing how to make that task easier, which in your mind means that I'm somehow undermining myself.

"Joan" is way better for that one.

Joan the Plumber

As long as Joan can properly arc the pipes...

[Galloism]

No, if they said manhours i'd probably say (given the example of 2 engineers 2 weeks) 160 manhours. That's the specific unit of time I would expect the project to take.

I'd take "manpower" to equal how many people and how much time. It's kind of weird, but if a particular project took both an infrastructure engineer and a dev, and they asked manpower, I'd say "two engineers two weeks each", because it specifically takes two separate people two weeks. If they asked manhours, I'd tell them 160, which would be correct, but not a complete picture. I could also tell them 80 hours in dev and 80 hours in infrastructure engineering.

Manpower refers to people, manhours refers to time. At least, that's how I've always interpreted.


I must be extremely regional, as I can't find a reference to it anywhere.

It might be regional to your house.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/manhole and https://thesaurasize.com/manhole have porthole listed as a synonym for manhole, between peephole and venthole in the third column.

Fair enough, although I don't know of anyone who would use "peephole" and "manhole" interchangeably.

[The Black Forrest]

"Human effort" seems to mean difficulty. "Manpower" in the context you said would probably seem odd to me; people-hours or even the gendered man-hours would make sense.

No, if they said manhours i'd probably say (given the example of 2 engineers 2 weeks) 160 manhours. That's the specific unit of time I would expect the project to take.

It's been awhile since I heard the term "man hours" on projects.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

https://www.wordnik.com/words/manhole and https://thesaurasize.com/manhole have porthole listed as a synonym for manhole, between peephole and venthole in the third column.

Fair enough, although I don't know of anyone who would use "peephole" and "manhole" interchangeably.

Neither do I, but given that it is listed on both sites, someone probably does somewhere.