Berkeley bans "gender specific" words

Anyanka Bunny Slayer

✨ Hail Hydra ✨
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
13,812
Black Thorn
Oh for God's sake. Exactly HOW unnecessary and STUPID is this?

How do you think they'll rename these words? 'Menstruate.' 'Ladyfingers.' Theystruate? Themfingers? Idiots.

 
Last edited:
Political correctness was spearheaded by Chairman Mao Zedong when he insisted that an American couldn't be referred to as an American, he had to be a "Yankee Imperialist Running Dog" and that phrase showed up everywhere. And he was politically correct as he murdered 11,000,000 of his own countrymen. Political Correctness demands that you editorialize everything you say, but not with your own editorial - you have to accept a standard editorial statement created by these loonies as your own. You are not allowed your own thoughts or at least any expression of them. As far as inclusivity is concerned, as a free speech absolutist, I feel completely excluded.
 
NileQT87
NileQT87
Mao killed upwards of 70 million! Stalin killed 30-50 million (7-10 in Ukraine). Hitler killed 11-12 million. Lenin killed 4 million. Ottoman Turkey killed 2.5 million Armenian, Greek & Assyrian Christians (Islam killed 100s of millions, esp. India).
There was a woman on the radio today that took offense to women being called girls, she was in the minority though!
 
Now, to be fair they are inventing a lot of gender-specific words and phrases to balance this kind of thing out;
manspreading
manturruption
mansplaining
himpathy
toxic masculinity

I think its nice that from now on the only words we'll hear with 'man' in them will be inherently negative. That's equality.
 
It's not a ban. It's not as though you'll be arrested if you crawl to the emergency, claiming to have fallen down a "manhole."

The city has its offical language and has to decidede if female police are just officers or policewomen.
 
I mean, I definitely feel the carpenter, it feels like when you have rampant problems with e.g. homelessness (and disease spread through unsanitary conditions and public defecation) inclusivity is a nice idea, but maybe not a priority.

However, it feels like what may be bothersome about this is that it appears to be rules coming from up high, rather than organic changes in the language. People generally don't like being told what to do, especially not what to say, so I understand the upset, even if it is not a "ban" persay. That said, it seems like it won't make much difference to 'ordinary' people whether it's maintenance or manhole. I think manpower is a good word, and human made/effort rather clunky, but that's a matter of personal taste. I get a bit of a shiver at "they/them", because it sounds so impersonal to me (like comrade) but then I also remember that I, on these boards, often switch to they/them when I don't know a member's gender, it's just something that comes naturally and that I haven't really reflected on... so, yeah, I guess I'm circling back to the whole - it can be upsetting because it seems like it's the regional government policing speech by creating new norms people will be expected to comply with.

I wonder if anyone had reacted if it had been done silently? Hm, although this is the internet age, if it had been silent they'd probably have been accused of a conspiracy, so never mind.
 
I like it.
As Hel Baker says in the article, anything that dismantles inherent bias is a good thing.
I agree that there are more important issues out there, but words matter. These small changes carry meaning and will make a difference to people.
As @WillowFromBuffy points out, this is about the official language the city uses. Everyday people worrying about ‘political correctness gone mad’ are unlikely to be truly affected by city councillors avoiding the word ‘manpower’.
 
There was a woman on the radio today that took offense to women being called girls, she was in the minority though!
It is a bit patronising though. If men were referred as boys all the time I think you'd see why that is. Idk some of the overaction to language is a little silly but you only have put the phrase man the breastfeeder to see that it's sometimes a little silly to have man instead of person, human or a gender neutral term. It's not something worth getting worked up against in either case. There are more important things to get upset over whatever side of this you are on.
 
It is a bit patronising though. If men were referred as boys all the time I think you'd see why that is. Idk some of the overaction to language is a little silly but you only have put the phrase man the breastfeeder to see that it's sometimes a little silly to have man instead of person, human or a gender neutral term. It's not something worth getting worked up against in either case. There are more important things to get upset over whatever side of this you are on.
Men are constantly referred to as boys, everywhere, all the time. Mostly in a positive way (like how I call the male cast of SPN 'my boys') but definitely often. They don't appear to be offended by it, though. Weird, huh.
 
Men are constantly referred to as boys, everywhere, all the time. Mostly in a positive way (like how I call the male cast of SPN 'my boys') but definitely often. They don't appear to be offended by it, though. Weird, huh.
I guess men aren't as often universally patronised but as with everything a lot depends on the context it's used in both cases. Nuance people is a thing.
 
I guess men aren't as often universally patronised but as with everything a lot depends on the context it's used in both cases. Nuance people is a thing.
It isn't patronizing unless you feel personally offended by it. I have no problem being referred to as a girl, so long as the person using it isn't purposely trying to undermine me as a female.
 
It's like some women don't like to put Miss on forms if they are an adult as they feel Miss sounds young. They would rather have Ms. When I was young you only had Ms if you were divorced.

I like being a Miss
 
When I worked at a university as a gardener there were many women in the forty to fifty age range who seemed to appreciate my greeting them each day, referring to them as girls. Most of the gardeners spoke that way to them.
 
It isn't patronizing unless you feel personally offended by it. I have no problem being referred to as a girl, so long as the person using it isn't purposely trying to undermine me as a female.
That's what I meant by it depends.
 
Wouldn’t this be really confusing for students who don’t have English as their first language though?
 
T
thrasherpix
I'm pretty sure this is just the molehill out to be a mountain that we're due for, and ultimately as pointlessly showy (and brief tempest forgettable) as when Republicans reaffirmed "In God We Trust" on money (instead of doing what they promised).
I think a lot of thought went into this claim by the people of the university, as Berks is not gender specific.
 
Sounds like something UC Berkeley would definitely do...🙄
 
From the article: "Anything that dismantles inherent bias is a good thing, socially, in the grand scheme of things," the 27-year-old said. "I don't, by any means, think this is the great championing for gender equality, but you gotta start somewhere," Baker added.

She's right...I can't see what the fuss is about. It's not as though there's a natural link between a word and that which it refers to. Words only feel natural because we're accustomed to them. There's an unconscious bias in words like "manpower".

"Menstruation" is from the Latin for month - it doesn't need to be changed.
"Ladyfingers" are Sponge Fingers in the UK or Boudoir in France (sometimes the UK). The official name is Savoiardi. Just change the label...folk'll soon get used to it.
 
nightshade
nightshade
I thought lady fingers were okra?
Back
Top Bottom