link to the very short article If this was in the USA I'd be angry that taxes were going towards this. It does say it won't cost taxpayers more, but that really just means they aren't going to increase taxes for it. There's still the time wasted on meetings. Money has to be spent to design the signs. More to adjust the equipment to accommodate the new signs. And so on.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 12 2006, 02:38 PM) [snapback]347937[/snapback]</div> Typically in Europe traffic signs and signals use figures rather than words, so that foreigners will understand the meaning. And note that the figures are not necessarily males. They are symbolic representations of figures with male clothing. The new figures, with dresses and pony tails could well be male cross-dressers. The current figures could be female cross-dressers. These confounded sexists are going to replace the present crop of cross-dressing females with male drag queens! Scandalous!
Yeah, it was the traffic signal thing that threw me. (Red, yellow, green circles.) I figured it out though, it's the walk/don't walk signal.
They need to stop being so puritanical and make the new figures anatomically correct. That way the signs can also help teach their children that there is a difference between boys and girls. See if the women complain then. The guys sure haven't complained about the supposedly male figures being neutered.
In Mexico, the pedestrian crossing signs have very buff-looking figures... lots of machismo (or, they did when I was down there last... about 12 years ago)
There was a meter reader near my old office who drove a Cushman vehicle...she (I'm assuming she herself did it) crossed out the 'man' in Cush'man' and wrote in 'person.' That may be taking it a bit too far, I think, even for a knee-jerk, orgy-crazed west coast liberal like myself!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ May 23 2007, 07:27 PM) [snapback]448601[/snapback]</div> I'm shocked they used such a sexist term as "person" - shouldn't that be "peroffspring"?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kDB @ Nov 12 2006, 03:32 PM) [snapback]347933[/snapback]</div> You ain't kidding about the very short article. All I see is "Close window" then "print article" then "close window" again.
I am fairly sure some US cities have alrady wasted tax money to change all maintenance document references to manhole covers to read "personhole covers". Sounds pornographic to me.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NoMoShocks @ May 23 2007, 09:44 PM) [snapback]448810[/snapback]</div> Yeah, you can credit the Sacramento City Council for starting the trend back in 1990. I can't believe we beat out San Francisco, Berkeley, and the People's Republic of Davis for the bragging rights of being so forward looking. :lol: Actually, the politically correct term is 'maintenance hole cover.' http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~jmatthew/artic...Personhole.html http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...755C0A966958260
Then there was the little craze in my college town to spell it "womyn." That got a *tremendously* entertaining and very well-written essay in the student newspaper by a local band (the Cherry Poppin' Daddies) in which the letter "y" was interjected as much as possible into a good flaming of the idiocy of this kind of practice. Do the Spaniards have no greater problems to work on than this? (We're fine ones to talk, I know, in America.)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 12 2006, 06:34 PM) [snapback]347951[/snapback]</div> By the time I wrap my head around those possibilities, I'd have walked in front of a bus.
