Rule 4b

I imagine girls under 13 are considered more delicate and naive than boys under 13.
I think the Admin were trying to say if a post is not suitable for your 12 year old daughter to read, it does not belong on the forum.

The OP does, however, have a point; furthermore, I know some girls of that age to know quite a bit more than socially expected...

Bear in mind that the phrasing is for a rule of thumb, and as Colin says, what we consider "morally correct".

;D

It is phrased good enough to be understood, so there is no need to change it.

For what it is worth, I fully agree with splashdown.

I think this is a non-thread and really ought to be ceased, yes sexism is wrong as is bullying, racialism and oppression but there is none of that in the rule.
Unfortunately we are now living in a world where nitpickers have nothing better to do than to create issues from nothing. Hopefully the new government will stamp out this variety of troublemaking which the last allowed to flourish and grow into the monster it has become and which in other ways has destroyed the many social events that we used to enjoy before its application to H&S.

And now I’m going to jump in. The destruction of any social events has absolutely nothing to do with H&S. It’s all down to the extortionate premiums for public liability cover and the enthusiasm with which people sue for damages when anybody gets the slightest bump or graze these days.

H&S gets the blame as the idea that meddlesome bureaucrats are trying to run our lives is a lot easier to swallow than the thought that the insurance companies are taking us to the cleaners because we see every accident as a chance to cash in.

Do you imagine the ConDems are going to do anything to hinder a profitable market?

I was going to move on but for a moderator to claim that a rule which specifically mentions girl rather than child or person as not sexist obviously has a very different view of the world than I do.

It is only a small point and I did not realise it would upset the establishment so much. I am not particularly concerned about how long the rule has been around as that is not an argument for not changing it. In fact its a good argument to say it needs reviewing.

What I am concerned about is the accusations that come along with making a comment. I am new to the forum yet I have already been pigeon holed as some kind of left wing do gooder who will soon be trampled on by this nice new government.

You told me to read the rules and then you get upset when I question one of them.

Anyway leave the rule as is because it does reflect the type of people who attend and run this forum.

Splashdown,mate,the problem is that you have,perhaps inadvertantly,wandered into a debate which is much bigger than this forum,which,as a result,has been politicised,which perhaps muddies the waters.
But bear in mind that:
This is a forum for the discussion of transport-related topics.
It's not an arm of the State.
Though this may have demographic repercussions,there really are many shades of opinion here,some of which you may disagree with quite deeply.
My impression over the last couple of years here though, is that,compared to other boards,the level of vituperation and abuse is miniscule,and the level of debate generally cordial.
Finally,regardless of my own opinions on this issue,I cannot help thinking that,in the worldwide battle against injustice and prejudice,there are bigger targets than Rule 4b of District Dave's London Underground Site.

I do not disagree with your point at all. The point I made was that the application of a particular point of view to social events, such as for example steam fairs, has led directly to exactly what you have described and scared the hell out of those responsible for the welfare of visitors. I agree that it is not H&S itself that is the issue but the removal of the concept of common sense and its application to human behaviour and its potential for a disastrous outcome which could cost organisers dear. Regarding the last government, the point in that regard was that it not only allowed but promoted the concept of blame at law for anything and everything including matters where individuals really should be taking personal responsibility for their own actions. The blames and claims culture has to end and I believe the present government will be making moves to stop people making a fast buck out of their own incompetence.

I am reminded of when a friend and I went into a shop. When he paid for what he had bought, my friend said: "Thanks very much love," to the girl behind the counter, and he got a mouthful of abuse for his pains. The girl was genuinely offended and he had meant nothing but politeness. It was a meeting of two incompatible thought processes and I wonder if this is what happening here. The OP genuinely feels that there is a need to review the wording of rule 4b, other members feel definitely no need and identify the request as a symptom of something they dislike. Perhaps in a case like this the status quo should prevail unless there is a significant majority thinking otherwise.
Amended to correct spelling.

Correct.

On the subject of forum rules, I think this thread has demonstrated a need for two more; one which bans top-posting, and one which bans pointless one word/smiley posts for the sake of boosting one's post count.

Pardon my ignorance,but what is "Top-posting"?