[Closed] Time for an anti PC rant!

Fanny playing footie eh. Whatever next? Do they do it in sexy outfits?

[img] [/img]

People with privilege and a sense of self-entitlement resenting time or attention spent on people different to them and on helping those people feel a more valued part of mainstream society...

Seems to be a bit of a theme these days... Sad.

Malvern Rider - Member

So should all sports be treated equally in all facets of life? Should we categorise sports and sports broadcasting by how oppressed and marginalised the competitors are?

That actually hurt my head. Is there a monolithic level of extreme cynicism one can reach that makes it easier to think that way? Not convinced I want to go there but hey. Whatever gets you through. But to my wooly head it sounds like this:

P1. Look, women on TV where there should be a man. Bloody PC gone mad.

I posed a question and you answered it with an insult, followed by a hypothetical debate of your own creation featuring a gross caricature that indicates how you view people who disagree with you.

Stoatsbrother - Member

People with privilege

Who's that then?

Because some rules have changed

And why do you think that might be?

and more will likely change in future.

Will they? What rules are likely to change? And again, what are you basing this on?

[b]countzero[/b] a male games teacher at a local private school showed clips of that league to young teenage girls last year. Do you think that was appropriate?

[b]jimjam[/b] the people who have run sport, televised it and systematically excluded women till recently. A period of positive discrimination might not be a bad idea...

And why do you think that might be?

Will they? What rules are likely to change? And again, what are you basing this on?

Who's that then?

Anyone with time to debate pointless bollocks like this is the very definition of privileged.

I'd say go and ride your bikes or something but you might see a woman riding a bike and have a ****ing aneurysm.

fin25 - Member

Who's that then?

Anyone with time to debate pointless bollocks like this is the very definition of privileged.

So equality, impartiality and discrimination are pointless bollocks? Perhaps you didn't notice we weren't just discussing football.

I'd say go and ride your bikes or something but you might see a woman riding a bike and have a **** aneurysm.

So another insult/slur.

Stoatsbrother - Member

jimjam the people who have run sport, televised it and systematically excluded women till recently. A period of positive discrimination might not be a bad idea...

Ok, so what does that look like? How much positive discrimination? Who decides? What's the ultimate aim?

Jimjam, how you think that that comment meant that I was comparing the OP to HW, I shall never know. But believe it if you want, makes no difference to me.
What I was saying is that if you treat women as so unimportant that you don't even report on them taking part in sport then a society in which characters such as HW (as the very worst example) can operate may be the result.

As for commenting on your mental health, I really wasn't, was thinking more about anger management issues. Perhaps understandable when you consider your reply

YEAH!!!! They do don't they! the guy in the office and Harvey Weinstein...they all get away with it. Horrible men. Dirty ****** men molesting and harassing women all over Hollywood and your office. It's a real problem.

But probably inappropriate so I apologise for that.

Because it was thought of as the right thing to do.

Bingo.

Wont they? What rules are not likely to change? And what are you basing this on?

I have no idea, you're the one making assertions, not me. I'm trying to ascertain whether there's any foundation to it or whether you're just making shit up. What rules are you afraid will change? Name one?

The Pilot - Member

What I was saying is that if you treat women as so unimportant that you don't even report on them taking part in sport then a society in which characters such as HW (as the very worst example) can operate may be the result.

But that's a completely irrelevant conflation of two separate issues. Harvey Weinstein could probably have done the same thing to young men if he was gay because he's a billionaire who held the keys to fame and fortune. See Bryan Singer.

As for commenting on your mental health, I really wasn't, was thinking more about anger management issues. Perhaps understandable when you consider your reply

You were, just have the honesty to own up to it. Mental health/anger issues - it's a difference without a distinction. My post was deliberately hyperbolic, owing to (imo) the absurdness of your above statement. I assumed that no one would take it literally.

More than 750 million television viewers watched the FIFA Women’s World Cup Canada 2015™, as the FIFA’s flagship women’s competition delivered all-time record viewing figures that underlined the global success of the event in a breakthrough year for women’s football.

BBC have capitalised on that and bought rights to England games, as I'd imagine they are quite cheap and thus promise a good return in terms of viewer numbers compared to other options.

Sure they are a small percentage now, but year on year that will increase. At which point does it become an issue? 10%, 20%?

Surely the amount of people who feel trapped in the wrong body is roughly the same as it always has been, it's just that you're aware of them now. I'd be happy to sacrifice a bit of sporting glory if it brings down the frankly shocking suicide rates currently seen in the trans community. Or is the integrity of sporting gender rules more important than people's actual lives?

Bingo.

I have no idea, you're the one making assertions, not me. I'm trying to ascertain whether there's any foundation to it or whether you're just making shit up. What rules are you afraid will change? Name one?

There are no standard set of rules for trans people in sport. It varies from sport to sport and even levels within sport. Some require testosterone testing and limits on the amount within the body, some don't. Some require complete reassignment and certification, some don't. It is a reasonable prediction that in time rules will change and become more relaxed again as they have already in the last couple of years.

It will really become interesting if people born male who have transitioned socially but in no other way are allowed to compete in womens sports. They are women after all aren't they?

Surely the amount of people who feel trapped in the wrong body is roughly the same as it always has been, it's just that you're aware of them now. I'd be happy to sacrifice a bit of sporting glory if it brings down the frankly shocking suicide rates currently seen in the trans community. Or is the integrity of sporting gender rules more important than people's actual lives?

Do you have a number for the amount of trans people participating in sport as women?

And what about the number of trans people participating as men?

It will really become interesting if people born male who have transitioned socially but in no other way are allowed to compete in womens sports. They are women after all aren't they?

I'm not transphobic but........

The line has to be drawn somewhere, because otherwise women's sport would cease to exist for anyone. The best solution (IME) would be categorisation in the Paralympics, things like testosterone limits would end up in the same mess as EPO era cycling.

Jimjam, I'm not going to comment on you telling me that I'm too dishonest to say what I really think. It really doesn't matter to me. I will say though that I think it speaks volumes that here you are, a man (I'm guessing), telling me, a woman, what I was really saying. Speaks volumes.

Perhaps we can agree on the fact that we both think that the other person talks absolute sh"te and agree to disagree on everything else.

It will really become interesting if people born male who have transitioned socially but in no other way are allowed to compete in womens sports. They are women after all aren't they?

You're way behind the times, the IOC changed their rules in 2016 to sort this out. Female to male - no restriction, male to female need to be able to demonstrate a testosterone level below a cut off point.

Do you have a number for the amount of trans people participating in sport as women?

And what about the number of trans people participating as men?

You don't think that as society and attitudes change, treatment becomes more widely available, legislation is brought in and sporting rules changed that this will show an increase in trans people playing sports?

You're way behind the times, the IOC changed their rules in 2016 to sort this out. Female to male - no restriction, male to female need to be able to demonstrate a testosterone level below a cut off point.

You don't think that as society and attitudes change, treatment becomes more widely available, legislation is brought in and sporting rules changed will show an increase in trans people playing sports?

Probably, it's not something I really think about that much. But I'm sure the relevant sporting authorities are thinking about it, so I don't have to.

Well I like thinking about things, what the consequences are and asking questions around them. I like to be able to do that freely.

It's not like authorities ever make big mistakes in policy is it?

Well I like thinking about things, what the consequences are and asking questions around them. I like to be able to do that freely.

And you can.

It's not like autrhorities ever make big mistakes in policy is it?

Doesn't keep me awake at night, as it's not something I can influence either way.

And you can.

Think about yes, but discuss? Not so much these days without being accused of something, threats made to your career, even life.

It's so hard when you're the victim.

The Pilot - Member

I will say though that I think it speaks volumes that here you are, a man (I'm guessing), telling me, a woman, what I was really saying. Speaks volumes.

No. What really is telling, what really does speak volumes is that you believe your gender in some way enhances the validity of your opinion. By stating your gender (which I was completely unaware of and disinterested in) you are attempting to gain high ground that you can't otherwise reach by the strength of your words alone.

Unless you are talking about a specific biological reality of being a woman as opposed to a man, if you have to qualify a statement with your gender then you can be sure that your statement is factually and intellectually worthless.

If you'd like to construct an argument, or add anything which furthers the debate, as opposed to making gross conflations and brandishing your gender like a badge of superiority I'd be happy to discuss it with you as an equal.

It's so hard when you're the victim.

Ah! That old chestnut.

Well what do you want me to do, hold a vigil for you?

Jimjam, your anger and aggression is getting offensive. I'm not interested in discussing anything with you. You make it very plain that you are completely unable to see anything from anybody else's point of view. You're all over the place with your views, contradicting yourself, making ridiculous points, utterly humourless, domineering, and going on and on and on.
You also seem to feel the need to appear super intelligent when it is patently obvious that you are anything but.
Come back with what you want. Or don't. I shall not reply to anything else you have to say. Like I say, odious little man.

Well what do you want me to do, hold a vigil for you?

Wow!

We have a long way to go, with so many dinosaurs amongst us.

The Pilot - Member

Jimjam, your anger and aggression is getting offensive.

Cite.

I'm not interested in discussing anything with you. You make it very plain that you are completely unable to see anything from anybody else's point of view. You're all over the place with your views,

I am unable to see other view points but my views are all over the place?

contradicting yourself, making ridiculous points, utterly humourless, domineering, and going on and on and on.

Back at you.

You also seem to feel the need to appear super intelligent when it is patently obvious that you are anything but.

Cite.

Like I say, odious little man.

So you started off with nothing to say, then started personal insults and when your trump card (being a woman) failed you're back to personal insults. Bravo.

Don't worry your pretty little head about unimportant things like free speech and being able to question things you might not agree with. Someone else will let you know what to think.

I'm assuming it wasn't the state making those death threats?
I'm also assuming you reported them to the police, as such things are a crime, you know, to protect free speech...

I'm a pretty independent thinker, actually, and have my fair share of unpopular opinions, for which I have often been threatened by others, including organs of the state. I don't go around crying about it though, it's not dignified. I often make myself feel better by reminding myself that some people have to suffer such threats to their life and safety based entirely on who they are (or appear to be) rather than some deliberately controversial shit they spouted on the internet.

Lucky us, right?

*opens thread*

*backs away slowly trying not to make eye contact*

*wonders if only reading the bike forum in future might be the best idea*

Still trying to figure out how not wanting woman's footy on the telly has anything to do with Harvey weinsteins crimes..

I actually agree with the op on this one... Take football as an example..noone is interested not because women are playing, it's because the standard is dire. I wouldn't watch men's Sunday league if they put it on TV either, for similar reasons..

It's nothing to do with sexism... I'd happily watch women play if the product was as good as the men's game.

I'm assuming it wasn't the state making those death threats?
I'm also assuming you reported them to the police, as such things are a crime, you know, to protect free speech...

I don't go around crying about it though, it's not dignified.

rather than some deliberately controversial shit they spouted on the internet.

Like I say, odious little man.

I know that quite a few feminists have been physically attacked and had their personal lives affected for speaking out about their concerns around trans rights.

Did they go to the police?
This is not a freedom of speech issue, it's a crime issue.

If you think I'm deliberately spouting shit on the internet to be controversial then you have got me wrong.

Apologies, just me then... 😳

That's really bad btw. I'm sure you'd object if someone referred to you as a "little woman". Generally, it's best to steer insults away from links with race, gender, colour etc.

^This

posed a question and you answered it with an insult, followed by a hypothetical debate of your own creation featuring a gross caricature that indicates how you view people who disagree with you.

Well that's not actually my intention or true. I was referring strictly to the argument that broadcasting women playing football is somehow 'PC gone mad'. Which is, is it not, your contention/s assessment of it? Plus, you seemed to miss the self-deprecating joke/irony at the end of my (slight) caricature/paraphrasing of yours and the OPs contentions? I am honestly not getting it, the whole 'normal balance' thing. Maybe you could rewrite my dialogue but re-word by way of a more reasonable debate concluding with your contention/resolution? If indeed your contention is 'grossly' opposed to my understanding of it?

Scotroutes I don't think the pilot cares as we appear to have driven another female forum member away. Well done chaps.

Malvern Rider - Member

I was referring strictly to the argument that broadcasting women playing football is somehow 'PC gone mad'. Which is, is it not, your contention/s assessment of it?

My assessment of it is that it's a blunt tool designed to effect change but the result will be a backlash and rejection (see the op as evidence of this). The upshot of that rejection could be people creeping toward the right, and white male identity politics as a response to feminist identity politics .

Plus, you seemed to miss the self-deprecating joke/irony at the end of my (slight) caricature/paraphrasing of yours and the OPs contentions?

I am honestly not getting it, the whole 'normal balance' thing. Maybe you could rewrite my dialogue but re-word by way of a more reasonable debate concluding with your contention/resolution? If indeed your contention is 'grossly' opposed to my understanding of it?

I'd rather talk to you, than construct an avatar of what I believe your opinion is in my own head. I believe in equality for everyone regardless of race, gender or sexual persuasion. I also believe that European western secular liberal society; although flawed, is the best society in human history. I don't want to see a wedge driven into this society along racial or gender lines created by the narrative that white males control everything.

There are a lot of white males with nothing who will bite you in the ass if you you drive them into a corner. Witness Brexit, LePenn Trump etc.

There are a lot of white males with nothing who will bite you in the ass if you you drive them into a corner. Witness Brexit, LePenn Trump etc.

So that's all white males's fault as well? 😉

I actually agree with the op on this one... Take football as an example..[b]noone is interested[/b] not because women are playing,

750 million people watched some of the last Women's world cup. That's a lot of no-ones. Pretty sure the BBC audience was higher than the average PL game for some England fixtures. Granted, there's the free vs paid angle, but still to dismiss it as zero interest is factually incorrect.