Whilst I agree with that sex and gender aren’t necessarily interchangeable and that sex is biological and gender is social, I don’t actually think this is the pro-trans gotcha argument people think it is.
The moral of this debate is of course that if you are kind and respectful towards others, you tend not to get into the sorts of situations, such as being banned from things. I’m all for free speech, but people really should understand why free speech is important, which is to be able to challenge powerful people without fear, not to troll minority groups on social media.
Well gentlemen, here we are, all blokes together, commenting, debating, and "pointing out it isn't biological". Any women on here who have given birth, and breastfed their children care to chip in? Or, as Ricky Gervais categorises them, "the old fashined ones, the ones with wombs".
Can’t say I care enough about the whole trans debate tbh. I’m content to live and let live. I just think their definition of a woman i.e. ‘a woman is someone who identifies as a woman’ is circular reasoning. The social construct of gender stems from the material reality of biological sex and whilst you can argue gender and sex are distinct, they’re intrinsically linked.
The conversation doesn’t have to be about trans people right to exist though. It’s about whether a private company has the right to ban someone who calls a minority group of people ‘nonces’, if that conflicts with their own position on trans inclusion. Not sure about the dossier. Feels a bit heavy handed. Evidence is quite clear from her twitter account.
I was going to say, "thank you for the reply madam". But, I thought, aha, hang on, Kalman, man, might be a bit of a giveaway. However, if you identify as a woman, then please excuse my presumption, and if offence was caused, I most humbly apologise.
That would be all well and good ... if only all trans (+-xz.....) felt and acted the same as you, instead of wanting the massive majority to conform to their twisted takes on reality! (not meaning to imply that all have that expectation)
Blimey, sin bins and blue cards! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...ly-used-50-years-revolutionary-new-rules.html
Meh, maybe if I was a woman I’d feel more strongly about it either way. I will use people’s preferred pronouns and names out of politeness and civility but deep down, I don’t buy this ‘a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman’ bollocks.
For what it’s worth I like the idea of a sin bin. It’s ok in rugby and hopefully would stop some of the crappy behaviour in football if it was used right. I wouldn’t use it for fouls, but I would use it for back chat with refs, time wasting and diving etc. Parkruns! I’d rather regurgitate the trans debate!
I'm pointing out a fact, since GFAW claimed he was stating facts. Gender is not sex. As Kalman said, they are linked, but like him, I'm inclined to live and let live. I don't particularly support the trans movement and can see a slippery slope where they become pretty intrusive into people wanting to just live their own life, but the basis of their identity is something I can at least accept. What they do with that identity is where I'll take exception.
The sin bins are a great idea anda step in getting rid of some of the bullshit in the game....diving and discent. They have it in lower leagues, and it does get used. Just not often enough. I genuinely believe if enforced it will rid the game of it.
It'll be interesting to see how it's applied. Will teams then just waste time until their player is back on the pitch?
