Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Nalis]

10 minutes ago, Oxfordfox83 said:

I mean, I’m not an expert, beyond knowing some mixed race people who hate the term. But the phrase itself is hardly pleasant: half anything is seldom good, and the concept of caste is that some people are fundamentally superior or inferior to others, with a large part of that in certain parts of the Hindu world being entangled with skin colour.

 

I imagine you’re too old for Harry Potter, but it’s essentially the same term as Mudblood.

 

And yep, if my gran had used it innocently I wouldn’t leap on her, because context and intent is important. But if you’ve taken 5 minutes to think about the phrase I think you just won’t use it. Because why would you?

Bit of a random point always came to mind when thinking of Mudbloods.

 

Back in Northern Ireland, if you have one catholic parent and one protestant parent which I have, you are called a 'half a Jaffa'. We kind of find it funny.

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, brucey said:

It's a really complex topic which can't be simply dismissed as a non-issue, because it clearly is an issue in specific situations (competitive sports etc). It really depends on your definition of 'woman', and whether you believe women's rights are sex-based or gender identity-based.

 

AFAIC that's not an issue until trans folks start winning consistently and across the board in such things, which isn't happening now and doesn't look likely in the near future either.

 

But yes, it is something of an issue, perhaps I should have said not "non-issue" but rather "much less of an issue than those bound and determined to marginalise trans folks due to their own prejudices want to make it" but that doesn't roll of the tongue as easily. When about how it comes down to how such things are defined, that's a complex matter in of itself: speaking of competitive sports, there are stories of a fair few cis women being barred from the Olympics this time around because of testosterone levels that exceed the stated maximum. Are they really not "women", same with anyone who has a condition that raises those levels (of which there are several)?

 

But back to the original point, while the definition issue is complex, I don't think the issue of rights based on such is all that.

[brucey]

28 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

AFAIC that's not an issue until trans folks start winning consistently and across the board in such things, which isn't happening now and doesn't look likely in the near future either.

 

But yes, it is something of an issue, perhaps I should have said not "non-issue" but rather "much less of an issue than those bound and determined to marginalise trans folks due to their own prejudices want to make it" but that doesn't roll of the tongue as easily. When about how it comes down to how such things are defined, that's a complex matter in of itself: speaking of competitive sports, there are stories of a fair few cis women being barred from the Olympics this time around because of testosterone levels that exceed the stated maximum. Are they really not "women", same with anyone who has a condition that raises those levels (of which there are several)?

 

But back to the original point, while the definition issue is complex, I don't think the issue of rights based on such is all that.

I believe the issue is that going through a male puberty causes irreversible structural changes that give an advantage, which is not fully overcome by lowering the circulating hormones to a female level later in life. The hormone levels in cis women is a weird one, I would be inclined to allow that personally. Although, I don't think either of us know enough about how hormones and trans physiology relates to high level competitive sports to have a truly informed opinion on this topic. There's someone who would know about this, though.. and I'm inclined to trust her opinion.

 

 

There's very strong feelings on both sides of the debate on anything trans-related, but it isn't always black and white. It's easy for both sides to think the opposing position is outrageous, unethical etc (much like Remainers vs Brexiters) and then people start getting 'cancelled' for trying to introduce nuance into the discourse. 

 

Edited 9 July 2021 by brucey

[leicsmac]

42 minutes ago, brucey said:

I believe the issue is that going through a male puberty causes irreversible structural changes that give an advantage, which is not fully overcome by lowering the circulating hormones to a female level later in life. The hormone levels in cis women is a weird one, I would be inclined to allow that personally. Although, I don't think either of us know enough about how hormones and trans physiology relates to high level competitive sports to have a truly informed opinion on this topic. There's someone who would know about this, though.. and I'm inclined to trust her opinion.

 

 

There's very strong feelings on both sides of the debate on anything trans-related, but it isn't always black and white. It's easy for both sides to think the opposing position is outrageous, unethical etc (much like Remainers vs Brexiters) and then people start getting 'cancelled' for trying to introduce nuance into the discourse. 

 

I agree that there are strong feelings either way. Here is a counterpoint from another person well versed on the matter.

 

"Okay, nerds. Let's do it. Let's talk about Laurel Hubbard being the first trans athlete at the Olympic Games because ya'll have suddenly turned into world-class endocrinologists overnight, and..it's tedious. I'm bored. I'm bored because I've heard it all before.

 

For those not in the know, Laurel Hubbard is a 43-year-old trans woman from New Zealand who started her transition in 2012, who in 1998, years before her transition (when she was 20) set junior records in the newly established M105+ weightlifting division (the records being: snatch 135 kg, clean & jerk 170 kg, total 300 kg) - these records were passed shortly after by David Liti.

 

Laurel didn't take up weightlifting again until 2017, 5 years after the start of her transition, where she competed in the 2017 World Championships in Anaheim and won a Silver Medal in the +90 kg category having been beaten by cisgender women athlete Sarah Robles. Laurel then went on to win gold at the Pacific Games in Apia in 2019.

 

Laurel has been the subject of much controversy since the announcement that she has been selected to represent New Zealand in the Tokyo Olympics. 36 athletes were in the running for her event/category (women's 87+kg), 14 qualified. Laurel is currently ranked 9th by the International Weightlifting Federation for her category (https://www.weightliftinghouse.com/2020/03/09/tokyo-2020-qualification-standings-w87-2/). Most often the statement I hear in response to Laurel's selection is thus: "But she will have an unfair advantage over the cis women!"

 

Now, I'm not here to discuss the science of whether trans women have advantages over cis women because quite frankly, that's best left to the scientists and medical professionals who work in trans health. I want to focus on the statement "She will have an unfair advantage over the cis women!" from a different angle.

In 2003, a committee convened by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Medical Commission drew up new guidelines for the participation of transgender athletes (https://www.pdga.com/files/StockholmConsensus_0.pdf). The report listed three conditions for participation.

1. Athletes must have undergone gender affirmation surgery (previously known as sex reassignment surgery), including changes in the external genitalia and gonadectomy.
2. Athletes must show legal recognition of their gender.
3. Athletes must have undergone hormone therapy for an appropriate time before participation, with two years being the suggested time.

 

It was not until 2004 that the IOC allowed trans athletes to participate in the Olympic Games with Laurel Hubbard being the first to qualify - 18 years after the initial decision, and 6 years after the IOC's revised guidelines.

 

In 2015, the IOC modified these guidelines to accommodate the fact that legal recognition of gender in countries where being transgender is illegal will be difficult for trans athletes. They have also recognised that requiring surgery in otherwise healthy individuals "may be inconsistent with developing legislation and notions of human rights" (https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Medical_commission/2015-11_ioc_consensus_meeting_on_sex_reassignment_and_hyperandrogenism-en.pdf)

1. Those who transition from female to male are eligible to compete in the male category without restriction.
2. Those who transition from male to female are eligible to compete in the female category under the following conditions:
2.1. The athlete has declared that her gender identity is female. The declaration cannot be changed, for sporting purposes, for a minimum of four years.
2.2. The athlete must demonstrate that her total testosterone level in serum has been below 10 nanomoles per litre (10 nmol/L) for at least 12 months prior to her first competition (with the requirement for any longer period to be based on a confidential case-by-case evaluation, considering whether or not 12 months is a sufficient length of time to minimize any advantage in women’s competition).
2.3. The athlete's total testosterone level in serum must remain below 10 nmol/L throughout the period of desired eligibility to compete in the female category.
2.4. Compliance with these conditions may be monitored by testing. In the event of non-compliance, the athlete’s eligibility for female competitions will be suspended for 12 months.

 

Other sporting bodies have followed suit. The guidelines for the International Association of Athletics Federations states that the concentration of testosterone in an athlete must be less than 5 nmol/L which has been changed from their previous guidelines of 10 nmol/L. While the IOC's guidelines are being used by several International Federations, the organisation is looking to make their guidelines stricter.

 

In 2019, the International Association of Athletics Federations' hosted a meeting in Lausanne to discuss trans inclusively in sport. The issues surrounding the physiological basis of performance while acknowledging that further consultation and research was required, particularly in the areas of specific injury risk, ethical considerations, and performance (https://gaisf.sport/international-federation-if-forum-2019-to-explore-athlete-focused-strategies/). The IOC had expressed their support for International Federations to tailor rules for their individual sports.

 

This approach can be summed up with the following question chain:
1. "Is there a difference (between trans and cis women)?
2. "If yes, do the differences confer any advantage?"
3. "If yes, is that advantage outside the realms of fairness?"

 

It seems clear that the governing sporting bodies are invested in ensuring that trans inclusion in sport is fair for all athletes. So, if the International sporting bodies have their shit together, what's happening here?

I suspect for the average person, the statement "Trans women have an unfair advantage" is seen as self-evident. It's never framed as a question but as a self-evident fact based on the public collective idea that advantages in sport are only ever contained in the chromosome, or that the be-all-end-all of sporting ability is determined by the puberty an athlete has gone through with little regard for skill and training. This might account for why the average person starts and ends their line of questioning with questions 1 and 2:

"Is there a difference (between trans and cis women)?" - the answer to this question is seen as self-evidently "Yes"

 

"If yes, do the differences confer any advantage (on balance)?" - also viewed as a self-evident "Yes"

 

The last question is never addressed and the conclusion is reached is "Yes there is a difference, yes there is an advantage therefore that advantage is unfair"

 

Case in point, whenever I discuss this topic I will inevitability get asked a question along the lines of: "Do you want a 6ft (180cm) trans women competing with 5ft 6in (170.68cm) cis women?" as if that was some form of "gotcha." This really makes no sense. The shortest WNBA player is Shannon Bobbitt who stands at 5ft 1in (157cm) tall with the tallest player being Margo Dydek who stood at 7ft 1in (218cm) tall. Brittney Grine of the team Phoenix Mercury is 6 ft 9in (210cm) whereas her co-player Olivia Epoupa is 5ft 5in (167.6cm) (https://nothingbutnylon.com/tallest-shortest-players-on-each-wnba-team).

 

You can't treat all cis women and all trans women like monoliths - because there are differences between individual athletes who reside within the same group. A 6ft 5in tall cis woman is going to have an advantage over a 6ft tall cis woman playing basketball, or any sport where height is an advantage. A cis man with longer feet and bigger webs between his toes than other cis men is going to have an advantage in sports involving propelling oneself through the water.

 

(Another point - thanks Zoe.
The average weight discrepancy between Pacific Islander women and Japanese women is larger than the average weight difference between AMAB people and AFAB people. And yet nobody gets upset when Japan plays Samoa in the Rugby World cup.)

 

So, why this question? Well, that's easy. The question is meant to invoke a very specific idea of what trans women competing with cis women will look like. The public idea of trans women hasn't moved on from the tired trope of "man in a dress" and the posed hypothetical scenario is designed to make the average person think that a trans woman who looks like a footballer is going to be playing against a small, petite, dainty cis woman.

 

(As an unrelated side note, I have thoroughly enjoyed looking up images of tall, buff women for this post. My inner lesbian is very happy right now. My outer lesbian is a goddamn mess, however)

Using hypothetical scenarios as a means to push transphobic ideas is nothing new. And using LGBTphobic ideas against LGBT athletes is also nothing new.

 

Martina Navratilova is a Czech-American former tennis player who is now widely considered one of the greatest players of all time, She's won 18 Grand Slam singles titles, 31 major women's doubles titles, and 10 major mixed doubles titles. That's a total of 59 major titles earning her the record for most Grand Slam titles won by a single player. She reached the Wimbledon singles final 12 times, including for nine consecutive years from 1982 through 1990, and won the women's singles title at Wimbledon a record nine times.

Suffice to say she's great at tennis.

She's also gay as ****.

 

Having been outed originally as bisexual in 1981 before she was ready to publicly disclose her sexuality, Navratilova has since re-come out as a lesbian and is still one of the more recognisable LGBT athletes within the LGBT community. Not surprisingly, she faced homophobic abuse.

The headline “Martina ‘Turns Girls into Gays’” featured in the July 12th 1990 edition of The Sun newspaper with quotes from infamous Australian tennis star and all-out homophobe Margaret Court stating: “Martina’s a great player, but I’d like somebody at the top who the younger players could look up to. It’s very sad for children to be exposed to homosexuality.” Court was also featured saying “...so bad that young girl players were scared to go into tournament changing rooms...”

The "lesbian as a bathroom predator" was a prominent trope in the 1990s, the era I grew up in. Not-so- coincidentally, Margaret Court was also a prominent figure against same-sex marriage in the 2017 same-sex marriage Plebiscite in Australia. She's been beating the same drum for a long time.

 

Yes, Margaret Court is a massive homophobe because she doesn't like The Gays, however, homophobia is also an excellent way to push athletes out of their sport. It's designed to instil fear in heterosexual women players - not fear of straight players losing games, but fear of assault, of unwanted attention, of not being able to exist safely around other players. Can't lose against well-trained lesbians if there are no lesbians to lose against.

 

Transphobia works in the same way. As does any characteristic be it minority status, or a bodily difference. Athletes annoyed at swimmer Ian Thorpe's numerous wins raised "concerns" about his "potential advantages" citing his larger feet, and how his hips allowed him to move through the water. Cite any perceived unfair advantage to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the win.

 

A federal lawsuit was filed in Connecticut (USA) against the state board that governs high school athletics and several school districts to ban trans girls from participating in girl's sports in the state. Trans students and sprinters Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood became defendants in the case. Cisgender students Chelsea Mitchell, Selina Soule, and Alanna Smith declared to the media they could not win in sporting events that allowed trans athletes to compete according to their authentic gender citing trans girls having an advantage over cisgender girls. Before the lawsuit was dismissed, Chelsea Mitchell had beaten Terry Miller in their final two races in February 2020 (https://www.syracuse.com/sports/2021/03/lawmakers-seeking-to-ban-trans-girls-in-sports-cant-cite-local-examples-ap-finds.html and https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkbdgm/these-2-athletes-were-being-used-to-justify-the-wave-of-anti-trans-bills), Chelsea Mitchell has since gone on to receive a scholarship to NCAA D1 College for track and field: William & Mary. (https://www.outsports.com/2021/2/24/22298858/biden-justice-connecticut-trans-student-athletes-federal-lawsuit-adf-terry-miller-andraya-yearwood). Both trans students have not been elected for any sporting scholarships.

 

In 2017, trans student Mack Beggs - a trans boy from Texas (USA) was required to wrestle against girls despite wanting to wrestle against boys. This was due to state sport regulations requiring athletes to compete alongside athletes of their assigned sex. This image (https://u2v2u3t5.stackpathcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/tansgender-woman-feat-2-660x400.jpg) has been going around social media describing Mack Beggs as a trans woman who was wrestling in girl's competitions as means to instill fear in those who were unfamiliar with trans issues and transphobic dog whistles.

 

So, what does this all mean?

When stacked up against the other examples of "unfairness," the rallying cry "the inclusion of trans women is unfair to cis women" seems less like it's employed because the speaker wants fairness in sport, and more like it's employed as a means of devaluing the athlete for their achievements and to push them out of their game, particularly if they are a minority. Particularily, since sportng bodies the world over have been taking steps to find a fair and inclusive solution.

In this instance, the "unfair" argument is being leveled at Lauren Hubbard with transphobia as a, for a lack of a better term, social lubricant. Anti-trans sentiment is a convenient vector to spread the idea of "unfairness" while using plausible deniability to dismiss accusations of underlying transphobic ideas. "I just want fairness and equality in sport" "I just have concerns" "I want to protect women"
Using a characteristic of difference against an athlete is a tool that has taken many forms. This iteration is no different. Rather than being seen as a tool that has been used against cisgender women and men, LGBT athletes, and athletes of colour - it gets passed off as a heroic effect to save athletes from the bogeyman of "unfairness," particularly cisgender straight white women who are seen as needing never-ending protection from trans women, lesbians, and women of colour.

If you feel that trans woman automatically have an advantage over cis women purely based on their transness, you should be comforted by the fact that every major sporting body and association has been working on implementing a fair and balanced solution for all players. Some having implemented this solution for nearly 20 years. If this doesn't comfort you, ask yourself - do I want fairness in sport for all players? Or do I just want trans women to go away?

 

Another point to be made to those claiming to be concerned about trans women in women's sports is that if you are honestly concerned about this, the best option to reduce any risk of player advantage would be to lobby for easier access to puberty blockers for trans youth. Puberty blockers stop puberty from occurring (you can read my full post on them here: https://www.facebook.com/InsufferableIntolerance/posts/2000921016735673) which means trans girls will never need to go through male puberty, and trans boys will never go through female puberty, and when they are adults they can start cross-sex hormones and go through the puberty of the sex they are transitioning to. This means every trans person, like every cis person, will only go through one puberty and one puberty only.

 

-- As a side note. I'm amazed at how quickly a person will descend into misogyny if it means being mean to trans women and their appearance.

 

-- Additionally, the "unfairness" claim means that trans women are in a position where their wins will never be seen as legitamate due to preceived advantages, which is not surprisingly something cis women of colour face as well. Racists in sport use the "she might be a secret trans woman" excuse against black women when they win too many events. This has occurred with several cisgender black women who happen to be intersex: https://www.sbnation.com/2020/4/20/21227661/caster-semenya-world-athletics-regulation-body-racism"

 

[Voll Blau]

Pineapple is a good pizza topping.

[The Bear]

3 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Pineapple is a good pizza topping.

GTFO. 

[Jon the Hat]

5 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Pineapple is a good pizza topping.

No, pineapple is a GREAT pizza topping.  Love it.

[The Bear]

Just now, Jon the Hat said:

No, pineapple is a GREAT pizza topping.  Love it.

Get in the sea. 

[StanSP]

18 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Pineapple is a good pizza topping.

 

13 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

No, pineapple is a GREAT pizza topping.  Love it.

And get in the fvcking bin! 

[Voll Blau]

28 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Get in the sea. 

 

15 minutes ago, StanSP said:

 

And get in the fvcking bin! 

 

Sorry lads. Me and @Jon the Hat are forming a cross-party coalition on this. Gonna call it Vote Leave (Pineapples On Pizza).

[lcfc278]

57 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Pineapple is a good pizza topping.

If people have previously tasted and tried pineapple on a pizza and didn't like it, then I respect their opinion to not like it and therefore express that opinion.

 

I love it! I think it just works so well. A number of people at my work have ostracised me for this decision, despite almost all of them never having tried it before and therefore I don't think they can form a balanced enough opinion on it to shoot me down for loving it.

[leicsmac]

On a similar culinary theme, a typical British "Sunday Roast" is the Burnley of set piece meals and I have no idea why some people rate it so much.

[Stuntman_Mike]

14 minutes ago, lcfc278 said:

If people have previously tasted and tried pineapple on a pizza and didn't like it, then I respect their opinion to not like it and therefore express that opinion.

 

I love it! I think it just works so well. A number of people at my work have ostracised me for this decision, despite almost all of them never having tried it before and therefore I don't think they can form a balanced enough opinion on it to shoot me down for loving it.

Whenever people say to me they don't like something without trying it, I ask them what their favourite food is and how they know that aha

You've got to at least try something first

Edited 9 July 2021 by Stuntman_Mike

[The Bear]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

On a similar culinary theme, a typical British "Sunday Roast" is the Burnley of set piece meals and I have no idea why some people rate it so much.

I don't have one that often nowadays, but we'll cooked roast potatoes are the dogs danglies. Couple that with some nice stuffing and gravy, a few veg and a nicely cooked piece of beef or pork and its a fantastic meal. 

 

Too much faff to make it though which is why I don't do it very often now. 

[leicsmac]

Just now, The Bear said:

I don't have one that often nowadays, but we'll cooked roast potatoes are the dogs danglies. Couple that with some nice stuffing and gravy, a few veg and a nicely cooked piece of beef or pork and its a fantastic meal. 

 

Too much faff to make it though which is why I don't do it very often now. 

A lot of effort for an entirely uninspiring outcome IMO. Had enough of that watching City from 2001-2008.

[Soup]

28 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

On a similar culinary theme, a typical British "Sunday Roast" is the Burnley of set piece meals and I have no idea why some people rate it so much.

Really ? Wow when done right it's glorious. It is a lot of effort to do but on a horrible wet Sunday in January they can make the day. 

 

Veg is just as important as the meat as well, and proper home made Yorkshire pudding is a must not them frozen ones.

[Jon the Hat]

50 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

On a similar culinary theme, a typical British "Sunday Roast" is the Burnley of set piece meals and I have no idea why some people rate it so much.

A lovely leg of lamb, crispy roast potatoes, sweet potatoes, parsnips all doused in a lovely bit of gravy, some brocolli or peas on the side, and some mint sause if that is your thing.  Lovely.  My mouth is watering.  Roast Lamb is the king of meats.  Mind you a really well cooked Rib of beef is also pretty marvelous.  Yum.

[bovril]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

On a similar culinary theme, a typical British "Sunday Roast" is the Burnley of set piece meals and I have no idea why some people rate it so much.

Very unpopular. As above, when it's done well it is glorious.

[bovril]

re. pizza and Italian food. I lived there for a few years and Italians have anything on pizzas. Had apple on one in Trento - was very good. 

 

Italian produce is great and they are great cooks. But the dishes themselves are nothing that special. Lacks variety. And it's very difficult to get anything other than Italian cuisine unless your in a very large city like Milan.

 

I have students here from China, Vietnam, Thailand (mostly pretty rich I guess) and they show me photos of what their Mum rustles up for a special occasion and you realise there is no European cuisine that comes close. 

[bovril]

Probably the best food I've had in Europe is the Balkans. That Turkish and Middle Eastern influence helps. 

[Big Dave]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

A lot of effort for an entirely uninspiring outcome IMO. Had enough of that watching City from 2001-2008.

I think roast dinners are really easy to cook, and don’t take too much effort. Much less effort and easier than cooking (for example) a curry from scratch.

 

Very little time to prep, just takes a while to cook, but cooks while you have a beer watching the Sunday afternoon game.

 

Roast dinners are only disappointing if cooked badly, or cheap frozen roasties and Yorkies are used.

 

Must also put all of the meat juices into the gravy too.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Soup said:

Really ? Wow when done right it's glorious. It is a lot of effort to do but on a horrible wet Sunday in January they can make the day. 

 

Veg is just as important as the meat as well, and proper home made Yorkshire pudding is a must not them frozen ones.

 

51 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

A lovely leg of lamb, crispy roast potatoes, sweet potatoes, parsnips all doused in a lovely bit of gravy, some brocolli or peas on the side, and some mint sause if that is your thing.  Lovely.  My mouth is watering.  Roast Lamb is the king of meats.  Mind you a really well cooked Rib of beef is also pretty marvelous.  Yum.

 

31 minutes ago, bovril said:

Very unpopular. As above, when it's done well it is glorious.

 

14 minutes ago, Big Dave said:

I think roast dinners are really easy to cook, and don’t take too much effort. Much less effort and easier than cooking (for example) a curry from scratch.

 

Very little time to prep, just takes a while to cook, but cooks while you have a beer watching the Sunday afternoon game.

 

Roast dinners are only disappointing if cooked badly, or cheap frozen roasties and Yorkies are used.

 

Must also put all of the meat juices into the gravy too.

Sorry fellas.

 

[The Bear]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

A lovely leg of lamb, crispy roast potatoes, sweet potatoes, parsnips all doused in a lovely bit of gravy, some brocolli or peas on the side, and some mint sause if that is your thing.  Lovely.  My mouth is watering.  Roast Lamb is the king of meats.  Mind you a really well cooked Rib of beef is also pretty marvelous.  Yum.

Parsnips can get in the bin, along with your pineapple on pizzas. 

 

You'll be telling me you like sprouts next! 

[Jon the Hat]

3 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Parsnips can get in the bin, along with your pineapple on pizzas. 

 

You'll be telling me you like sprouts next! 

Sprouts are nice with chopped chestnuts and fried bacon bits at Christmas.  On their own they just take up space.

[The Bear]

18 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Sprouts are nice with chopped chestnuts and fried bacon bits at Christmas.  On their own they just take up space.

Bin. The. In. Get. 

 

Rearrange at your leisure.