Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[leicsmac]

55 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

You can still be kind but at the same time agree pronouns are tricky at best in society, especially when a person who more than likely is misgendering someone by accident rather than doing it maliciously most of the time. On the unpopular opinions topic, our nursery now refers to all the kids as ''young people'' rather than children, ''xxx parents'' rather than Mum or Dad is here to see you. It's just bonkers, and you can tell the staff are tip toeing around worried about messing up with the language they use. 

 

My son has additional needs, or is it special needs? I'm not sure which one you are supposed to use in 2023. Quite frankly I'm not bothered, as long as he isn't discriminated maliciously. 

 

That's fair, but on the topic of honest mistakes I would say again that Finn above has done the necessary differentiation there for folks to look at.

[Finnegan]

14 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

They matter because men and women have sharply different patterns of criminal behaviour and sexual predation, which is why virtually every country in the world separates men and women in contexts where the latter are vulnerable. There is no evidence whatsoever that this changes when men identify as women. A man who identifies as a women does not in that moment undergo a genetic transformation that renders him less of a potential risk than men who do not identify as women. Recording a crime committed by a biological male as committed by a female is not only unfair to women, it is willfully misleading. How can we begin to understand patterns of behaviour, and create laws in response to them, if we won't even describe them accurately?

 

Audrey Hale was a woman and the correct pronouns to use for her are the female ones. Her crime was highly unusual in that mass shooters are almost always male, but this one was committed by a woman and should be recorded as such.

 

There's a difference between the pronouns the media will use and actual official statistics though, aren't there? Official statistics will cover both biological sex AND gender (along with sexuality, race, religion and countless other characteristics.) It's not exactly difficult to record a person as being a biological male but using any number of descriptors for gender, be it "female", "transgender", "genderfluid", "genderqueer", etc. All of those things are statistically relevant, interesting and important and there should be as much thorough, detailed and accurate recording as possible. We seem to agree on that latter point so I'm not really sure why you wouldn't want someone's gender correctly assigned on any crime statistic?

 

Audrey Hale's chosen pronouns were he/his and he identified as a man. Of course it's an interesting case because Audrey was biologically female but it's scrubbing away half the story by ignoring the fact he also identified as a man.

 

I'm not really sure what issue you'd have with correctly assigning both the correct gender and sex unless you don't actually understand the distinction between gender and sex OR you're refusing to understand the distinction between gender and sex as per current "culture-war" stupidity.

 

[ozleicester]

People who are obsessed about other peoples genitals have mental problems

[ClaphamFox]

31 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

There's a difference between the pronouns the media will use and actual official statistics though, aren't there? Official statistics will cover both biological sex AND gender (along with sexuality, race, religion and countless other characteristics.) It's not exactly difficult to record a person as being a biological male but using any number of descriptors for gender, be it "female", "transgender", "genderfluid", "genderqueer", etc. All of those things are statistically relevant, interesting and important and there should be as much thorough, detailed and accurate recording as possible. We seem to agree on that latter point so I'm not really sure why you wouldn't want someone's gender correctly assigned on any crime statistic?

 

Audrey Hale's chosen pronouns were he/his and he identified as a man. Of course it's an interesting case because Audrey was biologically female but it's scrubbing away half the story by ignoring the fact he also identified as a man.

 

I'm not really sure what issue you'd have with correctly assigning both the correct gender and sex unless you don't actually understand the distinction between gender and sex OR you're refusing to understand the distinction between gender and sex as per current "culture-war" stupidity.

 

Sex is a biological reality that cannot be changed. What is gender? It seems to be a belief that people can have a gendered essence of some kind that can be a mismatch with their biological sex. But where does it exist? It can't be seen, observed, tested or recorded in any way. It's ultimately just a personal feeling, not unlike the belief among religious folk that they have a soul that is separate from their physical body. It is essentially theological in nature.

 

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with gender nonconformity. There are many ways to be a man and many ways to be a woman. Boys who prefer to act and dress in a way stereotypically associated with girls should be free to do so without prejudice, and vice versa. But the idea that there are certain modes of dress and presentation that are inherently one sex or the other, and that people who do not conform to those rigid boundaries are in the 'wrong body', is a scientifically baseless one. It's also deeply regressive and authoritarian. So you're a boy who likes dolls? Hey, you might be in the wrong body - let's change that and render you infertile, with limited sexual function and very likely on heavy medication for the rest of your life. Yay!

I happily support the right of anybody to dress how they want, call themselves whatever they wish and live their life as they see fit. I do not believe that their chosen mode of presentation should override their biological sex when it comes to policymaking. I also suspect that the medicalisation of gender nonconforming young people will become one of the biggest medical scandals of all time, but that will become clear in due course.

 

 

Edited 29 March 2023 by ClaphamFox

[Finnegan]

2 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Sex is a biological reality that cannot be changed. What is gender? It seems to be a belief that people can have a gendered essence of some kind that can be a mismatch with their biological sex. But where does it exist? It can't be seen, observed, tested or recorded in any way. It's ultimately just a personal feeling, not unlike the belief among religious folk that they have a soul that is separate from their physical body. It is essentially theological in nature.

 

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with gender nonconformity. There are many ways to be a man and many ways to be a woman. Boys who prefer to act and dress in a way stereotypically associated with girls should be free to do so without prejudice, and vice versa. But the idea that there are certain modes of dress and presentation that are inherently one sex or the other, and that people who do not conform to those rigid boundaries are in the 'wrong body', is a scientifically baseless one. It's also deeply regressive and authoritarian. So you're a boy who likes dolls? Hey, you might be in the wrong body - let's change that and render you infertile, with limited sexual function and very likely on heavy medication for the rest of your life. Yay!

I happily support the right of anybody to dress how they want, call themselves whatever they wish and live their life as they see fit. I do not believe that their chosen mode of presentation should override their biological sex when it comes to policymaking. I also suspect that the medicalisation of gender nonconforming young people will become one of the biggest medical scandals of all time, but that will become clear in due course.

 

 

 

You may be surprised to know how much of that is pretty much spot on with my personal beliefs. I'm actually pretty passionate about the non-existence of gender and I think traditional gender roles are doing us more harm than good. I think it's great that we're having more discussions about gender and what it means in the 21st century but I largely hold that we're getting the wrong end of the stick and I do find it frustrating. 

 

With this being said, however, there's a difference between saying (as I do) "there's no such thing as gender" from a philosophical or moral point and ACTUALLY denying the existence of gender as an enormously powerful social construct within our societies. Pretending that gender and stereotypical gender roles don't exist and sticking your head in the sand and ignoring their impact is just infantile. It makes for interesting debate and I hope that it's something we continue to address but, equally, our gender roles are plastered everywhere around us and they're ingrained in children (rightly or wrongly) from an extremely young age. They're a massive part of our psyche. It's like religion, you can disbelieve in God/gods and that's fine but disbelieving in faith is stupid. Faith is a fact, it doesn't matter if it only exists in people's heads, it exists, and is enormously powerful. As is gender.

 

I'm sure you don't mean to be bigoted (or at least, I hope so) but statements like "Audrey Hale was a woman and the correct pronouns to use for her are the female ones" might sound like good-old-fashioned-common-sense to you but they're actually pretty narrow minded, extremely offensive and I'd even stretch to say were almost certainly a significant part of how Audrey Hale got to be damaged enough as a human being to go out and shoot up a school. 

 

So, yeah, I'd say it's pretty important to acknowledge the two facts that Audrey Hale was biologically female and that Audrey Hale identified as a man.

[leicsmac]

On this topic and in this thread, I've said it before but:

 

The sooner human mastery of medical science advances to the point that no human feature is inherent and any of it can be changed, and the entire argument regarding essentialism is reduced to an archaic talking point ala Flat Earth, the better future we will have as species.

 

Conflict almost always arises from lack of empathy and fear stemming from something not understood or simply different.

[SkidsFox]

Not sure if this is an unpopular opinion or not, but I see a lot of folk out there spending/wasting their time trying to garner "likes" in their bid to be a big "influencer". 

One friend infuriates me. He once had fairly successful businesses (and still has great ideas/concepts that could generate revenue) but he's spent the last 15 years chasing "likes".  

[Daggers]

26 minutes ago, SkidsFox said:

Not sure if this is an unpopular opinion or not, but I see a lot of folk out there spending/wasting their time trying to garner "likes" in their bid to be a big "influencer". 

One friend infuriates me. He once had fairly successful businesses (and still has great ideas/concepts that could generate revenue) but he's spent the last 15 years chasing "likes".  

Like my post if you think SkidsFox is wrong

[Tommy G]

Player of the Match rather than Man of the Match in mens football is ridiculous. What's changed in the last year or so compared to the last 100 which means this term is no longer acceptable. 

[foxy boxing]

2 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Player of the Match rather than Man of the Match in mens football is ridiculous. What's changed in the last year or so compared to the last 100 which means this term is no longer acceptable. 

shouldn't it be Them of the match!. 

[filthyfox]

37 minutes ago, foxy boxing said:

shouldn't it be Them of the match!. 

THEY!!!

[kingkisnorbo]

Can people please just find something real or important to be irate about? Sitting around getting their jocks in a twist because a word that's COMPLETELY inoffensive is being used. Just do something else ffs. 

[Fox92]

7 minutes ago, kingkisnorbo said:

Can people please just find something real or important to be irate about? Sitting around getting their jocks in a twist because a word that's COMPLETELY inoffensive is being used. Just do something else ffs. 

Yeah, I never even noticed it got changed I still say "man of the match" anyway, if I'm generally talking, and nobody seems to care. "Player of the match" has been used on FM for years, I've never thought it's wrong.

[TJQuik]

On 23/03/2023 at 07:50, Nalis said:

I get that some people like him but that is borderline delusional.

 

Not only is he a perfect parody of british presenters, his character is developed brilliantly in the various shows, inviting schadenfreude and disgust but ultimately a lot of empathy. Plus most of the programs he's in are just really funny. The content produced by that group of writers in the 90s/early 2000s (The Day Today, Brass Eye, various Alan Partridge shows) is just gold in my opinion. I'll admit I've not watch much of the newest alan Patridge show though.

[Foxdiamond]

2 hours ago, filthyfox said:

THEY!!!

What I want is Leicester City named team of the match. It might be 3 points won

[Houdini Logic]

3 hours ago, Tommy G said:

Player of the Match rather than Man of the Match in mens football is ridiculous. What's changed in the last year or so compared to the last 100 which means this term is no longer acceptable. 

Society's attitude towards how people chose to identify? 

[marbles]

..

 

Edited 29 March 2023 by marbles

[Parafox]

3 hours ago, Tommy G said:

Player of the Match rather than Man of the Match in mens football is ridiculous. What's changed in the last year or so compared to the last 100 which means this term is no longer acceptable. 

I don't think I've heard "woman of the match".

 

Mind you, I struggle to watch women's games right to the end.

 

Not out of misogyny or sexism. Just boredom.

[Nalis]

44 minutes ago, TJQuik said:

Not only is he a perfect parody of british presenters, his character is developed brilliantly in the various shows, inviting schadenfreude and disgust but ultimately a lot of empathy. Plus most of the programs he's in are just really funny. The content produced by that group of writers in the 90s/early 2000s (The Day Today, Brass Eye, various Alan Partridge shows) is just gold in my opinion. I'll admit I've not watch much of the newest alan Patridge show though.

Did Chris Morris / Armando Iannucci write on Alan Patridge?  I love those guys

[Tommy G]

51 minutes ago, Houdini Logic said:

Society's attitude towards how people chose to identify? 

Do you think more than 50% of the population prefer player of the match to man of the match? Just curious. 

[SpacedX]

15 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Did Chris Morris / Armando Iannucci write on Alan Patridge?  I love those guys

Iannucci and Coogan certainly - some early input from Stuart Lee and Richard Herring, also Patrick Marber had a lot to do with 'Knowing Me Knowing You'. It's an entirely different team of writers now. 

[Parafox]

4 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Iannucci and Coogan certainly - some early input from Stuart Lee and Richard Herring, also Patrick Marber had a lot to do with 'Knowing Me Knowing You'. It's an entirely different team of writers now. 

And sadly, genius writing gets diluted, changed and differently influenced and is never the same when replaced by other writers.

[SpacedX]

19 minutes ago, Parafox said:

And sadly, genius writing gets diluted, changed and differently influenced and is never the same when replaced by other writers.

I dunno, I quite like the new team behind Sean from Enderby. 

[Jon the Hat]

21 hours ago, leicsmac said:

And that, sadly, is what a fair few people are insisting on the right to do.

They do have the right in law to refuse to accede to such requests as GC beliefs are a protected characteristic.  You would imo have to be fairly prickly person to want to though - in person at least.  However I would agree with others that if you are going to say committ a horrible crime as a man and then decide to become a woman for your own benefit then you deserve no such respect.

[Jon the Hat]

19 hours ago, Finnegan said:

I'm not really sure what issue you'd have with correctly assigning both the correct gender and sex unless you don't actually understand the distinction between gender and sex OR you're refusing to understand the distinction between gender and sex as per current "culture-war" stupidity.

It is thought I think perfectly valid to find the idea that if you are not some stereotypical man or woman that you must then define yourself as some other gender which is separate from your sex is a bit ridiculous.  Especially strange are those who then make themselves appear the stereotype of the opposite gender.  Why the need for all these badges?  Does it really make anyone feel better about themselves?  Not convinced.