Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[HighPeakFox]

3 hours ago, Countryfox said:

Just wondering when I can use that one ..  mind you I suppose it would be better if I knew what it meant first ..  

Don't hold it against me that I know the English language - I know you don't, but some people decide to use it as a weapon. 

[The Bear]

We had 19+ years of being in The Championship. I don't ever want to go back there!! 

 

It's a horrible long slog with two games a week, attendances drop, income drops massively, and your best players all leave. 

 

Why the hell would anyone ever want that? 

[Dunge]

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

Don't hold it against me that I know the English language - I know you don't, but some people decide to use it as a weapon. 

I have to say that’s very, very, very thingy of you.

[filthyfox]

13 minutes ago, The Bear said:

We had 19+ years of being in The Championship. I don't ever want to go back there!! 

 

It's a horrible long slog with two games a week, attendances drop, income drops massively, and your best players all leave. 

 

Why the hell would anyone ever want that? 

Hardly an unpopular opinion!

[Jon the Hat]

17 hours ago, Finnegan said:

This comes across as enormously condescending and belittling if I'm honest and the last semi rhetorical question strikes me as monumentally ignorant. 

 

There's a terrifyingly high percentage of transgender youth who are suicidal and have attempted suicide but a significant majority report being less suicidal after actually transitioning. 

 

So I'd say, yes, establishing an identity someone feels comfortable with "makes them feel better about themselves." I'm baffled you need sources to spell that out to you, is it not reasonably common sense? 

 

I've already said, probably multiple times in this thread, I do agree to an extent that gender roles are archaic and we'd be much better off without all these labels and rules determining how we view ourselves. Sure. But there's obviously a significant journey between where we are now and that point and we've got a significant amount of people currently struggling with a lack of love, support and understanding in our current climate. 

 

Generic CIS white middle class conservative little Englander hand waving away their troubles like a walking cliché probably isn't all that helpful. 

. Cant be bothered

Edited 31 March 2023 by Jon the Hat

[Daggers]

5 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

. Cant be bothered

Finally. 🥳

[Daggers]

14 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

OK, so it's mindless inverse parochial snobbery then? 

 

19 hours ago, Finnegan said:

People who like to pretend it's a more exciting league to watch are full of shit. 

Colour me a full of shit, mindless, inverse parochial snob. 
 

Oh, you already did. Damn. 
 

Just wait till I start banging on about real football and proper fans. 

[HighPeakFox]

2 hours ago, Daggers said:

 

Colour me a full of shit, mindless, inverse parochial snob. 
 

Oh, you already did. Damn. 
 

Just wait till I start banging on about real football and proper fans. 

I'm glad you have such an excellent sense of humour 

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

I'm glad you have such an excellent sense of humour 

When you’re this mindless and inversely parochial, it really helps 

[Captain...]

On 29/03/2023 at 04:25, Sly said:

Pronouns.

 

It is a minefield and i’m not sure my 40+ year old brain is capable of changing to “gender neutral” ones naturally. 

 

This why there has been an effort to get people, and I mean all people not just gender queer people, to add their pronouns to their profiles and signatures etc. It means you don't have to think or second guess, it's just there visible to be used.

 

There are plenty of cis people with gender neutral or foreign or just downright weird names where the correct pronouns are not clear so just share them.

 

Of course the anti-woke brigade are up in arms about this.

[filthyfox]

Having a statutory minimum wage is a bad thing, and has, in fact lowered living standards 

[ClaphamFox]

3 hours ago, Captain... said:

This why there has been an effort to get people, and I mean all people not just gender queer people, to add their pronouns to their profiles and signatures etc. It means you don't have to think or second guess, it's just there visible to be used.

 

There are plenty of cis people with gender neutral or foreign or just downright weird names where the correct pronouns are not clear so just share them.

 

Of course the anti-woke brigade are up in arms about this.

Which is absolutely fine as long as those who do not believe in gender are permitted to opt out. Those who do believe in it are, of course, free to define themselves as they wish.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Which is absolutely fine as long as those who do not believe in gender are permitted to opt out. Those who do believe in it are, of course, free to define themselves as they wish.

 

On 30/03/2023 at 18:30, leicsmac said:

Right, it's not against the law to be an thoughtless unempathetic arsehole, and nor should it be.

 

It might be nice if more people actually made the effort to not be that, though.

 

[ClaphamFox]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

So you think that somebody quietly exercising a personal choice to opt out of adding pronouns to their bio is being a 'thoughtless unempathetic arsehole'? Really?!

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

So you think that somebody quietly exercising a personal choice to opt out of adding pronouns to their bio is being a 'thoughtless unempathetic arsehole'? Really?!

I unreservedly apologise for lack of clarity there; I figured you were referring to opting out of using the pronoun a person has decided upon, not opting out of displaying one's own pronouns.

 

I will insist that folks who do the former are what I describe right there, though.

[ClaphamFox]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I unreservedly apologise for lack of clarity there; I figured you were referring to opting out of using the pronoun a person has decided upon, not opting out of displaying one's own pronouns.

 

I will insist that folks who do the former are what I describe right there, though.

No problem. Reading back, I should have been clearer myself...

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

Which is absolutely fine as long as those who do not believe in gender are permitted to opt out. Those who do believe in it are, of course, free to define themselves as they wish.

I'm not sure what believing in gender has to do with anything, it's not like you can opt out of people using third person pronouns to describe you. It's a preference not a mandate, we could all just always use they/them. 

 

Typically these sort of options on a form, like title have an option of other please specify. I'm assuming nobody objects to being asked to enter a title which normally implies gender, Mr/Mr/Ms etc it's no different. Yet I've seen plenty of people up in arms about being asked about their pronouns of choice.

 

It's not just about gender identity politics, it would be very useful for multinational organisations where it is not clear which gender to use. Whilst it is probably more problematic to mis-gender a trans person, but there is still plenty of confusion and embarrassment that can be avoided outside of gender identity politics.

[Jon the Hat]

13 hours ago, Captain... said:

This why there has been an effort to get people, and I mean all people not just gender queer people, to add their pronouns to their profiles and signatures etc. It means you don't have to think or second guess, it's just there visible to be used.

 

There are plenty of cis people with gender neutral or foreign or just downright weird names where the correct pronouns are not clear so just share them.

 

Of course the anti-woke brigade are up in arms about this.

I should point out here that I find your use of the word CIS offensive, as you use it to directly imply that people not born of a sex can change to it, which I completely disagree with as it is biologically impossible.  So if you could please instead refer to people who are not trans without using the word CIS it would make me much more comfortable. I prefer you refer to biological men and woman as men and women, and to use the phrase trans woman and trans men to refer to those categories of people.  Thanks.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I should point out here that I find your use of the word CIS offensive, as you use it to directly imply that people not born of a sex can change to it, which I completely disagree with as it is biologically impossible.  So if you could please instead refer to people who are not trans without using the word CIS it would make me much more comfortable. I prefer you refer to biological men and woman as men and women, and to use the phrase trans woman and trans men to refer to those categories of people.  Thanks.

Certainly, so long as you extend the same courtesy to each and every interaction with a person who does engage in the biological "impossibility" you mention with the correct pronouns.

 

I wasn't aware people took offence at Latin descriptors, but then language is language, after all.

[leicsmac]

NB. Also, speaking personally, I'd crack open a biology textbook or talk to someone well-versed on the topic (like @The Doctor) before being sure about one's opinion of "biological impossibility" and essentialism.

[leicsmac]

Anyhow, on topic and possibly an unpopular opinion out in the world rather than out here:

 

Terry Pratchett is a far superior author to J.K. Rowling, as the Discworld series is superior to Harry Potter by pretty much every critical metric.

 

The HP series is fair to middling work that got exceptional marketing. Discworld is just exceptional.

 

NB. If your kids want good books written by a lady author, the Animorphs series by KA Applegate are damn good too.

[The Doctor]

 

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

NB. Also, speaking personally, I'd crack open a biology textbook or talk to someone well-versed on the topic (like @The Doctor) before being sure about one's opinion of "biological impossibility" and essentialism.

cheers for the tag. saying it's biologically impossible to change sex is a very reductive view but that's unsurprising when the concept of biological sex is a very wooly thing. When we say biological sex we're trying to group a number of traits which typically align but don't always into a single classification. like are we talking genetic sex and your chromosomes? reproductive sex (the gonads you produce and the genitals you have)? endocrinological sex (hormonal profile which greatly impacts any sex based responses to medicines or illnesses)? like given this has been said in the context of transition, a post op perisex trans woman would be genetically male, reproductively neuter and endocrinologically female (and vice versa for a trans man). whether she's changed sex or not is very much dependent on which aspect of sex you put the emphasis on, and that depends on the context. screening for sex based genetic disorders? still important to consider her as male. Determining medicines and drug profiles? she'll get the best outcomes if you model her as female.

 

 

 

my unpopular opinion is that sciences should be mandatory in school to 18, because what we teach in lower levels of education are half truths and oversimplifications for accessibility purposes but not then taking a science into further education means the misconceptions from those half truths and oversimplifications are never corrected (as we're seeing in this conversation)

[Captain...]

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

I should point out here that I find your use of the word CIS offensive, as you use it to directly imply that people not born of a sex can change to it, which I completely disagree with as it is biologically impossible.  So if you could please instead refer to people who are not trans without using the word CIS it would make me much more comfortable. I prefer you refer to biological men and woman as men and women, and to use the phrase trans woman and trans men to refer to those categories of people.  Thanks.

Really? That's your response to a set of logical arguments. Take it up with Oxford and Miriam Webster.

 

I don't know if I need to point this out, because I think you already know, a lot of people find what you say offensive, including me. Yet we try and engage in the spirit of what you say respond to the argument put forward rather than just calling you a bigot. Because it is an important debate to be had and it is one that people need to be able to have listening to all sides without it descending to name calling and points scoring and just whatever the fvck arguing technique involves pulling someone up on using a perfectly cromulent word. If you want to continue being able to discuss this highly charged topic you need to stop being a provocative so and so and engage in civilised debate. Otherwise we'll all get banned and the debate will become censored and you'll become the JK Rowling of FT, obviously without the money or talent.

 

 

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

 

cheers for the tag. saying it's biologically impossible to change sex is a very reductive view but that's unsurprising when the concept of biological sex is a very wooly thing. When we say biological sex we're trying to group a number of traits which typically align but don't always into a single classification. like are we talking genetic sex and your chromosomes? reproductive sex (the gonads you produce and the genitals you have)? endocrinological sex (hormonal profile which greatly impacts any sex based responses to medicines or illnesses)? like given this has been said in the context of transition, a post op perisex trans woman would be genetically male, reproductively neuter and endocrinologically female (and vice versa for a trans man). whether she's changed sex or not is very much dependent on which aspect of sex you put the emphasis on, and that depends on the context. screening for sex based genetic disorders? still important to consider her as male. Determining medicines and drug profiles? she'll get the best outcomes if you model her as female.

 

 

 

my unpopular opinion is that sciences should be mandatory in school to 18, because what we teach in lower levels of education are half truths and oversimplifications for accessibility purposes but not then taking a science into further education means the misconceptions from those half truths and oversimplifications are never corrected (as we're seeing in this conversation)

Absolutely and absolutely.

[grobyfox1990]

Was at a talk yesterday, a Swedish doc described how a woman who was born without her uterus, then had a dead persons uterus transplanted in as she wanted to have kids. Successfully gave birth. He predicted a trans woman will be pregnant within the next few years via this method. The investment opportunities are absolutely HUGE