And it's man of the match

[AWetFlannel]

Someone said people are men or women and was told its factually incorrect just wanted to know how it's a fact.

Because, like many things it's not as easy as that. Just like the handball rule, things can get complicated whether we like it or not.

Intersex - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[biggiesablade]

Because, like many things it's not as easy as that. Just like the handball rule, things can get complicated whether we like it or not.

Intersex - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Cheers for the link, honestly though I'll not make any sense of the way it's written im not what you'd call 'book smart'. I appreciate there isn't a black and white way of explaining it and it's a Monday morning but if you have the time and inclination to try and explain it to me like I'm five I'd be grateful Punk Blade tag you because your reply didn't explain much.

I don't understand the difference between the two. Is one what you are and the other what you feel you should be? Is my sex male or my gender or both?

This might be easier to answer.

 

[Geordie Blade]

I don't understand the difference between the two. Is one what you are and the other what you feel you should be? Is my sex male or my gender or both?

Broadly speaking, yes. ‘Sex’ is how you are born, and what genitals etc you have. Gender is how you behave and feel.
I imagine that for most people they are the same. But for some people - and for their own personal reasons - they are different.

 

[biggiesablade]

Broadly speaking, yes. ‘Sex’ is how you are born, and what genitals etc you have. Gender is how you behave and feel.
I imagine that for most people they are the same. But for some people - and for their own personal reasons - they are different.

Thank you for dumbing it down for me, everydays a school day!

 

[Punk Blade]

Cheers for the link, honestly though I'll not make any sense of the way it's written im not what you'd call 'book smart'. I appreciate there isn't a black and white way of explaining it and it's a Monday morning but if you have the time and inclination to try and explain it to me like I'm five I'd be grateful Punk Blade tag you because your reply didn't explain much.

This might be easier to answer.

Appreciate you asking, and you’re asking the right questions. Gender is a huge topic and not easily simplified on a football forum. If Wikipedia isn’t your thing then see what else you can find, there’s loads out there and I think it’s quite interesting to read up on.

Sex and gender aren’t the same thing. Sex is related to your physiology/anatomy, gender is a social construct. In western cultures we have a gender binary, male and female, which is a spectrum; most people are most of the way on one end or the other and identify with the gender that matches their sex (cisgender). Some people identify with the gender opposite their sex (transgender). Some people are closer to the middle and identify as both male and female, or neither (non binary). Some people identify as multiple genders or are gender fluid, they may feel aligned to more than one gender at the a time or it may differ day to day. Some people don’t identify with a gender at all. A person’s gender can change over their lifetime. Some cultures have more than two ‘standard’ genders.

I totally appreciate that most people won’t understand why someone is transgender or non binary and that’s fine, as long as they’re respectful about it.

 

[Ainsley Harriott]

You mean this isn't the real world?

No. Its clown world.

 

[ChrisBlade]

Appreciate you asking, and you’re asking the right questions. Gender is a huge topic and not easily simplified on a football forum. If Wikipedia isn’t your thing then see what else you can find, there’s loads out there and I think it’s quite interesting to read up on.

Sex and gender aren’t the same thing. Sex is related to your physiology/anatomy, gender is a social construct. In western cultures we have a gender binary, male and female, which is a spectrum; most people are most of the way on one end or the other and identify with the gender that matches their sex (cisgender). Some people identify with the gender opposite their sex (transgender). Some people are closer to the middle and identify as both male and female, or neither (non binary). Some people identify as multiple genders or are gender fluid, they may feel aligned to more than one gender at the a time or it may differ day to day. Some people don’t identify with a gender at all. A person’s gender can change over their lifetime. Some cultures have more than two ‘standard’ genders.

I totally appreciate that most people won’t understand why someone is transgender or non binary and that’s fine, as long as they’re respectful about it.

As Geordie did before, this is a very good and accessible explanation. I knew the drift before and can and do empathize with the difficulties that people face when caught in the confusion that gender can cause them.

I also have several friends (albeit most of them online and American) who talk to me about the issues and challenges involved. I do not read Daily Mail as my preferred newspaper, am an old left winger and generally have both a sense of humor and an open non-judgmental mind that means people happily tell me stuff or open up. I am over fifty.

I say this to establish that I am not what would be considered naturally “woke”, nor an alt-right angry white man.

Also, player of the match, while fairly devoid of genuine significance in any way, does not grind my gears.

But here is my real issue: Inclusion is important and has advanced society immensely over the last century or so. All of feminism, immigration, racial diversity have progressed us. Putting gender on the agenda does too. It educates people who are oblivious or unaffected and makes life easier for people who may otherwise suffer or are happy within themselves in their differences.

Where I - being old - greatly differ is two areas: one is the pretense that language or gestures rather than substantive education matters most. Language has a flow, and triggers emotional responses. The current changes are vastly by design, not by natural usage. Yes, language often changed, but usually subversively from within the population, less so by the current top down inclusivity-driven modification.

If the net result is that for every person who may or may not feel better because language gets gendered, there are four or five who get a negative emotional response because for them language has been doctored for no gain, we are creating new bigger minorities while not solving the problem. And empirically, in my circle of non-traditional friends, the battle for linguistic recognition of their hardship or differences tends to come fairly low in priority.

I feel we are at risk of pissing people off for marginal gains without creating a deeper understanding or furthering inclusion. The actual minorities get lost in the majority’s wish to be left alone.

I also have aesthetic linguistic concerns, but am old and write and talk a lot. So probably no real point.

Issue 2: All my life, I have felt that a lot of conflict is created by being too easily offended. The solution is not averaging out even the minutest trigger of offense. It is teaching people self-control. Life IS frustrating. 98% of the people do not give a shit if you live or die. People drive like wankers. Pubs serve crap food. The songs on the radio are shite. You get stared at and told “what you looking at, bald cunt.”

Life is and should be offensive. It is what ultimately makes your character. We are wrong to micromanage minute linguistic offense or nuances. I have been called many things I do not identify with. It defines what I identify as and makes me smile. You have to learn to deal with it.

Diversity is fun. The solution is go and meet diverse people. Talk and learn. Ask, offend, be forgiven or ditched as unteachable. Be curious. Not create cages by convention and a feeling that the tail may wag the dog…

So I do feel language is the wrong battle ground. We lose real diversity by creating conventions of safe middle grounds for everything. We lose comedy. We lose caliber. Times move on. Language does.

But in my view we are prioritizing the wrong aspects a lot of the time. A player who has survived the hardships of children’s football to become a pro, all with gender issues, will have a monster spine and durability. He will be saddened by a lot of the ignorance on this thread to the real issues. But he will not be affected by being called Man of the Match, irrespective of gender. If he is, tough shit.

If we change the term, perfectly fine, too. Both terms will simply be in circulation for a while.

It’s more the type of changes where language loses flow that I am arguing against… and the idea that offensive is either preventable or inherently bad. In my experience, anything mildly offensive that challenges your perception of yourself is worth it.

 

[Davalon]

It is a bit daft purely because it's man's football played by men and I doubt there's a single pro player who doesn't identify as a man.

And even if there was, changing MOTM to POTM won't do one iota to make them feel more included.

Not something to feel angry about imho but it's just a gesture to pacify those who look for these things.

 

[Alex Cheeseright]

THE WORLD HAS GONE FUCKIN MAD

Yep. At the sane ones are joining in

 

[robbiez666]

 

[Davalon]

Just so everyone knows it’s my opinion that there’s man/male and woman/ female nothing else fucking exists.

You've got the usual suspects reaching for the report button

 

[Davalon]

Yeah I assume so.

Possibly also to make a more universal footballing language that can span the men's and women's game? Remove the clunky "man mark her!" stuff.

Clunky?

Would you prefer coaches to say 'person mark them'

 

[Geordie Blade]

It is a bit daft purely because it's man's football played by men and I doubt there's a single pro player who doesn't identify as a man.

You might be right, but that isn't the point. Maybe one reason why footballers who don't identify as men don't make it as pros is because the pro football environmental is hostile to that lifestyle. Using more inclusive language might well change that for the better. There isn't anyone at my work who needs a wheelchair, but we still have a ramp at the side of the entrance stairs.

And even if there was, changing MOTM to POTM won't do one iota to make them feel more included.

I suspect that this is your opinion, rather than the results of research where you've spoken to people in that particularly situation.

Not something to feel angry about imho but it's just a gesture to pacify those who look for these things.

It 100% is a gesture. It's a gesture to show those who don't necessarily fit the mould that they are still welcome. That's a good kind of gesture!

 

[Punk Blade]

As Geordie did before, this is a very good and accessible explanation. I knew the drift before and can and do empathize with the difficulties that people face when caught in the confusion that gender can cause them.

I also have several friends (albeit most of them online and American) who talk to me about the issues and challenges involved. I do not read Daily Mail as my preferred newspaper, am an old left winger and generally have both a sense of humor and an open non-judgmental mind that means people happily tell me stuff or open up. I am over fifty.

I say this to establish that I am not what would be considered naturally “woke”, nor an alt-right angry white man.

Also, player of the match, while fairly devoid of genuine significance in any way, does not grind my gears.

But here is my real issue: Inclusion is important and has advanced society immensely over the last century or so. All of feminism, immigration, racial diversity have progressed us. Putting gender on the agenda does too. It educates people who are oblivious or unaffected and makes life easier for people who may otherwise suffer or are happy within themselves in their differences.

Where I - being old - greatly differ is two areas: one is the pretense that language or gestures rather than substantive education matters most. Language has a flow, and triggers emotional responses. The current changes are vastly by design, not by natural usage. Yes, language often changed, but usually subversively from within the population, less so by the current top down inclusivity-driven modification.

If the net result is that for every person who may or may not feel better because language gets gendered, there are four or five who get a negative emotional response because for them language has been doctored for no gain, we are creating new bigger minorities while not solving the problem. And empirically, in my circle of non-traditional friends, the battle for linguistic recognition of their hardship or differences tends to come fairly low in priority.

I feel we are at risk of pissing people off for marginal gains without creating a deeper understanding or furthering inclusion. The actual minorities get lost in the majority’s wish to be left alone.

I also have aesthetic linguistic concerns, but am old and write and talk a lot. So probably no real point.

Issue 2: All my life, I have felt that a lot of conflict is created by being too easily offended. The solution is not averaging out even the minutest trigger of offense. It is teaching people self-control. Life IS frustrating. 98% of the people do not give a shit if you live or die. People drive like wankers. Pubs serve crap food. The songs on the radio are shite. You get stared at and told “what you looking at, bald cunt.”

Life is and should be offensive. It is what ultimately makes your character. We are wrong to micromanage minute linguistic offense or nuances. I have been called many things I do not identify with. It defines what I identify as and makes me smile. You have to learn to deal with it.

Diversity is fun. The solution is go and meet diverse people. Talk and learn. Ask, offend, be forgiven or ditched as unteachable. Be curious. Not create cages by convention and a feeling that the tail may wag the dog…

So I do feel language is the wrong battle ground. We lose real diversity by creating conventions of safe middle grounds for everything. We lose comedy. We lose caliber. Times move on. Language does.

But in my view we are prioritizing the wrong aspects a lot of the time. A player who has survived the hardships of children’s football to become a pro, all with gender issues, will have a monster spine and durability. He will be saddened by a lot of the ignorance on this thread to the real issues. But he will not be affected by being called Man of the Match, irrespective of gender. If he is, tough shit.

If we change the term, perfectly fine, too. Both terms will simply be in circulation for a while.

It’s more the type of changes where language loses flow that I am arguing against… and the idea that offensive is either preventable or inherently bad. In my experience, anything mildly offensive that challenges your perception of yourself is worth it.

Good post and very thought provoking.

I agree that the PotM/MotM debate is pretty low priority, and education is certainly more important than one very specific use of language. However a few points I would make on that:

- We could take the argument that it’s just a word and shouldn’t be a big deal the other way, and say there’s really no reason someone should be upset at using PotM, but it could be really empowering to some. Inclusive language can be validating to someone’s identity even if it is still private to them, and knowing that the majority are perfectly happy with using PotM may make them feel safer being involved in football or any sport as a spectator or participant. PotM might not be the best example, but I think anything that promotes inclusivity should be encouraged.

- Education will have a large component of language anyway. To the average cisgender heterosexual male who may not have much exposure to or understanding of the subject, what is their takeaway? They may understand that some people feel differently about gender than they do, but that doesn’t really affect them so what changes? If they can be a little more mindful about how they use language around non-cisgender-heterosexual people, or not be so quick to be offended by non-gendered terms or pronouns that would be a really positive step forwards.

- As we’ve seen, criticism of a non-gendered term is followed by support of that criticism and leads to ‘jokes’ about gender neutral pronouns. ‘Themchester City’ (which doesn’t even scan, our semi-final opponents aren’t ‘Himchester City’) is intentionally poking fun at people who use gender neutral pronouns, which is totally unnecessary and could be quite triggering. I like to think we’ve moved past throwing ‘gay’ in as a ‘joke’ and this is very much the same thing. It normalises a negative attitude towards non binary people.

I certainly do agree that we could all be a little more thick skinned, a little slower to take offence (especially those being offended by empathy and inclusivity), and equally we could all be a little nicer

 

[HillmortonBlade]

Good post and very thought provoking.

I agree that the PotM/MotM debate is pretty low priority, and education is certainly more important than one very specific use of language. However a few points I would make on that:

- We could take the argument that it’s just a word and shouldn’t be a big deal the other way, and say there’s really no reason someone should be upset at using PotM, but it could be really empowering to some. Inclusive language can be validating to someone’s identity even if it is still private to them, and knowing that the majority are perfectly happy with using PotM may make them feel safer being involved in football or any sport as a spectator or participant. PotM might not be the best example, but I think anything that promotes inclusivity should be encouraged.

- Education will have a large component of language anyway. To the average cisgender heterosexual male who may not have much exposure to or understanding of the subject, what is their takeaway? They may understand that some people feel differently about gender than they do, but that doesn’t really affect them so what changes? If they can be a little more mindful about how they use language around non-cisgender-heterosexual people, or not be so quick to be offended by non-gendered terms or pronouns that would be a really positive step forwards.

- As we’ve seen, criticism of a non-gendered term is followed by support of that criticism and leads to ‘jokes’ about gender neutral pronouns. ‘Themchester City’ (which doesn’t even scan, our semi-final opponents aren’t ‘Himchester City’) is intentionally poking fun at people who use gender neutral pronouns, which is totally unnecessary and could be quite triggering. I like to think we’ve moved past throwing ‘gay’ in as a ‘joke’ and this is very much the same thing. It normalises a negative attitude towards non binary people.

I certainly do agree that we could all be a little more thick skinned, a little slower to take offence (especially those being offended by empathy and inclusivity), and equally we could all be a little nicer

My issue with this whole debate is that while language is important, the issue often breaks down to “I can’t say anything anymore” when the fundamentals are glossed over (not in this thread though, which is great).

Diversity is a fact, we are all different. Once that is accepted, then where do we draw lines in to what differences are more acceptable than others? Add in inherent values and biases (the subject and proportion of which is again unique to the individual) then we are left with a convoluted tingle tangle. It is little wonder that we revert to use of words to argue about.

And “they” has been used as a singular form often… “someone has parked their car over my drive, I wonder if they’re coming back soon”.

 

[Torrix1889]

Live and let live, crack on with who you want to be and what you want to identify as, but don't be offended if someone doesn't agree with you or thinks differently, they have just as much right as you to have an opinion. Being a minority doesn't make you in any way superior....which sadly appears to be the case with some, ergo you don't have the right to dismiss someone because they don't fit your stereotype of "normal".

Person of the match, not bothered at all if that's what people want to say. Don't agree with it personally but I will accept it and move on.

It's changing all the time and will no doubt eventually go full circle.....what is acceptable now probably wont be in a few years because someone else will take offence and make a stand....and round and round we go

 

[Geordie Blade]

Live and let live, crack on with who you want to be and what you want to identify as, but don't be offended if someone doesn't agree with you or thinks differently, they have just as much right as you to have an opinion. Being a minority doesn't make you in any way superior....which sadly appears to be the case with some, ergo you don't have the right to dismiss someone because they don't fit your stereotype of "normal".

Person of the match, not bothered at all if that's what people want to say. Don't agree with it personally but I will accept it and move on.

It's changing all the time and will no doubt eventually go full circle.....what is acceptable now probably wont be in a few years because someone else will take offence and make a stand....and round and round we go

Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody on this thread has said that they are offended by the term 'Man of the Match'. Some have said that 'Player of the Match' is a step towards inclusivity. That's all there is to it.

P.S. I wrongly wrote "Person of the Match" earlier in the thread. I meant to refer to "Player of the Match".

 

[Mumbo]

It’s a strange change when we know that the only people playing are men and it didn’t need to be changed.

But that’s the BBC for you, they love to show they’re inclusive with unnecessary changes

Is it a big deal? No, not really. It won’t change anything for vast majority

Pity they can’t include free speech in their inclusivity.

 

[SwissBlade]

Pity they can’t include free speech in their inclusivity.

Exactly! Turns out that an email to EON, in which I referred to their incompetency by calling them a set of "Bell ends" and that they were sending bullshit emails was abusive.

 

[Torrix1889]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody on this thread has said that they are offended by the term 'Man of the Match'. Some have said that 'Player of the Match' is a step towards inclusivity. That's all there is to it.

P.S. I wrongly wrote "Person of the Match" earlier in the thread. I meant to refer to "Player of the Match".

Where have I said that anyone was offended by the term Man of the Match at all....?

The thread has moved in a few other directions and my comment was a general observation.

 

[Geordie Blade]

Where have I said that anyone was offended by the term Man of the Match at all....?

The thread has moved in a few other directions and my comment was a general observation.

Fair enough. I took it that you were referring the topic of this thread. I still think the point holds though: The accusation that people are 'offended' is a bit of a straw man argument. In most cases, nobody is claiming to be offended - they're just saying that more inclusive language is a good thing. Likewise, nobody is banning the use of phrases like "man of the match", but some people seem to frame the argument around that, as though it's an assault on their right to free speech.

 

[1889]

Who cares ?

It doesn’t really matter it’s just political correctness point scoring. But if people just ignore these pathetic, totally unnecessary changes and just react with apathy. The same fucking idiots feel like they’ve got approval to mess about with every aspect of accepted practice in life. Then one day, they bring their ill conceived ideologies to bear on something that really does matter, like gender neutral toilets in schools, which obviously can have a really negative effect on some young peoples lives and their education.

So whilst ‘Player of the match’ may be the thin end of the wedge, not telling those using such a term to get themselves fucked off, is just encouragement for evermore of their virtue signalling bullshit.

 

[Houston_Blade]

I think we should move on to ‘Them of the match’ just because it seems to wind people up.

I also think on the back of programmes where it lists players names it should state their gender and pronoun in brackets

 

[Frank the tank]

It doesn’t really matter it’s just political correctness point scoring. But if people just ignore these pathetic, totally unnecessary changes and just react with apathy. The same fucking idiots feel like they’ve got approval to mess about with every aspect of accepted practice in life. Then one day, they bring their ill conceived ideologies to bear on something that really does matter, like gender neutral toilets in schools, which obviously can have a really negative effect on some young peoples lives and their education.

So whilst ‘Player of the match’ may be the thin end of the wedge, not telling those using such a term to get themselves fucked off, is just encouragement for evermore of their virtue signalling bullshit.

How do gender neutral toilets have a negative effect on some young peoples lives ?

 

[Torrix1889]

Fair enough. I took it that you were referring the topic of this thread. I still think the point holds though: The accusation that people are 'offended' is a bit of a straw man argument. In most cases, nobody is claiming to be offended - they're just saying that more inclusive language is a good thing. Likewise, nobody is banning the use of phrases like "man of the match", but some people seem to frame the argument around that, as though it's an assault on their right to free speech.

Get that completely. As I said, I'm not really that bothered either way personally...

I don't think anyone is actually getting offended at the reference being changed to player of the match from man of the match, (lets stick to the topic of the thread) and personally I think you must be a pretty sad individual to get offended by something that is supposed to be more inclusive. I think it is more so the relevance when it is clearly 11 men v 11 men, ergo "man" of the match and where does it stop? As others have said, will it lead to the end of phrases like "man marking" and "he's got to get sent off, he was the last man" as well? You can bet it is being heavily discussed in the BBC Boardrooms!

Some people will naturally question it (you mentioned freedom of speech) and not wish to embrace it and that is their right, and they shouldn't be shot down in flames for disagreeing with something they don't agree with, it doesn't automatically make them knuckle dragging Neanderthals.

It is clear we are starting to go backwards in certain areas now and there is a real danger that the whole minority/inclusivity thing will end up eating itself. You watch any TV program tonight, there is a very fine line between inclusivity and tokenism....which I thought we had got rid of decades ago...

 

[Bell4]

It's not player of the match its man of the match , it's always been man of the match as it's a game played by 22 men , u can have woman of the match in women's football no one will be offended because no one cares anyway, but they can use player of the match if they choose , but there is absolutely no reason to call it player of the match

What will be next a booking and a diversity course for shouting "man on" will we switch to "person to person" marking at set pieces,

It's becoming ridiculous

Bang on it has

 

[Bell4]

Get that completely. As I said, I'm not really that bothered either way personally...

I don't think anyone is actually getting offended at the reference being changed to player of the match from man of the match, (lets stick to the topic of the thread) and personally I think you must be a pretty sad individual to get offended by something that is supposed to be more inclusive. I think it is more so the relevance when it is clearly 11 men v 11 men, ergo "man" of the match and where does it stop? As others have said, will it lead to the end of phrases like "man marking" and "he's got to get sent off, he was the last man" as well? You can bet it is being heavily discussed in the BBC Boardrooms!

Some people will naturally question it (you mentioned freedom of speech) and not wish to embrace it and that is their right, and they shouldn't be shot down in flames for disagreeing with something they don't agree with, it doesn't automatically make them knuckle dragging Neanderthals.

It is clear we are starting to go backwards in certain areas now and there is a real danger that the whole minority/inclusivity thing will end up eating itself. You watch any TV program tonight, there is a very fine line between inclusivity and tokenism....which I thought we had got rid of decades ago...

Spot on

 

[Bell4]

Person to person marking? The Dingles have made a 5 person wall to defend Norwood's incoming bender?The Blades are a person down after Berge chipped a nail....?

So much to look forward to and so little time. John Motson must be spinning already...

 

[Bell4]

Heaven forbid if a player calls another player a prick

About time there was some grounded sensible comment on this subject -

 

[Bell4]

Can you educate me then - is this move to include players who are eligible to play in the men’s game, but don’t identify as a man?

I think so