LBGT Campaign

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

SalopianBlade said:
I'm not sure you need to create this word 'gender' to explain what you just explained very clearly.

Biological sex seems to be consistent to me. You are either male or female. There may be a very small number of people born with a condition which means that identification is not possible but this is rare.

Biological sex determines whether you are male or female, not the way you feel.

That's the philosophical position that has been held for all of history, until a few short years ago when our enlightened superiors found out it's actually the way you feel, not what's between your legs.

They also found out that there is a thing called sexuality and gender.

It's clearly a new set of beliefs about human nature. Believe it if you want but don't make the club fly the flag.
Click to expand...
As far as I can see the club have quite happily 'flown the flag' which is why they have been happy to promote it. You are free to oppose it if you choose.
 

SalopianBlade said:
I'm not sure you need to create this word 'gender' to explain what you just explained very clearly.

Biological sex seems to be consistent to me. You are either male or female. There may be a very small number of people born with a condition which means that identification is not possible but this is rare.

Biological sex determines whether you are male or female, not the way you feel.

That's the philosophical position that has been held for all of history, until a few short years ago when our enlightened superiors found out it's actually the way you feel, not what's between your legs.

They also found out that there is a thing called sexuality and gender.

It's clearly a new set of beliefs about human nature. Believe it if you want but don't make the club fly the flag.
Click to expand...

At one point the idea that black people are the intellectual equals of white people was "a new set of beliefs about human nature." Likewise the idea that women are the intellectual equals of men. For a long time homosexuality was considered to be against human nature. I could go on but you probably get the point.

In any case, it's simply not true that people have thought one way about sex and gender "for all of history." On the contrary, I bet you'd struggle to find any society in human history that hasn't contained a significant amount of gender-bending, cross-dressing and so on. Just off the top of my head, American Indian societies for thousands of years recognized the existence of multiple genders.
 
mosbolad said:
Well...... I'm pleased you asked his Greasiness! Unlike you, a 55 year old male (according to your profile), Bert has failed to assign his gender and age on his so I am left on the horns of a dilemma as to whether to suggest he squats or stands. But that's his business (for which I assume he sits :eek:).......

What is a BLTG anyway? Bacon lettuce tomato with gherkins perhaps?

Why we should have sandwich themed corner flags is beyond me......o_O
Click to expand...
Not sure it's owt to do with sarnies mate.
I think it might be summat to do with one of Roald Dahl?
 
SalopianBlade said:
I'm not sure you need to create this word 'gender' to explain what you just explained very clearly.

Biological sex seems to be consistent to me. You are either male or female. There may be a very small number of people born with a condition which means that identification is not possible but this is rare.

Biological sex determines whether you are male or female, not the way you feel.

That's the philosophical position that has been held for all of history, until a few short years ago when our enlightened superiors found out it's actually the way you feel, not what's between your legs.

They also found out that there is a thing called sexuality and gender.

It's clearly a new set of beliefs about human nature. Believe it if you want but don't make the club fly the flag.
Click to expand...

It's better to have the word "gender" or say "gender is a social construct" than for me to type out two paragraphs explaining what I mean every time, right? That's how words function, as shorthand pointers to more complex concepts. If you mean something different when you say "gender" then as long as I know what you mean then it's fine. It's only when we're both using our own definition and talking past each other that there's a problem.

Biological sex hasn't been consistent over time though, and that's very obvious if you think about it. Now people tend to point towards chromosomes as defining sex. XX is female, XY is male, and the outliers like the XXY and such are intersex or some other term. But this clearly wasn't the case in the past if you consider that chromosomes weren't identified until the 1880's, and certainly not well understood till long after. In the past people would've pointed to genitalia as being the defining characteristic of biological sex, but now we know there are all sorts of conditions that can affect that (questions like "is a eunuch a male?", or birth defects). So what we mean by biological sex today is absolutely not using the same definition as the past. Again, I don't think this is delving into much philosophy, this is pure biology we're talking about.

But if you ask me to define "male" I do it in terms of anatomy, biology, chemistry. If you ask someone "what makes you a man?" now you're likely to get answers like bravery, strength of character, being a good father or son, you open up the question to social concepts. Surely, you've heard that kind of idea talked about.

And let's say we make it less abstract again. Let's say we take what the idea of a "woman's role" is in Saudi Arabia (subservient, docile, modest, covered and so on). Now if a woman from Saudi Arabia moves to the UK where she isn't (or is far less) expected to be those things, is she no longer a woman? Of course not. It's just that "woman" is a social construct that shifts over time and culture. It's not some fixed thing that we can point to and say definitively "these are the essential characteristics of a woman or man".

It gets even more blurred than all that. Because actually, your biology does determine how you feel about your gender. I don't know if you've heard of phantom limbs, but it's a condition in which a person loses a body part and continues to feel pain or sensitivity in it. The brain doesn't properly interpret that it's gone and still gives signals as though it's there. Now, the samples are limited for obvious reasons, but in men who lose or damage their genitals in an accident, you get extremely high rates of phantom feelings. In transgender folks who willingly undergo surgery to remove or alter their genitals you get significantly lower rates (not 0%, interestingly, but far lower). There's a lot more research like this, and it all points to the idea that our brain (there's evidence pointing to the physical structure of areas of the brain) very much dictates how we feel about our gender. Gender and sex are distinct but interwoven ideas.

I could go on, but for one, I'm not an expert, and for two, I hope I've done enough to make it clear that this isn't abstract philosophy thought up by academics thinking of new books ideas, this is where real world research and hard data is leading us.
 
Ten pages and we’re still blethering on here....

I honestly don’t care if you are black/white, rich/poor, C of E/Catholic, right/leftwing, gay/straight/trans, cyclist/motorist, tall/short, fat/thin, it really matters not a jot to me - you are welcome to share my bag of Werthers in the Westfield corner any time.

But, trust me, if you start telling me that I should be joining this agenda/movement/crusade, you’ll end up in fucking H Block in short order...
 
PokerBlade said:
It's better to have the word "gender" or say "gender is a social construct" than for me to type out two paragraphs explaining what I mean every time, right? That's how words function, as shorthand pointers to more complex concepts. If you mean something different when you say "gender" then as long as I know what you mean then it's fine. It's only when we're both using our own definition and talking past each other that there's a problem.

Biological sex hasn't been consistent over time though, and that's very obvious if you think about it. Now people tend to point towards chromosomes as defining sex. XX is female, XY is male, and the outliers like the XXY and such are intersex or some other term. But this clearly wasn't the case in the past if you consider that chromosomes weren't identified until the 1880's, and certainly not well understood till long after. In the past people would've pointed to genitalia as being the defining characteristic of biological sex, but now we know there are all sorts of conditions that can affect that (questions like "is a eunuch a male?", or birth defects). So what we mean by biological sex today is absolutely not using the same definition as the past. Again, I don't think this is delving into much philosophy, this is pure biology we're talking about.

But if you ask me to define "male" I do it in terms of anatomy, biology, chemistry. If you ask someone "what makes you a man?" now you're likely to get answers like bravery, strength of character, being a good father or son, you open up the question to social concepts. Surely, you've heard that kind of idea talked about.

And let's say we make it less abstract again. Let's say we take what the idea of a "woman's role" is in Saudi Arabia (subservient, docile, modest, covered and so on). Now if a woman from Saudi Arabia moves to the UK where she isn't (or is far less) expected to be those things, is she no longer a woman? Of course not. It's just that "woman" is a social construct that shifts over time and culture. It's not some fixed thing that we can point to and say definitively "these are the essential characteristics of a woman or man".

It gets even more blurred than all that. Because actually, your biology does determine how you feel about your gender. I don't know if you've heard of phantom limbs, but it's a condition in which a person loses a body part and continues to feel pain or sensitivity in it. The brain doesn't properly interpret that it's gone and still gives signals as though it's there. Now, the samples are limited for obvious reasons, but in men who lose or damage their genitals in an accident, you get extremely high rates of phantom feelings. In transgender folks who willingly undergo surgery to remove or alter their genitals you get significantly lower rates (not 0%, interestingly, but far lower). There's a lot more research like this, and it all points to the idea that our brain (there's evidence pointing to the physical structure of areas of the brain) very much dictates how we feel about our gender. Gender and sex are distinct but interwoven ideas.

I could go on, but for one, I'm not an expert, and for two, I hope I've done enough to make it clear that this isn't abstract philosophy thought up by academics thinking of new books ideas, this is where real world research and hard data is leading us.
Click to expand...

I think all belief systems use certain terms to sumarise complicated ideas. Imagine discussing Islamic theology without creating words to sum up complex doctrines.

I have to say, I don't know a lot about the XX and XY chromosone thing but doesn't it sound like strong evidence that whether your a man or woman is determined by dangly bits, not feelings?

I have to disagree. Women and men do differ culturally but I don't think this undermines the point that men are the ones with dangly bits and who tend to take the lead. There are lots more similarities between men and women in different cultures. You see this when lost civilisations are found. There tends to be male headship, male hunters, women rearing children etc. I'm sure we can find a few handpicked exemptions but they would not be the norm.

The phantom limb argument is interesting but is not strong enough evidence to convince me of your overall argument. I think there is a difference between a man who, regrettably, lost his bits and a man who didn't want them. Perhaps that could also account for the results of the study.

What are the other common arguments?
 
Caveblade said:
I don't understand the relevance of this to going to football matches. The LGBT lobby seem to want to influence every area of society and the pc agenda in the UK has created an atmosphere where anyone who questions it is labelled a bigot.

I am all for equality and fairness but don't see the need for the rainbow flag to take over the world.
Click to expand...
You raise a good point. Anyone who challenges anything pc is labelled a bigot. I have experienced the ultimate in awkwardness in pc work conferences.. Talk equality.. try keeping the room calm and unruffled, when it is composed of Muslims, for Muslim rights, and gays, for gay rights. PC outsiders feel very uncomfortable about what is essentially Muslim bigotry.. That said I welcome any group of people in any association or format, who follow the Blades.
 
Last edited:
FinchleyBlade said:
I find it quite ironic that you use the term 'Christian nutters', yet don't use the term 'Muslim nutters' to denounce those who wish to see homosexuals killed and have actually made it illegal to be a homosexual in many of their counties....unlike Western Christian nations or these Britain First 'Christian nutters' who as far as I'm aware don't hold any of these views or practices.

Indeed, isn't that what they protest against to begin with?

Perhaps the gay rights lobby should focus their campaigns on countries that don't actually have any gay rights? Maybe start with the ones where gay people are thrown off roofs?
Click to expand...
Britain First. They are not interested in gay rights.
They may occasionally use it to beat the Muslims with. They are neo Nazis themselves. Yes. Muslim nations and some African nations which are largely Christians, eg Uganda and South Africa, have massive issues with homophobia.. Jamaica has terrible homophobia too.
But how many gay football players dare to declare that they are gay?. That must be the role of the campaign, to normalise gays at matches on the pitch or off it.
 
hello said:
Britain First. They are not interested in gay rights.
They may occasionally use it to beat the Muslims with. They are neo Nazis themselves. Yes. Muslim nations and some African nations which are largely Christians, eg Uganda and South Africa, have massive issues with homophobia.. Jamaica has terrible homophobia too.
But how many gay football players dare to declare that they are gay?. That must be the role of the campaign, to normalise gays at matches on the pitch or off it.
Click to expand...


What's not "normal" about gays that needs altering?
 
snootyfenooty said:
What a load of tosh. Do you really think its normal to open up to a complete stranger about you personal life. Sexual orientation has got nothing to do with it.



Me sarcastic? Never...
Intelligent? Maybe, maybe not, I'll leave others to judge.
A sense of humour? Definitely.
Click to expand...

Of course they wouldn't, but over time say having a season ticket sat next to the same person you generally build up conversation and often friendships, i have definitely hid and said "our lass" instead of my boyfriend in convos, and I know from first hand experience how much homophobic shouting goes on around the ground, doesn't exactly lean towards an inclusive open environment.

I'm not one for pushing agenda's down people's throats, what I'm saying is that there is a balance and still a need for this type of discussion, football should be able to be enjoyed by all, regardless, at the end of the day all I, we want to do is go and watch the match and feel comfortable to be myself in doing that free from the fear of being abused or hiding who I am. It's still a real issue, I genuinely think people don't think it is, because it's not visible but that's because people are still fearful so hide it.
 
BushBlade said:
The difference is that those causes you list are matters of personal choice, your sexual preference isn't. I don't really see why people are getting so outraged about a couple of flags and some boot laces. Like you, I'm not really interested in who other supporters find attractive and what their sexual preferences are but I don't like the idea that certain groups of people might find going to the Lane in some way unwelcoming. (Unless they're pigs of course, they can fuck off)
Click to expand...
Are you saying I can't bring my Peppa pig to the Sunderland game?
Also why would gay people feel unwelcome at the Lane?. Unless of course
they object to the 'shag your women drink your beer' song,? But seriously.. All are welcome at the Lane.
 

Bert said:
The thread started because Bert questioned why, on the one hand United were supporting Transgenders yet they wanted to know which of the two sexes you were when registering online.
Click to expand...

Whoooa...that explains all these weird responses. I thought it was a campaign for a new left back and goal tender..
 
SalopianBlade said:
I think all belief systems use certain terms to sumarise complicated ideas. Imagine discussing Islamic theology without creating words to sum up complex doctrines.

I have to say, I don't know a lot about the XX and XY chromosone thing but doesn't it sound like strong evidence that whether your a man or woman is determined by dangly bits, not feelings?

I have to disagree. Women and men do differ culturally but I don't think this undermines the point that men are the ones with dangly bits and who tend to take the lead. There are lots more similarities between men and women in different cultures. You see this when lost civilisations are found. There tends to be male headship, male hunters, women rearing children etc. I'm sure we can find a few handpicked exemptions but they would not be the norm.

The phantom limb argument is interesting but is not strong enough evidence to convince me of your overall argument. I think there is a difference between a man who, regrettably, lost his bits and a man who didn't want them. Perhaps that could also account for the results of the study.

What are the other common arguments?
Click to expand...

In answer to the first question, you can have XY chromosomes but NOT dangly bits. So the definition of "male" HAS changed in science. Not based on feelings, but based on science and our increasing understanding of the facts.

There's a great episode of House where they deal with a model who is eventually diagnosed with CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome), an insensitivity to things like testostorone which leads an XY foetus to develop the physical characteristics of a female. So much so that it's usually only diagnosed at puberty. They look so much like a genetic female (including the non-dangly bits) that until other symptoms occur later in life nobody even notices there's anything abnormal. At some point a doctor delivered the baby and said, confidently "It's a girl!". But this puts us in a weird position when we're deciding what the biological definition of a female is, because now we have a person with natural breasts, a non-dangly bit, the hips, the face, the lack of Adam's apple, of a woman...but not the chromosomes. Should we define "female" by chromosomes or by physical charasterics? The answer is: it's not very easy to decide. If it's chromosomes then we can't tell who's a female and who's not by looking at them. If it's by physical characteristics, then an XY can be a female. If it's some mix of the two then we have no idea how to definitively say who's a female and who's a male. All options seem outright weird because reality is weird.

Sure, in a majority of history men were hunters and leaders and women were tending to the homestead. But I'm not a hunter. I'm not a leader either. Am I no longer a man then? I know men who work in childcare or do the bulk of the child-rearing. Should I be calling them women? No. Those are general characteristics of different societies but they aren't essential characteristics.

Another interesting (and incredibly sad) thing you can look into is how intersex children or children who had accidents or birth defects were dealt with in the past. It was thought (and I'm talking around 30-50 or so years ago) that nurture was what mattered. And so the advice of psychologists and doctors was for parents to decide whether they wanted the child to be a boy or a girl (usually girl was chosen because it was easier to remove things or to explain a lack of dangly bits than to add them) and to simply insist that the child was raised in that gender (wearing the appropriate clothes, playing with the associated toys). There was a documentary a few years back about what happened. Most of them didn't want to associate with their assigned gender, became deeply depressed, and many even took their own lives, so strong was it within them to want to be a man rather than woman. If the clinicians of the time had been right then this shouldn't have been as awful as it was. This is further evidence that when say a person assigned as male at birth feels as though they ought to be a woman, this isn't just "feelings" - there's something biological going on behind the scenes.
 
Last edited:
I'll add this as well:



The full lecture is available on youtube but it's pretty long and I doubt most people have the time or inclination for it, but this is a very compelling summary of some of the scientific evidence for transgender conditions.
 
PokerBlade said:
In answer to the first question, you can have XY chromosomes but NOT dangly bits. So the definition of "male" HAS changed in science. Not based on feelings, but based on science and our increasing understanding of the facts.

There's a great episode of House where they deal with a model who is eventually diagnosed with CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome), an insensitivity to things like testostorone which leads an XY foetus to develop the physical characteristics of a female. So much so that it's usually only diagnosed at puberty. They look so much like a genetic female (including the non-dangly bits) that until other symptoms occur later in life nobody even notices there's anything abnormal. At some point a doctor delivered the baby and said, confidently "It's a girl!". But this puts us in a weird position when we're deciding what the biological definition of a female is, because now we have a person with natural breasts, a non-dangly bit, the hips, the face, the lack of Adam's apple, of a woman...but not the chromosomes. Should we define "female" by chromosomes or by physical charasterics? The answer is: it's not very easy to decide. If it's chromosomes then we can't tell who's a female and who's not by looking at them. If it's by physical characteristics, then an XY can be a female. If it's some mix of the two then we have no idea how to definitively say who's a female and who's a male. All options seem outright weird because reality is weird.

Sure, in a majority of history men were hunters and leaders and women were tending to the homestead. But I'm not a hunter. I'm not a leader either. Am I no longer a man then? I know men who work in childcare or do the bulk of the child-rearing. Should I be calling them women? No. Those are general characteristics of different societies but they aren't essential characteristics.

Another interesting (and incredibly sad) thing you can look into is how intersex children or children who had accidents or birth defects were dealt with in the past. It was thought (and I'm talking around 30-50 or so years ago) that nurture was what mattered. And so the advice of psychologists and doctors was for parents to decide whether they wanted the child to be a boy or a girl (usually girl was chosen because it was easier to remove things or to explain a lack of dangly bits than to add them) and to simply insist that the child was raised in that gender (wearing the appropriate clothes, playing with the associated toys). There was a documentary a few years back about what happened. Most of them didn't want to associate with their assigned gender, became deeply depressed, and many even took their own lives, so strong was it within them to want to be a man rather than woman. If the clinicians of the time had been right then this shouldn't have been as awful as it was. This is further evidence that when say a person assigned as male at birth feels as though they ought to be a woman, this isn't just "feelings" - there's something biological going on behind the scenes.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure anyone doubts that there are a small number of people born with some sort of genetic defect related to their sex. This does not then mean that there is no certain definition of male and female. I'm not sure we can use small examples to extrapolate out to cover everyone.

I would say you're a man based on your sex. You also share enough characteristics in common with other men in all cultures and throughout all time to clearly show that having male organs means you tend to behave in a certain way. If what you say is true, we should expect not see men and women behaving distinctly in a culture. Take a young child on a time travelling history tour to all parts of the globe. Ask them to point out the men and the women. To hold to this new view, you must have a concept similar to the patriarchy, whereby you say this natural human impulse was suppressed by the powers that be.

Lastly, you raise the issue of a small number of 'intersex' children who were raised as either a boy or girl based on the advice of some medical person when they were born. Again, this is a small number of people with a defect. This is not the same issue as a person who clearly has male or female organs but, inside, wants to be the opposite.

You say that these children grew up, in many cases, to be deeply unhappy and to want to live as the oppose gender they were assigned. You imply that a lack of a true understanding caused these people to grow up feeling very unhappy. We may be seeing something very similar today but on a growing scale. People, who sincerely believe their view is right, are telling people that their feelings are the thing that determines whether they are male or female. I take it you are aware of the high suicide rate among people who are told this point of view and are encouraged to have surgery so that the outside matches in inside?

Are these people not now liberated to be who they feel they are? I don't buy the idea that their death is caused by prejudice in society. When you have football clubs flying flags of support, government policy changes, children's TV 'educating' kids etc on all these issues - we should see a decline in these deaths.

Ideologues think they should shepherd humanity. They also feel like they are doing good - someone should pour a bucket of cold water over their heads.
 
There's an important issue here which the club has failed to address.
If Bert gets up one Saturday morning and identifies himself as female, calls himself Bertina, puts on some female attire which he found lying around at his residence and then he goes to The Lane.... which bog does he have a slash in at half time?
 
Bert said:
If Bert gets up one Saturday morning and identifies himself as female, calls himself Bertina, puts on some female attire which he found lying around at his residence and then he goes to The Lane.... which bog does he have a slash in at half time?
Click to expand...

...and this is where your third person bollocks hoists you by your own petard.

I would suggest that he/she has a word with him/herself and stops this bollocks forthwith.
 
LS26BLADE said:
“Shoreham people we are here wooohhaaa”
“Shoreham people we are here, shag your partner and drink your drink”
Click to expand...
Actually, there's a serious point in there LS26.
It's not OK to sing homophobic/racist songs, but it is OK to sing about adultery and fornication which wrecks marriages :confused:
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cappy
Make Your Own Highlights - 'MatchVision'
Replies
4
Views
619
espoo blade
E
Cappy
Baldock tribute programme to be reprinted (Stoke H Programme)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Cappy
Cappy
C
Chris Wilder new contract
6 7 8
Replies
210
Views
15K
BangorBlade
BangorBlade
D
Supporter incident - Tottenham Hotspur Stadium = Sep 2023
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
ben1987
B
Kozzy_is_my_Dad
The lot, and pertaining to the smashing up thereof.
Replies
19
Views
3K
georgebernardshaw
georgebernardshaw

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom