Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sticking with sport, let?s consider Emily Bridges. A man. I can say that with respect because Emily is currently competing in cycling as a gender non-confirming man for his university in the men?s team. Grand.


Emily is also planning to compete in the Commonwealth Games on the national women?s team.


Can someone tell me exactly what it is that I?m supposed to respect about this entitled man?s identity? Or are we still on ?deeply insulting?? Because I?ll tell you what?s deeply insulting. Women being gaslit by this absolute BS and missing out.

Dulwich Hamlet Women's Team are playing against a team comprised solely of male players.

[edited as this is not the photo of the team that will be playing. Interesting that we're not getting to see that team - I wonder why?]


All lovely and inclusive and a world first - and not a care for the safety of the women players.


Still 'deeply insulting'?


https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/all-transgender-team-plays-local-football-club-in-world-first/

Listened to Putin this morning. He just stood up for JK Rowling but he's just trying to divide the west - that's why I don't want division like this if he does.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putin-jk-rowling-cancel-culture-b2043978.html


He also said we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and then persuaded Japan that we didn't - that's a South Park 2009 plot called "Whale Whores".

Given that JK Rowling is currently pouring substantial amounts of her own money into ensuring the safety of children in institutions in Ukraine, that his forces are attacking, he's got a bloody cheek. You can donate to her charity Lumos, she is matching all donations up to ?1 million. She published an article about Lumos's work in Ukraine here: https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/hidden-victims/


However, no doubt the more stupid will now say, if Putin agrees with JKR then we were right that she's a horrible person.

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But time and time again...raising some practical

> concerns gets conflated with 'hatred'.....and

> instantly dismissed...


When a certain poster, time and time again makes a point of calling trans women "men", then I'm sorry but their posts cannot be described as "practical concerns", they are quite obviously being deliberately confrontational and disrespectful (and these are the mildest words I can use to describe this behavior).


To then complain that sensible debate is being shut down is absolutely ridiculous. Surely you can see this.

oimissus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Because they're being bullied by the 'just be kind' 'can't see the issue' 'deeply insulting' crowd? I hope they turn up and then refuse to play.


You might want to take a step back and spend a little bit of time learning about the Women's team at Dulwich Hamlet before jumping to those sorts of conclusions.


I'm not particularly involved but I've been to a few women's games, and my family sponsor a player in the squad and they've always made it clear, as a team they are open to participation and support from trans supporters. Some of them have made that support clear on their bios in the match programs, others have talked about it publicly in response to the abuse and on-line pile on that they've been receiving for being involved in this match. When someone on Mumsnet brands you a "traitor to your sex" because you're going to play a game of football, the world truly has gone mad and none of them deserve the online pile on, on here or anywhere else.


Please remember these are real people, a number of which live in this area and read this forum, and the suggestion that they are being bullied into something because they're too weak to stand up for themselves is pretty offensive. If you wouldn't say it to their face, don't say it on here.


For the record, I agree that the participation of trans-women in competitive sport raises some extremely complex issues which need to be addressed to protect women's sport, as does the access of self-identifying people to single sex spaces and the risks that poses to women including trans-women.


But unlike the majority of people on here, I would guess, I have direct experience of working with and being friends with people who are trans and gender non-conforming - most of whom are a lot younger than me. The idea that women who are transitioning are trying to "take something away" from women or are inherently a danger to women is laughable when you look at the actual lived experiences of the vast majority of people in that category. But it's easy to lump them all into a largely dehumanising category when you only ever focus on the extreme examples (on both sides).

I?m glad to hear none of the women felt bullied. You mention your family sponsor a player - tell me, if that player had spoken up to say that she didn?t believe that transwomen are women and she wasn?t happy about playing a team of male players - would she have lost that sponsorship? Because we know that that?s exactly what happened to women obliged to race against Lia Thomas - that if they spoke up or refused to swim, they would lose their sponsorship, their college scholarships. Hence my comment. Happy to be proved wrong.


With regards to the rest of your post - well, that all hinges on your belief that humans can change sex. Many people don?t share that belief. No one *has* to share that belief. And I?ll finish by directing you to Spartacus?s post with the information released today from the EHRC.

oimissus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I?m glad to hear none of the women felt bullied.

> You mention your family sponsor a player - tell

> me, if that player had spoken up to say that she

> didn?t believe that transwomen are women and she

> wasn?t happy about playing a team of male players

> - would she have lost that sponsorship? Because we

> know that that?s exactly what happened to women

> obliged to race against Lia Thomas - that if they

> spoke up or refused to swim, they would lose their

> sponsorship, their college scholarships. Hence my

> comment. Happy to be proved wrong.


This. 100%. People of sane & rational thought are being bullied & cancelled out of existence. People are afraid to speak up, specially those who do not come from wealth / are not financially stable & therefore cannot afford to lose what little they have.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I would like to understand this promise by the Greens in greater detail and how it applies locally? Presumably road/pavement upkeep and renewal is as important for cyclists and pedestrians as motorists? I am not aware of plans to build new roads locally but there has been plenty of money spent on converting roads into pedestrian only areas. On the face of it this feels a slightly empty statement, when applied at local level. I'd love to know the Greens stance in hiring out parks for private use (given impact on park environment), I'd also like to understand their stance on fireworks- I will look to see if I can find anything.
    • You are most likely correct in thinking that  Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew it.  But they obviously thought that his skills, abilities and usefulness far outweighed the negatives. Here is a summary of the positives lifted from elsewhere:-   1. Strategic Architect: He was a primary architect of "New Labour," rebranding the party and shifting its core ideology to win the 1997 general election. 2 Master of Communication: Often called the original "spin doctor," he revolutionised how political parties manage the media. He famously created the "grid" system to coordinate government messaging. 3 Networking and Charm: Known as "Silvertongue," he possesses a peerless ability to charm and network with high-level global figures, including business leaders and heads of state. 4. Governance and Trade Expertise: Beyond strategy, he was considered a highly efficient minister, serving as European Commissioner for Trade and Secretary of State across multiple departments, including Business and Northern Ireland.  With his skill and abilities, he delivered results for all his bosses. In the short time in Washington, he found a way to get on the right side of Trump - despite him  being critical of Trump in previous years. That said he is complex personality.  He can be simultaneously brilliant and arrogant, thick-skinned yet sensitive, and selfless for his party while appearing narcissistic in his personal dealings.  My OP asked if he would be accepted over the pond. It turned out he was because he got on famously with trump. He worked out the correct strategy to get on the good side of Trump and secured a better trade deal than the EU and other nations.    
    • Malumbu, do you happen to know what the current figure is for "trips into town made by walking, cycling and public transport"? 
    • Before voting, do you not think it's logical to evaluate each party on its policies and make a tally of the reasons "For" and "Against" voting for each party.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...