Its a difficult subject for many to get their head around, even liberal people who are supportive of equal rights for all may still face a quandry around trans rights because its not about being accepted for who you are, but being accepted for who you want to become. As a solitary person you can decide to ignore the extreme views held on either side of a debate but if we want to get a society wide acceptance of any issue we have to find a fair middle ground that has some wiggle room for people on the edge of that view. People who are struggling to grasp, but remain generally open to the idea may find that their grip on the situation is loosened by a media storm like the one around Navratliova and such outcries will play to their more conservative of traditional views.
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Is London vs RUK a cultural divide? I tend to think of it as an economic one. London feeling like they carry RUK. RUK resenting London for sucking economic activity away from it.
Yeah, probably. I was actually mainly thinking of Dublin re rest of Ireland (aka culchies) That really is a cultural divide!
I had no idea that was a thing, but I was refering to somethig else, unless I misunderstood antohan.
In Portuguese, (and I assume Spanish), if you're adressing someone whose gender you don't know (say an automated letter from your bank) it will often be written for exemple:
Exmo(a) senhor(a)
Which is a formal way of writing "Dear sir or madam" when you don't know who you are refering to. In many Portuguese and Spanish words you turn a masculine noun into a feminine by substituting the final o with a or adding a when it doesn't end in a vowel. This only works in written form, so if you are speaking in public you will still say "senoras y senores" (ladies and gentleman).
Now apparently people (who?) are trying to introduce a trend of substituting the vowel by an x, which doesn't make phonetic sence at all. You would write senorxs then, which I don't even have an idea how you could pronounce. It seems as if the x was chosen just because of it's mathematical meaning of variable.
EDIT: found the phenomenon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latinx
Last edited:
Ah, got it! Edited my post, as I found the name of the trend. It's called Latinx.
Things change, evolve... So should language, as it always has done.
Fair enough (backs away nervously)
Last edited:
That's not evolution, it's murder.
I'm sure I read somewhere (or was told by an insider) that Microsoft had to kill off a project because within weeks of absorbing and processing freely the AI had turned into the worst possible mix of Donald Trump and Bolsonaro.
I'm picking those names, they basically called it a "Little Hitler".
Capital city vs rest of the country is a divide in most countries. When the country is large enough you have a few others, e.g. Rio vs Sao Paulo vs rest of Brazil, or South vs North.
Agree. It started simply using @ for a or o. Then it turned into X. Now x doesn't roll off the tongue so they started using e, and le for el or la but it sounds like Catalan so you now get a mix whereby X goes wherever you can use a or o and e where there's an a or o at the end, even if there's no gender implied but just in case to avoid using either letter at the end.
Todxs unidxs contre le lenguaje inclusive
Dafuq?
Agree. It started simply using @ for a or o. Then it turned into X. Now x doesn't roll off the tongue so they started using e, and le for el or la but it sounds like Catalan so you now get a mix whereby X goes wherever you can use a or o and e where there's an a or o at the end, even if there's no gender implied but just in case to avoid using either letter at the end.
Todxs unidxs contre le lenguaje inclusive
Dafuq?
Dxfxq, surely?
So opinions are divided on whether the response to Navratilova's views is a case of PC gone mad. I'm going to find an example everyone agrees with in the end, I'm determined to. I thought I had it here but no.
Navratilova competed for decades at the highest level in female sport, she says she thinks transgender athletes have an unfair advantage but the café is divided on whether she is just thinking/saying that because she is transphobic or because she might know a thing or two about competing at the highest level of female sports.
Also, I have found out that,
Thinking that she might have a point makes you transphobic.
Being called transphobic isn't a bad thing though because transsexuals have it worse so you know just shut up.
And testosterone is a performance enhancing drug unless you had loads more of it from the womb onwards, or you are taking loads of it to change your gender at which point it stops enhancing your performance and doesn't help you at all because there are tall men and short men.
Navratilova competed for decades at the highest level in female sport, she says she thinks transgender athletes have an unfair advantage but the café is divided on whether she is just thinking/saying that because she is transphobic or because she might know a thing or two about competing at the highest level of female sports.
Also, I have found out that,
Thinking that she might have a point makes you transphobic.
Being called transphobic isn't a bad thing though because transsexuals have it worse so you know just shut up.
And testosterone is a performance enhancing drug unless you had loads more of it from the womb onwards, or you are taking loads of it to change your gender at which point it stops enhancing your performance and doesn't help you at all because there are tall men and short men.
And now we see where Southpark came up with the Goobacks' language.
That's some flawless logic right there.
Can't wait till this starts pouring over into trans-racial issues and rights. Calling it now.
Standard party line though. I sure am used to it.
I doubt it's a well known fact but our beloved "poorest President in the world" decided that since transgender people have a hard time getting a job social security should pay them 1.5x times the minimum wage, for life, for doing nothing.
"Society is transphobic and we won't fix that so we will compensate them"
Flawless logic, particularly if you want hard working tax payers to warm to them.
What’s the procedure behind that? As in, how far along do you have to be before they accept you as trans? Could you in theory just claim to be the opposite to what you are and therefore become eligible?
I've no idea but based on other handout schemes I've had insight into it likely depends largely on how likely you are to vote for them.
In Argentina they have a registry and you fill in an application form asking really odd questions like "What is your war name?", "When was your first time?", "With a man/woman/other?", "As a child, where you molested by a family member?".
Not sure if it's poor taste from someone actually transphobic or simplistic pigeon-holing by wannabe advocates.
If writing me off as a liberal nutjob makes you feel better about the blatantly transphobic shit you keep posting, good for you I guess.Typical liberal nutjob reply as expected, nothing to do with the discussion, just call them racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, asshole, ignorant from the lofty moral high ground you created in your tiny little head,only problem is you have deluded yourselves into thinking anyone gives a flying feck.
When did the bolded happen ffs?Why would anyone bother themslves with what you crazies label them? I mean on this thread someone is being called transphobic because she's against transgender women competing with actual women born as women, and she's supposed to bother if loons call her names for that opinion? Nah mate
And most (though not all) on here and elsewhere didn't take issue with the point she was making (having trans women compete against cis women would be unfair), but the way she made it. Going "men will just become a woman to win a lot" is straight-up trans panic shit, comparable to "men will just say they are women to molest girls in restrooms". She could have just said "their physical advantage would make for an uneven playing field, and would be unfair for cis women" and avoided stoking the flames of trans hatred. What she said also ignores those who transition before puberty, and whose bodies will follow the development of their 'new' gender. They'd have no physical advantage over cis women, and there shouldn't be anything that keeps them from competing.
Are we talking about the entertainment value of the sport, or the physical capabilities of the performers? Because they aren't necessarily linked. There's also a fair bit of subjectivity involved, so you unilaterally declaring women's sports shit and questioning whether they're genuine sports is just plain stupid, not to mention sexist. Who the feck are you to make that distinction? They're women at their physical peak competing, and they put in as much time as their male equivalents, and deserve the same respect as the men get.
Agree. It started simply using @ for a or o. Then it turned into X. Now x doesn't roll off the tongue so they started using e, and le for el or la but it sounds like Catalan so you now get a mix whereby X goes wherever you can use a or o and e where there's an a or o at the end, even if there's no gender implied but just in case to avoid using either letter at the end.
Todxs unidxs contre le lenguaje inclusive
Dafuq?
This always seemed like the logical solution to me. The “x” thing sucks from a linguistic perspective.
I know there's a lot of money to be made out of this idea that identity politics is pushing young men to the far right(See the Sam Harris & Peterson thread)but all the polling and voting evidence suggests this is completely false.
Your friend needs to watch John Carpenter - They Live. And of course he needs to stop siding with right wing dickheads.
(4:30)
Last edited:
But this is also part of the problem and pretty much the reason for this thread. Navratilova might have phrased her words in a clumsy, insensitive manner but the content itself is not the issue. Having a person like Navratilova publicly castigated and shamed because she phrased her words poorly seems pretty unfair in my opinion, especially when you have real bigots like Trump and Putin talking shite and making actual harmful policies on a daily basis.
Before this time of moral outrage, people could say something insensitive and worst case they got reminded their language was unacceptable and they might make an public apology. Now on the other hand, people get branded a bigot, sacked and publicly shamed. This extreme form of tone/language policing does more harm than good because it suffocates debate completely, emboldens the actual bigots and turns away people who may actually be sympathetic to your cause
Also before this time of moral outrage: blatant and unrepentant racism suffocating society. Political correctness has its issues, but it's a lot better than what we had. It's pretty releaving to me that you can say that the worst case consequences for people saying "something inensitive" was a reminder, and you think that was a good thing.
That's a false dichotomy. Being against extreme language policing does not mean you support Jim Crow laws, somewhere between lynching people and shooting down a 60 year old lesbian because she phrased her words poorly is a middle ground we should look for.
And "something insesitive" in this case means just that, not blatant rascism/sexism/homophobia. Im talking about the over the top outrage like this case, where a prominent supporter of LBGT people in sports gets thrown under the bus because she phrased her words poorly.
Quantify the amount of outrage on this story please, somebody? I was under the impression it's a media story that will be completely forgotten about in weeks. Like most of the others in here...
As usual, the real and lasting outrage is the outrage of the people who are outraged that there is an outrage.
I disagree. There is a clear and strong link between the kind of language that is socially acceptable and the broader role of racism and bigotry in society. That said, I didn't say anthing about Jim Crow, so your comparison is your own.
Last edited:
I agree the issue is a bit overdone but the fact that society has a short attention span doesn't mean this is irrelevant. If people had forgotten about this in a week and that was the end of it, that would be one thing. But when this has been forgotten it'll be replaced by something else, something small, something relatively trivial, which will also blow over in a week.
The specific incident changes regularly, but the issue is always there, buzzing in our ears like an annoying mosquito.
The specific incident changes regularly, but the issue is always there, buzzing in our ears like an annoying mosquito.
Read. The. Post.
I’ve outrightly declared women’s sport as being important in the very lost you’ve responded to.
At no point did I question whether they’re genuine sports. What the feck are you talking about?
I didn’t disrespect the time women spend rising to the top of their field.
Women are less capable than men to play most physical sports.
I’ve listed some sports that women’s sport surpasses (or equals) the men’s equivalent. I picked an example that it’s different enough to be better (Gymnastics). An example in which it’s effectively the same but producing a better product (90’s Tennis) and then a like for like example whereby women beat men (ultra distance running).
Untwist your knickers and have a rethink.
Women are slower, worse, weaker and less entertaining in almost all sports. This remains true.
Apologies, you didn't question whether they were genuine sports, you outright stated that, bar a few, they aren't.
Maybe you should start keeping better track of the shit you post?
And I didn't say that you disrespected the time they spend rising to the top, I said they deserve respect same as the men, and declaring all women's sport to be "absolute shit" is hardly a statement of respect, is it?
The US should most certainly invest more in their mental health care.
Who is this idiot? I'm guessing the blue tick means she's a celebrity of some kind?
I have no idea who he\she\it\they or whatever is, but I followed a link with a picture of the entity in question at some movie award in the US so I guess the object in question is famous yes.
She's a trans model and actress.
It strikes me that many people are using the undoubtedly difficult issues associated with dealing with trans people in sport and those like Caster Semenya with natural/developmental conditions to push their "There are only 2 sexes. All this gender and identity stuff is bollock innit." type agendas.
How many genders are there?
It depends as gender is a social construct.
The Navajo identify 4. The Bugis people identify 5.
There are at least 35 (often overlapping) gender identities that I have seen listed that (I assume) are used in western society.
Last edited:
So there's not only males, females & males who feel like a female and vice versa?
Because I can live with that but if you go much further, like the whole fluid thing where some bounce back and forth, it's where I believe the majority of people start to lose interest.
Fortunately none of this is dependent on you being able to live with it.