Offensive Team Names

[j'nuh]

I don't, that's the beauty.
You are missing not one, but two points. First, i do not get to decide what pronouns a person is referred to by. I get to decide which pronoun I use to refer to the person. I am not imposing my view on anyone, he is. That's the first difference.

What you are saying is that you are above criticism. You can talk however which way you like when you refer to them because you have the right. If you wanted to refer to me as a slug, you are legally entitled to do that.

Second, my use of the word is based on a testable fact: DNA (at least in 99,999% of the cases). His view allows people to exploit loopholes in the system that are not there by design. As an example, in the US you have mma fighters born with a penis beating the crap out of women, legally and for money, because they claim to be a woman inside a man's body.

Trans people in sports is a separate issue that does require some thought to it. I have read that when you transition to becoming a woman, the hormones that you take changes your body significantly enough that you no longer have a lot of the innate physical advantages of men. Whether there are still some advantages you do keep after transitioning (bone structure, possibly?) and it is enough to give you a overwhelming advantage on people born as women, I am not sure.

Then please define political correctness, because the overwhelming mayority of my experience points in the opposite direction.

I would say that it is a system of naming and policies intended not to exclude groups of people. I would argue, perhaps to the annoyance of some feminists, that this would mean it would be wrong to use the term "mansplaining". It also means, especially in the context of the workplace, that e.g. the "n-word" and the "p-word" are strictly off-limits. I would say that it means inviting every person in the room to a work outing, except for the lone minority person, would be wrong. I would say it means you cannot

First, don't think you understood my example: a DNA born man claiming to be a lesbian trapped inside a man's body.

I didn't know this to be a thing? You cannot be a lesbian unless you identify as a woman.

Second, it is a condition, let's treat it as such. Telling everyone that because A has a condition we need to treat him/her differently does not solve the problem. It makes it worse.

The condition is the mismatch between a person's biological and psychological sex. The treatment is to change the person's biology to match their preferred sex.

I never said nor implied that such a condition does not exist nor that it shouldn't be addressed. What i am saying is that, unless such condition alters your DNA, then it does not alter your sex.

Hormone supplements change you biologically to match the opposite sex. Please read up about it: http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/Pages/Introduction.aspx

If any man can claim to be a woman has to be addressed by such, with all the legally binding consequences, then we've lost the plot.
What's next? If i claim to be a female, maori and kiwi (if i can claim sex, why can't i claim race, ethnicity or nationality too? **** it, add age to the group too) can i play for the jr maori black ferns?

Gender dysphoria is not a choice.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Trans people in sports is a separate issue that does require some thought to it. I have read that when you transition to becoming a woman, the hormones that you take changes your body significantly enough that you no longer have a lot of the innate physical advantages of men. Whether there are still some advantages you do keep after transitioning (bone structure, possibly?) and it is enough to give you a overwhelming advantage on people born as women, I am not sure.

Well, If you are up to date with the news, then you'd see that the IAAF are in a legal battle again with the CAS surrounding this issue and specifically on the South African athlete, Caster Semenya... I'm sure we'll read a lot more on this matter as the Olympics progress...

I didn't know this to be a thing? You cannot be a lesbian unless you identify as a woman.

Aren't all heterosexual men lesbians trapped in a man's body?? I know I am... I love them boobies!!

 

[smartcooky]

Firstly, the mistake you are making is that you are putting an entire minority group into two camps: those who find X acceptable and those who find X unacceptable. You then assume that if the group that find X unacceptable is outnumbered by those who find X acceptable, then they are imposing. What is almost certainly more likely to be the case is that there is a third camp: those who don't care. You can't split women into feminists and anti-feminists, the majority are neither.

Firstly, the mistake you are making is not reading my what I said....

"So, where are all the protesters; where are all the tens of thousands of deeply offended Native Americans and why are their outraged voices not being heard? The answer is, of course, is that they either don't exist (quite likely) or they simply don't care (even more likely). Never mind; who wants to let the truth get in the way of the BS."

Secondly, you keep wanting to shut down dialogue. If a minority of Native Americans make a fuss about something, they are voicing their freedom of expression. I can see why you would disagree with the contents of the message and wish to argue back, but you are going one step further: shutting down dialogue.

Secondly, you fail to comprehend what I have been saying. I am perfectly happy with dialogue. People can say what they like.

What I want to shut down is noisy minorities getting their own way, especially those who are minorities of a specific demographic. If the argument over changing allegedly racist team names has merit it will attract the support of a majority of that demographic (being the people who are supposed to be offended). If it doesn't attract such support, then...

a. the argument has no merit, or
b. the majority of the demographic disagree, i.e. are not offended, or
c. they simply do not care, or
d. all of the above.

In this case, the changing of the team name should not happen. This system is known as DEMOCRACY, one in which the majority rules!!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...38b8d0-6299-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html

I said tens of thousands of protestors!

Population of Native Americans in Minnesota in 2015... over 71,000

Number of protestors, between 3,500 and 5,000 (5 - 7%)

If there is such an overwhelming push for change, where were the other 65,000

http://www.changethemascot.org/

All we see is the usual suspects, agitators calling for change withut a mandate from their people

If they can get more than half the Native American populations to turn out to rallies to change the name, I'll change my view and support the change. At 5 - 7%, they are a LONG way short of the mark.

 

[j'nuh]

Typical vegetarians always having to tell everyone they are one.

I held off long enough. :lol:

Side note
Do you genuinely think eating meat will die down? I mean I understand wanting it but do you think it will happen? One of my "friends" is a vegan and be genuinely feels it will happen, although he gets quite aggresive about it sometimes hence the "friend" (Personally I ain't giving up my club sandwiches)

Sorry, I might go in more depth than you called for here!

I don't think it will be anytime soon that people decide eating meat is wrong ethically and turn on it. But I do think people are already reducing their intakes in response to a number of things. I think the horse meat scandal, amongst other things, has made people think about what they put into their bodies, and I think more and more people are rejecting "value meat", but realising they cannot afford "premium meat", choosing to eat it sparingly. So I think for economic reasons, people are at least reducing the amount of meat they are taking in.

There are only three things I can see having a transformative effect on whether people eat meat.

The first, and definitely the most likely, is when (and not if!) laboratory-grown meat becomes cheaper than raising animals. If companies can produce better quality meat, at a lower price, and with a lower impact on the environment, I think animal-raising will die in a generation if not sooner. I might even crack out a tuna sandwich then.

The second is if we really start to get worried about climate change. Curbing meat-eating is one of the easiest ways in which countries can cut their greenhouse gases. The form this could take is in governments reducing subsidies to meat farmers, making meat too expensive for farmers.

The third is if another depression happens, over a long enough period, and a young generation adjusts to lives without meat.

 

[ncurd]

Trans people in sports is a separate issue that does require some thought to it. I have read that when you transition to becoming a woman, the hormones that you take changes your body significantly enough that you no longer have a lot of the innate physical advantages of men. Whether there are still some advantages you do keep after transitioning (bone structure, possibly?) and it is enough to give you a overwhelming advantage on people born as women, I am not sure.

Isn't muscle structure the overwhelming problem as that doesn't change? To genetic males competing with genetic females. Whilst I understand hormonally it makes differences which may make things more difficult in some regards like training or by making it harder to grow mass that doesn't stop the structure once it's built. A physically fit 63kg male is massively stronger in upper body strength than a woman of the same size it's why we have woman and male sports.

It would require me to see extremely strong empirical evidence by multiple separate studies to agree than genetic males who undergone hormone replacement therapy don't have an inherent advantage other genetic females.

 

[smartcooky]

If you want to see an example of where a demographic DID get change through numbers in support, look no further than the Civil Rights Marches of the 1960s

Now THIS is what I call a protest march!!

Over a quarter of a million people turned out. That represents more than 63% of the Black population of DC at the time, and shows that the arguments had both merit, and the support of the majority of the Black demographic.

 

[j'nuh]

Isn't muscle structure the overwhelming problem as that doesn't change? To genetic males competing with genetic females. Whilst I understand hormonally it makes differences which may make things more difficult in some regards like training or by making it harder to grow mass that doesn't stop the structure once it's built. A physically fit 63kg male is massively stronger in upper body strength than a woman of the same size it's why we have woman and male sports.

It would require me to see extremely strong empirical evidence by multiple separate studies to agree than genetic males who undergone hormone replacement therapy don't have an inherent advantage other genetic females.

I found the article I sourced my claim from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn...letes-have-an-unfair-advantage_b_4918835.html

 

[ncurd]

Well, If you are up to date with the news, then you'd see that the IAAF are in a legal battle again with the CAS surrounding this issue and specifically on the South African athlete, Caster Semenya... I'm sure we'll read a lot more on this matter as the Olympics progress...

Semenya is a different case she's not somebody who has undergone genetic reassignment. Her problem is she's a genetic female that naturally produces a large amount testosterone so she's kind of woman that undergone gender reassignment but her body does it naturally.

Personally she was born a woman, wished to be considered a woman and what happens is because she's a genetic freak....like most top sportspeople are. If she didn't naturally produce it I would consider it doping and she should not be allowed to compete.

- - - Updated - - -

If you want to see an example of where a demographic DID get change through numbers in support, look no further than the Civil Rights Marches of the 1960s

Now THIS is what I call a protest march!!

Over a quarter of a million people turned out. That represents more than 63% of the Black population of DC at the time, and shows that the arguments had both merit, and the support of the majority of the Black demographic.

Yes but they were massively oppressed at the time. The problem is your requiring the level of support that there was in turnout for massive social injustice that is nowhere near on that scale. Can't you see the failure in that logic?

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

@ncurd

However your kidding yourself if you think people are doing it just because of gain. Also if they are doing it I bet it's a publicity stunt rather than they are doing it for any other reason (can you provide evidence it sounds insane to be allowed).

Disagree 100%. We're both speculating since we're talking about where this is going but I've seen people doing things 10x worse for 10x less.

First up gender transistion isn't something you can just 'do' or claim. It has to proven by psychologist you belive this to be to be true. In then take years before you are legally a different gender.

The key word there is believe.
If i claim i have blue eyes, there is a way of verifying it.
If i claim i am of apache, tehuelche of maori descent, there is a way to verify it.
If i claim i have male/female genitalia, there is a way of verifying it.
Their claim is unverifiable and it opens up the possibility to exploit loopholes.

Second you define gender identity as pure genetic issue rather than one of psychology

No, i do not define gender identity, i define gender. I have no problem whatsoever in you believing whatever you want. I'll support your right to do so as long as it doesn't affect, substantially, third parties.
The problem i have is you forcing me to call you what you want. I wouldn't call a man "she" just as i wouldn't call a blue eyed person a brown eyed person just because he/she believes she is blue eyed.

Again, i want them to have every single right and will fight against their discrimination. I want them to be able to marry, adopt, vote, and have the exact same treatment as everyone else in society.
I just want to be able to call a spade a spade. If they want to call themselves whatever they want, fair enough too.
The overwhelming majority of the planet calls each other based on what they are, not on how they see themselves. I don't call a slow guy fast just because he believes to be so. I don't call a short person tall because he is a tall guy trapped inside a short man's body. Unless you give me a very convincing argument, i'd rather stick to that fact based logic.

genetic's can't change what you are fair enough but psychology is an altogether different problem.

Agreed.

Now be careful are you suggesting that beliving your a woman despite being a male is illness

Poor choice of words from me i suppose. Apologies.

Lastly pronouns my name is Mitch you insist on calling me B-itch despite me hating it you don't mean anything by it though. Who has the greater right your right to call me that or my right for you call me by my name Mitch. Your saying your right to call me whatever you want is greater than my right to called by what I am, sorry can't agree with that.

That's a strawman. The difference between your example and mine is that the use of ***** has no fact base merit and is entirely construed to insult.
The use of "he" for someone with male genitalia is not designed nor intended to insult. It is designed to differentiate a set of physical and testable characteristics.
I have no problem calling him/her by her name, whatever that name is. I just want to exercise my option to call someone with male genitalia a "he". I am not asking for him to be deprived to any right whatsoever. I just want the option to enforce my right.
@j'nuh

What you are saying is that you are above criticism. You can talk however which way you like when you refer to them because you have the right. If you wanted to refer to me as a slug, you are legally entitled to do that.

That's a cheap shot and you know it.
I am not above criticism. Criticize me with facts and prove me wrong. I don't talk whatever way i like. I try to use universal and commonly accepted terms understood by the overwhelming majority and as defined by the dictionary. Again, my point is fact based and logical. Yours is not.

When i look at the definition of "He" in the dictionary it states "the male". When i look at the definition of "male" i get

"an individual that produces small usually motile gametes (as spermatozoa or spermatozoids) which fertilize the eggs of a female". It's a generalization, of course, but we all understand why.

It doesn't say anything, at all, about what the person feels. I am not inclined to adjust human kind's definition of a word just because someone doesn't like the way it sounds.

I would't call a a 1,5 mts tall, caucasian with brown eyes and ginger hair a 2 mts tall, green eyes, latino with brown hair. I like facts and what he/she is asking me to call him/her is factually incorrect.
If he/she gets offended by facts then that is out of my control. Again, happy to use

If you are inclined to adjust your behaviour to whatever demands other people have, kindly start calling me "Cruz, His Royal Highness, Saviour of humanity, King of manking, Lord of the fish in the sea, the animals in the land and the birds in the heavens, ruler of all."

I'd be offended if you do not as that is how i see myself.

Hormone supplements change you biologically to match the opposite sex. Please read up about it: http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-...roduction.aspx

No they cannot. A DNA test will show your gender regardless of how much the person believes it to be otherwise.

Gender dysphoria is not a choice.

It is not, agreed, but since there is no medical test to confirm it, it comes down to what a person claims and whether a psychologist/psychiatrist believes him/her. That opens a pandora's box of loopholes for people to exploit.
If people can start getting cherry picking sexes, what's to prevent them from doing so with other aspects? Race, height, eye color, ethnicity, weight...

Next we have a 25 yo male 120 kg boxer competing in the jr female 50 kg division because he believes he is a 14 year old, 40 kg girl trapped in his body.
No thanks. I prefer facts and fact is, as hurtful as it may sound to him, his gender (not his gender identity) is male.

The most outright proof of how ridiculous this is is that we've reached a point where stating facts is offensive and politically incorrect.

For the sake of political correctness (define irony), i'll state it again: i have no problem in him having exactly the same rights as everyone else: marry, adopt, believe whatever the **** he wants. Just don't tell me i can't call someone with male DNA a "he".

 

[SelimNiai]

As much as I respect the right for this debate, and must give props for keeping this civl, the gender stuff is getting a bit off topic.

 

[ncurd]

I found the article I sourced my claim from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn...letes-have-an-unfair-advantage_b_4918835.html

God the bias in that article (which is why I don't read american news) and make me worry the writer only sought out opinions that agreed event though he says he did otherwise.

Offering up the opinion of two medical professionals does not constitute empirical evidence although he says it exists (I can find just as many "professionals" who will tell you vaccines cause Autism) and he does not give the link to single study about this specific issue.

I mean it's interesting stuff and it might be right I don't deny that but it's not convincing enough for me.

- - - Updated - - -

As much as I respect the right for this debate, and must give props for keeping this civl, the gender stuff is getting a bit off topic.

Sorry posted while you were posting.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes but they were massively oppressed at the time. The problem is your requiring the level of support that there was in turnout for massive social injustice that is nowhere near on that scale. Can't you see the failure in that logic?

No I cant, because there is no failure in logic, it was the point of that logic which I was making

Can you not see the difference in merit between an argument for change when a demographic is hugely oppressed and actually treated unjustly, and one where a few people are getting offended over a name!

 

[ncurd]

No I cant, because there is no failure in logic, it was the point of that logic which I was making

Can you not see the difference in merit between an argument for change when a demographic is hugely oppressed and actually treated unjustly, and one where a few people are getting offended over a name!

*stopped replying in detail* if I have to say there nothing offensive about the name one more time I might have aneurysm. I give up not because you're right but because you're simply not listening.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Can you not see the difference in merit between an argument for change when a demographic is hugely oppressed and actually treated unjustly, and one where a few people are getting offended over a name!

This!!

And there must be a clear identification between differentiation, discrimination, opression and justification.

Us whiteys down here in SA are currently feeling like we fit in all the categories, yet we're not winning the argument. Because our grandparents were once the Oppressors and now we are the oppressed...

- - - Updated - - -

*stopped replying in detail* if I have to say there nothing offensive about the name one more time I might have aneurysm. I give up not because you're right but because you're simply not listening.

Shame on you...

Cooky has hearing problems! no need to press on that matter!!

 

[ncurd]

Man I caused inadvertent offence? He'd better get 50% of deaf people in Brtiain to come protesting at my door against it so I stop using language like that that would be a proportional response to it.

 

[WaterboySA]

Heineken, I'm sure Cooky will agree....there's a difference between not hearing(being deaf) and not listening(words Ncurd used)......the kids didn't LISTEN when we told them not to do it before the age of 25....that caused me being a granddad at the age of 40.....

 

[TRF_heineken]

Heineken, I'm sure Cooky will agree....there's a difference between not hearing(being deaf) and not listening(words Ncurd used)......the kids didn't LISTEN when we told them not to do it before the age of 25....that caused me being a granddad at the age of 40.....

Hahaha!! It's families like yours that give the Bulls supporters a bad name... (just joking)

 

[WaterboySA]

I agree..........

- - - Updated - - -

Grandson's 4 years old now and giving his parents lots of drama...I love it!

Off topic, sorry

 

[ncurd]

:wall:

So just got a slap on wrist by a friend on facebook for using "coloured" instead of "woman of colour". Man I feel embarrassed after the last few days for an innocent screw up, friend messaged me knowing I didn't mean anything by it, I apologised and changed it, no actual drama.

 

[ratsapprentice]

You actually apologised for that?