| So a woman is a biological female then…. 14:46 - Apr 16 with 23775 views | itfcjoe |
…I don’t dare look on social media for how this news has been taken by both sides of the debate.
|  |
| |  |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 18:44 - Apr 17 with 1968 views | itfcjoe |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 16:20 - Apr 17 by vapour_trail |
This second statement is just culture war stoking nonsense.
So disappointing you’re usually much better than this. |
I'm sorry but it isn't, people have said that to me both publicly and privately because I think that blanket statement is untrue - was half threatened by a group over it to be publicly outed as transphobic and reported to the club over it! | |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 18:52 - Apr 17 with 1925 views | itfcjoe |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 18:37 - Apr 17 by Swansea_Blue |
There’s certainly a warning from across the pond that we should be paying attention to. I’ve no doubt that Badenoch would go the same way if she gets the chance, so I think you’re right to suggest that this could end up as a broader attack on gay people generally. We are seeing increases in homophobic crimes after all, so it suggests a lessening tolerance for LGB people in the UK, not just trans people. And whilst it’s more niche than something like immigration, the right wing media certainly seem to be driving the narrative - possibly it’s more social media commentators/ influencers (maybe?) - that’s where a lot of the hate seems to be coming from.
It’s politicised. We’d be daft not to acknowledge that. |
Yep, you can very quickly go down a rabbit hole - because I showed an interest a few years back in transwomen in womens sport on Twitter, despite barely going on there now if I do my 'For You' section is still full of this debate when I've moved past it in the main and had a massive unfollow of everything political etc and basically just use it for football.
It's massive in the media, and nasty, and very much pick a side of the debate and then you apparently agree with everything else they stand for. Even yesterday James O'Brien is on LBC saying "how have you ended up on the same side of the debate as sex offender Donald Trump' to a caller. Why does that matter? It's that virtousness of needing to be on the right side of every debate when it's just not the case in most debates. | |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 18:56 - Apr 17 with 1908 views | Nutkins_Return |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 00:56 - Apr 17 by vapour_trail |
Interesting.
I’m supportive of the ruling today.
Why do you think JK Rowling refuses to acknowledge individuals preferred pronouns, Treq? |
Personally I would respect someones wish to be referred to by their preferred pronoun. But I also think it's slightly absurd linguistically and very clunky system. A singular person being referred to as 'they' is odd. I hope we come to a better system then this and something unique as a replacement would make much more sense.
I don't think having an aversion to using preferred pronouns necessarily equals transphobia at all. I think a lot of people just don't like the concept of changing a normal syntactic system (or in more simple terms 'change'). It does seem a bit silly and unnecessary to a lot of people and therefore they dont want to do it. It's not hate.
These arguments often come out as you either hate trans people or you don't. That's just nonsense. There is so much in-between.
For me you have to put yourself in someone else's shoes. And I can understand if I was trans that I might feel uncomfortable with he or she. It wouldn't be silly to me.
But just saying someone who isn't happy with the concept of using an individuals pronouns is transphobic doesn't seem right or accurate to me. |  |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 19:09 - Apr 17 with 1876 views | DJR |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 18:56 - Apr 17 by Nutkins_Return |
Personally I would respect someones wish to be referred to by their preferred pronoun. But I also think it's slightly absurd linguistically and very clunky system. A singular person being referred to as 'they' is odd. I hope we come to a better system then this and something unique as a replacement would make much more sense.
I don't think having an aversion to using preferred pronouns necessarily equals transphobia at all. I think a lot of people just don't like the concept of changing a normal syntactic system (or in more simple terms 'change'). It does seem a bit silly and unnecessary to a lot of people and therefore they dont want to do it. It's not hate.
These arguments often come out as you either hate trans people or you don't. That's just nonsense. There is so much in-between.
For me you have to put yourself in someone else's shoes. And I can understand if I was trans that I might feel uncomfortable with he or she. It wouldn't be silly to me.
But just saying someone who isn't happy with the concept of using an individuals pronouns is transphobic doesn't seem right or accurate to me. |
Whatever one's views on preferred pronouns, it is to be noted that UK legislation since 2007 has been drafted in gender-neutral terms. This explains the position.
"In legal writing, masculine language has traditionally been used to refer to people regardless of their gender. Examples include the use of masculine pronouns (he/him) and nouns such as chairman.
The practice for legislation changed in 2007. Since then, it has been government policy to write legislation in gender-neutral language.
The end of last year saw the launch of a practical guide to gender-neutral writing, which is intended to share our experience with the wider legal community outside of government.
Why adopt a gender-neutral language? The use of masculine words to cover people regardless of gender or sex is unnecessary, inaccurate and tends to reinforce historic gender stereotypes. In other words, gender-neutral writing is about clarity, inclusion and equality.
It may come as a surprise that before the mid-19th century it was relatively common to find legislation drafted in gender-neutral terms.
That changed in 1850, when Parliament passed an Act “for shortening the Language used in Acts of Parliament”. The Act said that masculine words in legislation are “deemed and taken to include females”. It enabled those writing legislation to use masculine pronouns (he/him) to refer to people whatever their gender."
Here is a link to the guidance on gender neutral drafting which shows that one option is using "they" for the singular.
https://7a21077a.flowpaper.com/GuidetoGenderNeutralDrafting/#page=1
As it is, it is my practice on TWTD is to use they when referring to a poster because I don't generally know their gender/sex. [Post edited 17 Apr 21:24]
|  | | |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 19:10 - Apr 17 with 1873 views | vapour_trail |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 18:44 - Apr 17 by itfcjoe |
I'm sorry but it isn't, people have said that to me both publicly and privately because I think that blanket statement is untrue - was half threatened by a group over it to be publicly outed as transphobic and reported to the club over it! |
Ok I guess it depends on the environment. It’s not a conversation I’d even think about joining on twitter.
That certainly hasn’t been the case in this thread. |  |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 19:19 - Apr 17 with 1838 views | itfcjoe |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 19:10 - Apr 17 by vapour_trail |
Ok I guess it depends on the environment. It’s not a conversation I’d even think about joining on twitter.
That certainly hasn’t been the case in this thread. |
This was from TWTD, where someone messaged me on Twitter saying I’d been transphobic on this forum……they sent a polite message saying that they’d been disappointed and would like to speak to me but I hadn’t seen this message and got a follow up which said this:
Joe,
I would appreciate a dialogue with you, regarding your transphobic comments you've made on TWTD. I'm trying to keep things under the radar, but I will be forced to escalate how I am dealing with this if you continue to not engage with me.
[Name removed]
Continuing to not engage was ignoring a message I hadn’t seen a few days earlier - it caused me a lot of stress and I was then tweeted about quite viciously but just not my name being mentioned etc [Post edited 17 Apr 19:20]
| |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 19:20 - Apr 17 with 1824 views | DJR |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 19:19 - Apr 17 by itfcjoe |
This was from TWTD, where someone messaged me on Twitter saying I’d been transphobic on this forum……they sent a polite message saying that they’d been disappointed and would like to speak to me but I hadn’t seen this message and got a follow up which said this:
Joe,
I would appreciate a dialogue with you, regarding your transphobic comments you've made on TWTD. I'm trying to keep things under the radar, but I will be forced to escalate how I am dealing with this if you continue to not engage with me.
[Name removed]
Continuing to not engage was ignoring a message I hadn’t seen a few days earlier - it caused me a lot of stress and I was then tweeted about quite viciously but just not my name being mentioned etc [Post edited 17 Apr 19:20]
|
That is not acceptable behaviour. | | | |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 19:28 - Apr 17 with 1796 views | itfcjoe |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 19:20 - Apr 17 by DJR |
That is not acceptable behaviour. |
And I won’t say who it was from, because it would show how even more unacceptable it was to be sending me these messages | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 19:34 - Apr 17 with 1757 views | Swansea_Blue |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 18:52 - Apr 17 by itfcjoe |
Yep, you can very quickly go down a rabbit hole - because I showed an interest a few years back in transwomen in womens sport on Twitter, despite barely going on there now if I do my 'For You' section is still full of this debate when I've moved past it in the main and had a massive unfollow of everything political etc and basically just use it for football.
It's massive in the media, and nasty, and very much pick a side of the debate and then you apparently agree with everything else they stand for. Even yesterday James O'Brien is on LBC saying "how have you ended up on the same side of the debate as sex offender Donald Trump' to a caller. Why does that matter? It's that virtousness of needing to be on the right side of every debate when it's just not the case in most debates. |
We’ve experienced a little bit of that, as my lad did a school project on trans people in sport a few years back. His web searches created some ‘interesting’ links and referrals. It looked thoroughly nasty and totally polarised, so I’m not surprised by what you’ve said there.
I try and keep away from it, with the proviso that I don’t want to see anyone subjected to abuse. I suspect on the whole that trans people are the more vulnerable party in all this, so I admit I tend to be more sensitive to abuse heading in that direction.
I’ve no direct, lived experience. My missus has some occasional trans students, but there’s no way I’m breaking confidence about any of that on here. Besides, it only provides a hint of what they go through and not enough for me to think I know anything about the issue. |  |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 21:11 - Apr 17 with 1638 views | Ryorry |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 19:19 - Apr 17 by itfcjoe |
This was from TWTD, where someone messaged me on Twitter saying I’d been transphobic on this forum……they sent a polite message saying that they’d been disappointed and would like to speak to me but I hadn’t seen this message and got a follow up which said this:
Joe,
I would appreciate a dialogue with you, regarding your transphobic comments you've made on TWTD. I'm trying to keep things under the radar, but I will be forced to escalate how I am dealing with this if you continue to not engage with me.
[Name removed]
Continuing to not engage was ignoring a message I hadn’t seen a few days earlier - it caused me a lot of stress and I was then tweeted about quite viciously but just not my name being mentioned etc [Post edited 17 Apr 19:20]
|
That's absoluttely appalling. I hope you reported it and that that person has been banned from this site. |  |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 21:14 - Apr 17 with 1626 views | Kievthegreat |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 18:56 - Apr 17 by Nutkins_Return |
Personally I would respect someones wish to be referred to by their preferred pronoun. But I also think it's slightly absurd linguistically and very clunky system. A singular person being referred to as 'they' is odd. I hope we come to a better system then this and something unique as a replacement would make much more sense.
I don't think having an aversion to using preferred pronouns necessarily equals transphobia at all. I think a lot of people just don't like the concept of changing a normal syntactic system (or in more simple terms 'change'). It does seem a bit silly and unnecessary to a lot of people and therefore they dont want to do it. It's not hate.
These arguments often come out as you either hate trans people or you don't. That's just nonsense. There is so much in-between.
For me you have to put yourself in someone else's shoes. And I can understand if I was trans that I might feel uncomfortable with he or she. It wouldn't be silly to me.
But just saying someone who isn't happy with the concept of using an individuals pronouns is transphobic doesn't seem right or accurate to me. |
They as a singular pronoun is not a new invention. From Chaucer to Shakespeare to Jane Austen. They has been used as a pronoun for singular people, especially when the gender of the subject is not known. To say it is absurd linguistically is itself absurd. It's not only established, it's also really intuitive to hear and use.
Whether an aversion to preferred pronouns is transphobic is debatable, I would have confidence though in saying the person with an aversion doing so is rude and obnoxious. I should be clear it's about aversion. Talk to people who use they/them and they are used to people messing up and/or not knowing and using the gendered nouns that people assume would apply. For people I know it's water off a ducks back. I do it myself from time to time.
However honest mistakes and being a dick are not the same. If someone knows and refuses. It's no different in my mind to deliberately pronouncing someone's name wrong or deliberately calling a she a he. |  | | |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 21:21 - Apr 17 with 1591 views | DJR |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 21:14 - Apr 17 by Kievthegreat |
They as a singular pronoun is not a new invention. From Chaucer to Shakespeare to Jane Austen. They has been used as a pronoun for singular people, especially when the gender of the subject is not known. To say it is absurd linguistically is itself absurd. It's not only established, it's also really intuitive to hear and use.
Whether an aversion to preferred pronouns is transphobic is debatable, I would have confidence though in saying the person with an aversion doing so is rude and obnoxious. I should be clear it's about aversion. Talk to people who use they/them and they are used to people messing up and/or not knowing and using the gendered nouns that people assume would apply. For people I know it's water off a ducks back. I do it myself from time to time.
However honest mistakes and being a dick are not the same. If someone knows and refuses. It's no different in my mind to deliberately pronouncing someone's name wrong or deliberately calling a she a he. |
Yes, the Guide to Gender Neutral Drafting I linked in an earlier post said.
"It [they: singular] is certainly well-precedented in respectable literature over several centuries (e.g. Shakespeare, Dickens, Sir Walter Scott, C.S Lewis ....). [Post edited 17 Apr 21:22]
| | | |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 21:29 - Apr 17 with 1552 views | redrickstuhaart |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 21:21 - Apr 17 by DJR |
Yes, the Guide to Gender Neutral Drafting I linked in an earlier post said.
"It [they: singular] is certainly well-precedented in respectable literature over several centuries (e.g. Shakespeare, Dickens, Sir Walter Scott, C.S Lewis ....). [Post edited 17 Apr 21:22]
|
Yes it can be used- and always has been. But only with care - because it does cause confusion depending on context.
We need a way of doing it, but personally I find they and them very clumsy and jarring. I have read books where, even when used to it, I have ot read back over a sentence or two before figuring it was being used singular. Confusing. | | | |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 21:53 - Apr 17 with 1502 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 21:29 - Apr 17 by redrickstuhaart |
Yes it can be used- and always has been. But only with care - because it does cause confusion depending on context.
We need a way of doing it, but personally I find they and them very clumsy and jarring. I have read books where, even when used to it, I have ot read back over a sentence or two before figuring it was being used singular. Confusing. |
Imagine how confusing it would be if people used the same pronoun for second person singular and second person plural as well!
Oh no. We cope fine. | | | |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 21:58 - Apr 17 with 1491 views | redrickstuhaart |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 21:53 - Apr 17 by ArnoldMoorhen |
Imagine how confusing it would be if people used the same pronoun for second person singular and second person plural as well!
Oh no. We cope fine. |
Its almost as if you have completely ignored what I said, and instead assumed I said something anti. | | | |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 22:34 - Apr 17 with 1417 views | Trequartista |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 19:19 - Apr 17 by itfcjoe |
This was from TWTD, where someone messaged me on Twitter saying I’d been transphobic on this forum……they sent a polite message saying that they’d been disappointed and would like to speak to me but I hadn’t seen this message and got a follow up which said this:
Joe,
I would appreciate a dialogue with you, regarding your transphobic comments you've made on TWTD. I'm trying to keep things under the radar, but I will be forced to escalate how I am dealing with this if you continue to not engage with me.
[Name removed]
Continuing to not engage was ignoring a message I hadn’t seen a few days earlier - it caused me a lot of stress and I was then tweeted about quite viciously but just not my name being mentioned etc [Post edited 17 Apr 19:20]
|
The mask slips and you find out the real intentions of these people. |  |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 00:44 - Apr 18 with 1271 views | Nutkins_Return |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 21:58 - Apr 17 by redrickstuhaart |
Its almost as if you have completely ignored what I said, and instead assumed I said something anti. |
And here In lies the problem. You didn't say anything controversial and jumped on. [Post edited 18 Apr 1:01]
| |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 00:54 - Apr 18 with 1268 views | Nutkins_Return |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 21:14 - Apr 17 by Kievthegreat |
They as a singular pronoun is not a new invention. From Chaucer to Shakespeare to Jane Austen. They has been used as a pronoun for singular people, especially when the gender of the subject is not known. To say it is absurd linguistically is itself absurd. It's not only established, it's also really intuitive to hear and use.
Whether an aversion to preferred pronouns is transphobic is debatable, I would have confidence though in saying the person with an aversion doing so is rude and obnoxious. I should be clear it's about aversion. Talk to people who use they/them and they are used to people messing up and/or not knowing and using the gendered nouns that people assume would apply. For people I know it's water off a ducks back. I do it myself from time to time.
However honest mistakes and being a dick are not the same. If someone knows and refuses. It's no different in my mind to deliberately pronouncing someone's name wrong or deliberately calling a she a he. |
Shakespeare couldn't spell his own f'kin name ffs. A genius in terms of historical playwright of course but let's not start that argument around pronouns. Honestly going back to Chaucer and Shakespeare is no argument for modern language in my opinion (regardless of their historical genius)
You can have confidence in it but your are not coming from a place of neutrality. Wtf are they instantly rude and obnoxious. Honestly? I would use someone's chosen pronoun to someone who wished it. But I totally get some reluctance honestly and not for the reasons of being rude or obnoxious as is said.
If someone or some group decide to make up new rules you are not simply a dick for not agreeing to the new rules. That's is absurd. It's actually rude to decide they are. Someone's offence is not the same as someone's right.
The whole problem is entitlement and militant right or wrong on the subject. There needs to be courtesy and dialogue on all sides really. Absolutely there are complete douchebags on both extremes. I really wish everyone could get along and majority of people can with some common decency. Live and let live for me. But in all sides. [Post edited 18 Apr 8:54]
| |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 00:56 - Apr 18 with 1263 views | Nutkins_Return |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 19:09 - Apr 17 by DJR |
Whatever one's views on preferred pronouns, it is to be noted that UK legislation since 2007 has been drafted in gender-neutral terms. This explains the position.
"In legal writing, masculine language has traditionally been used to refer to people regardless of their gender. Examples include the use of masculine pronouns (he/him) and nouns such as chairman.
The practice for legislation changed in 2007. Since then, it has been government policy to write legislation in gender-neutral language.
The end of last year saw the launch of a practical guide to gender-neutral writing, which is intended to share our experience with the wider legal community outside of government.
Why adopt a gender-neutral language? The use of masculine words to cover people regardless of gender or sex is unnecessary, inaccurate and tends to reinforce historic gender stereotypes. In other words, gender-neutral writing is about clarity, inclusion and equality.
It may come as a surprise that before the mid-19th century it was relatively common to find legislation drafted in gender-neutral terms.
That changed in 1850, when Parliament passed an Act “for shortening the Language used in Acts of Parliament”. The Act said that masculine words in legislation are “deemed and taken to include females”. It enabled those writing legislation to use masculine pronouns (he/him) to refer to people whatever their gender."
Here is a link to the guidance on gender neutral drafting which shows that one option is using "they" for the singular.
https://7a21077a.flowpaper.com/GuidetoGenderNeutralDrafting/#page=1
As it is, it is my practice on TWTD is to use they when referring to a poster because I don't generally know their gender/sex. [Post edited 17 Apr 21:24]
|
I'm actually really onboard with moving towardsnmore gender neutral language. Interesting (ish) stuff in things like job adverts etc. | |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 01:00 - Apr 18 with 1262 views | Nutkins_Return |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 19:19 - Apr 17 by itfcjoe |
This was from TWTD, where someone messaged me on Twitter saying I’d been transphobic on this forum……they sent a polite message saying that they’d been disappointed and would like to speak to me but I hadn’t seen this message and got a follow up which said this:
Joe,
I would appreciate a dialogue with you, regarding your transphobic comments you've made on TWTD. I'm trying to keep things under the radar, but I will be forced to escalate how I am dealing with this if you continue to not engage with me.
[Name removed]
Continuing to not engage was ignoring a message I hadn’t seen a few days earlier - it caused me a lot of stress and I was then tweeted about quite viciously but just not my name being mentioned etc [Post edited 17 Apr 19:20]
|
That is absolutely outrageous! "World revolves around me and my interpretation of anything" nonsense. So frustrating. You are clearly a good guy and this is completely unfair and irrational and actually so unfair to all parties really as it's unhelpful | |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 01:08 - Apr 18 with 1252 views | Ryorry |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 22:34 - Apr 17 by Trequartista |
The mask slips and you find out the real intentions of these people. |
By coincidence, FilmOn4 just finished showing ’The Hunt’ (2020) which I accidentally stumbled on halfway through. A satirical dire warning re how some people may get a tad carried away when polarised groups start eating each other alive on social media, eek … a black comedy with violence designed to get us to reflect rather than being realistic. [Post edited 18 Apr 1:19]
| |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 08:10 - Apr 18 with 1123 views | DJR |
Interesting to see what I would regard as hostile articles in the Telegraph and Mail about Lloyds Bank contacting staff through its Rainbow network offering them support after what is described as an unsettling day.
The best rated comments on the Mail website include
Read this as "Britain's biggest bank pledges to stand against Women
SUPPORT REAL WOMEN. Not the noisy, attention-seeking, angry 0.3% of men in dresses.
Oops, picking wrong side. Ratner moment.
Every customer should boycott this bank! Hurt them were it hurts!
Of course, employers owe a duty of care to all their staff including trans people, but with this sort of hostile reaction it makes me wonder, just like in the States, as if many employers will be reluctant to put their head above the parapet. And it suggests to me that the ruling has increased the hostility to trans people because the shackles have been removed. [Post edited 18 Apr 8:15]
| | | |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 08:21 - Apr 18 with 1095 views | itfcjoe |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 08:10 - Apr 18 by DJR |
Interesting to see what I would regard as hostile articles in the Telegraph and Mail about Lloyds Bank contacting staff through its Rainbow network offering them support after what is described as an unsettling day.
The best rated comments on the Mail website include
Read this as "Britain's biggest bank pledges to stand against Women
SUPPORT REAL WOMEN. Not the noisy, attention-seeking, angry 0.3% of men in dresses.
Oops, picking wrong side. Ratner moment.
Every customer should boycott this bank! Hurt them were it hurts!
Of course, employers owe a duty of care to all their staff including trans people, but with this sort of hostile reaction it makes me wonder, just like in the States, as if many employers will be reluctant to put their head above the parapet. And it suggests to me that the ruling has increased the hostility to trans people because the shackles have been removed. [Post edited 18 Apr 8:15]
|
This is the problem with the culture war when there is a right side and a wrong side to a debate when that debate isn’t actually clear cut and people generally from both sides of the culture war divide end up on the same ‘side’ here
The noisy voices are so vicious, that any more nuanced views are either left unspoken because people don’t want to be seen to side with the wrong side, or they are deliberately misinterpreted as to being more black and white than they are so the debate isn’t actually clear dominated by the loudest angriest voices | |
| |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 09:06 - Apr 18 with 1017 views | DJR |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 08:21 - Apr 18 by itfcjoe |
This is the problem with the culture war when there is a right side and a wrong side to a debate when that debate isn’t actually clear cut and people generally from both sides of the culture war divide end up on the same ‘side’ here
The noisy voices are so vicious, that any more nuanced views are either left unspoken because people don’t want to be seen to side with the wrong side, or they are deliberately misinterpreted as to being more black and white than they are so the debate isn’t actually clear dominated by the loudest angriest voices |
This is a good and nuanced article on the issue but I rather fear its final paragraph will fall on deaf ears.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/18/if-britain-is-now-resettin
As regards the culture wars themselves when it comes to the trans issue, it seems to me a rather uneven fight with the battalions of the right media and political parties and an increasing hostile public on one side and a very small and vulnerable minority on the other. [Post edited 18 Apr 9:17]
| | | |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 09:11 - Apr 18 with 992 views | NeedhamChris |
| So a woman is a biological female then…. on 08:21 - Apr 18 by itfcjoe |
This is the problem with the culture war when there is a right side and a wrong side to a debate when that debate isn’t actually clear cut and people generally from both sides of the culture war divide end up on the same ‘side’ here
The noisy voices are so vicious, that any more nuanced views are either left unspoken because people don’t want to be seen to side with the wrong side, or they are deliberately misinterpreted as to being more black and white than they are so the debate isn’t actually clear dominated by the loudest angriest voices |
In fairness I think you've summed up more than the culture war.
These days, proper debate feels dead because the loudest drown everyone else out. Everything has to be black or white — no room for middle ground or a bit of common sense. If you don’t pick a side straight away, you get shouted down or ignored. Real life’s messy, but you wouldn’t think it the way people carry on. It’s all noise, no thinking. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
