The Doctor

players are allowed to look where the opponent is, the ball was there to be challenged for and Daka does challenge for it

He's jumped for the ball, it's there to be won. If it's a foul then every single corner that the keeper tries to claim is a foul. I'm a keeper myself in Sunday league and if I conceded that I'd not even be asking for a foul, I'd be berating myself for being so weak in the air

time to wipe the decks completely, RvN and Rudkin gone, Faes, Soumare, Coady, BdCR, Ayew to the reserves until we can actually sell them for anything and plan around a squad who'll actually stick around next season and take accountability

probably for consistency. refs already ruled that challenging the keeper is an automatic foul

same as Allison on Daka then, but different rules for the greedy six

Atwell running round the TV room celebrating that

weak keeping, there's nothing in that

what does BDCR actually offer?

sarcastically cheered off I think

refs a clown, that's a foul on Vardy, defender made a back for him rather than challenging

oh **** off Steven Jefferson

Luke Thomas relegated three seasons in a row and still somehow has Salah in his pocket.

how is it that we've taken to 32 games and survival only being mathematically plausible with a perfect sequence of results for us to actually put in a bit of a shift

would require Bournemouth to take something from arsenal and man City, and us plus Palace to beat Forest but it'd be possible for Bournemouth to catch them as well if they lose to Chelsea and we get punted by Bournemouth, and if we go into the final day with that possible, we have a moral imperative to bend over and get ****ed

18 points and 27 goals off with six to play, it's in our hands

there's nothing I want more from this season than for Forest to fully bottle it and end up in the conference league. All other sources of joy are long dead

come back in 48 hours then. we'll be down after today and he'll get booted

The latter. It happens very frequently as is. I've already mentioned a few pages back about the woman who was sacked by walmart in the US because a man suspected she was trans, followed her into the toilets and created a scene, but it is a common experience for in particular butch lesbians. Increasing the panic around trans people and legislative outcomes like this embolden people, like the man in walmart, to increase that harassment, and from a purely numerical stance, more of that is going to fall on the heads of gender non-conforming cis women than on trans women, because trans women are a tiny tiny minority.

it's not technically the case, but ask again in about 6 months (going through final edits to my thesis at the moment)

it's really not though is it, this is how every genocide in history has started, through legislative bursts to make it harder and harder for the targeted minority group to exist in public. When that doesn't work, will they take the next step of straight up criminalising the minorities existence? Quite possibly. Let's look at the 10 stages of genocide: Classification, Symbolisation, Discrimination, Dehumanisation, Organisation, Polarisation, Persecution, Extermination, Denial. concentration camps come at step 8, persecution. Now, it's not an inevitable straight line all the way through, for instance we've lingered on discrimination and dehumanisation for disabled people for decades without progressing to state sponsored eugenics, but the path is well marked, it's happened before and a blase wait and see attitude in the face of increasing discrimination and dehumanisation is not only foolish, it's down right dangerous. like, to be clear, I don't think that every single person who has campaigned against trans inclusion will want to end up there, but it's undeniable that there are a significant handful for who the goal is that trans people, particularly trans women, stop existing, and there's only one way you achieve that...

it's genuinely ridiculous, no woman is safer as a result of that verdict that she was at the start of the week, in fact a lot of women are far less safe than they were. As a verdict it's going to embolden more harassment of trans women, that should be bad enough for people to care but I know it's not for too many, so let's consider the impact on cis women. We know full well that cis women get mistaken for trans women and harassed on that basis regularly, you can find a ton of news reports to that end, predominantly targeting butch lesbians, but let's suppose for a second that "we can always tell", so no trans woman passes, and let's assume a 1% false positive rate (identifying a cis woman as trans). Per the census we know there are 48,000 trans women in the UK, and 30.4m women in the UK. For fairness, let's deduct 48k from that number, assuming all trans women were registered as women in that. that leaves us with 30,352,000 cis women in the UK, with our 1% false positive rate, that's 303,520 cis women who'd be falsely considered to be a trans woman, or 6.3 cis women who'll face harassment as a result for every trans woman. Anti trans rhetoric endangers all women.

but, hey, thank god the supreme court enabled this: https://news.sky.com/story/trans-women-to-be-strip-searched-by-male-transport-police-after-court-ruling-13350577 now, what are you going to do when male police abuse it to strip search random cis women because you actually cannot always tell and the supreme court judgement means that this would apply even with a GRC (which changes your marker on your birth certificate). You've got no way of proving you're not trans, and even if you carry your birth certificate with you (not legal ID so not sure why you would), they've now been given grounds to ignore what it says

ah yes, because complex scientific and sociological questions should be simplified for the benefit of a hack children's author who's now ~60% black mould by weight and a bunch of people really unhappy that science didn't stop at their primary school education.

This isn't making women "responsible for solving the problem of male violence", rather what you're doing is stating that you think there should be a sacrifical group of women to pacify men, and that's a dangerous road to go down, because when you start divvying up people who are and aren't acceptable targets for violence, you invariably create a slippery slope where more and more groups are designated acceptable targets. There's no reliable evidence that trans women have male pattern criminality to start with, the common citation for this is Dhejne et al, and it's a gross misinterpretation of the research. The study doesn't look at conviction types, it's not a male or female pattern criminality (in terms of offences) study, it's a finding that a cohort of trans women between 1973 - 1988 has similar conviction rates to a cisgender male group, a pattern not observed in the 1989 to 2003 cohort. So, we then have to ask the simple question: why was this pattern seen in the older cohort but not the younger? could it have anything to do with the attitudes towards LGBT people as a whole in the 70s and 80s compared to the 90s? So, I don't agree with the notion that there is significant masculinisation of the brain, because there's not solid evidence that significant differences between "male" and "female" brains exist, instead instead we can mostly discount it as an artefact of the average sizes of men and women, but let's suppose that 1% of difference is significant, well the research we've got suggests that the brains of trans women are significantly different from both cis men and cis women to start with, and that hormone therapy pushes the more neuroplastic regions towards that of acquired sex anyway. The notion of male and female brains is on shaky ground generally, and the idea that trans women have male brains (and trans men female brains) is even less founded. As for the idea that post transition trans women behave like men, cite your evidence - and make sure it's actual evidence, not speculative crap from anti-trans campaign groups like Sex Matters who take half the available information to justify the conclusion they've already started at.

The mockery has been clickbait for years tbf