Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Countryfox

Also in the news

By Countryfox, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

nnfox

nnfox

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Well lets hope their disgraceful management go to jail if true

It's not necessarily illegal.  Maritime law is complex. 

 

But the management is a disgrace from start to finish and most definitely unethical.  People should avoid P&O like the plague.  Their reputation is in shreds.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kenny

kenny

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

You dont have to overthrow govts to be a spy ……. I couldn’t possibly comment on whether she was working for HMG ……….

It would explain why she was released and the other chap was put back in prison!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
Just now, Super_horns said:

Poor family and obviously very distressing to see someone so young lose their life like this in front of them .

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-60829837.amp

So sad - could be that they introduced a dog (non puppy) into a house with a young child.  If that’s true then they will forever blame themselves for their child’s death.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MPH

MPH

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Well lets hope their disgraceful management go to jail if true

 

33 minutes ago, nnfox said:

It's not necessarily illegal.  Maritime law is complex. 

 

But the management is a disgrace from start to finish and most definitely unethical.  People should avoid P&O like the plague.  Their reputation is in shreds.


 

i think because most of the boats are registered abroad they are not bound by British wage laws even though they  are ‘ based’ out of British  ports.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Super_horns

Super_horns

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

So sad - could be that they introduced a dog (non puppy) into a house with a young child.  If that’s true then they will forever blame themselves for their child’s death.  

Reads like they only got the dog a week ago and it may have been a Terrier or Pit Bill which are dangerous I believe particularly around vulnerable people .

 

Maybe they weren’t aware of course .

Edited by Super_horns
Link to comment
Share on other sites
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Reads like they only got the dog a week ago and it may have been a Terrier or Pit Bill which are dangerous I believe particularly around vulnerable people .

 

Maybe they weren’t aware of course .

I’m sure they weren’t…….otherwise you wouldn’t do it ……. ..sort of common sense though isn’t it ???

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jon the Hat

Jon the Hat

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/swimming/60842863

 

"[The NCAA] are putting ideology ahead of opportunity for women athletes..."

 

And what of your own ideology that led you to this decision, Herr deSantis?

Do you actually have an argument to support this ridiculous situation though?  It is easy to throw criticism at anyone who challenges it, but harder to actually explain how it is a good thing that a man who identifies as a woman should have the right to compete in women's sport, impacting women in any number of ways.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Do you actually have an argument to support this ridiculous situation though?  It is easy to throw criticism at anyone who challenges it, but harder to actually explain how it is a good thing that a man who identifies as a woman should have the right to compete in women's sport, impacting women in any number of ways.

One moment...I do know someone who does.

 

"This topic came about because a trans woman whose name I can’t pronounce is really good at moving through water, and she won some medals and now other people who are less good at moving through water are annoyed at that fact, and are looking for reasons as to why she's great at swimming, and they're not.

 

You know, like how sport has always been. Well, at least women's sports.
 
Good for her. Win shiny things. Better her than me. I look like a fool trying to swim.
 
Here's the thing, if you think sport is a some sacred, harmonious series of events built on fairness, equality, and equity - you're kidding yourself. Sport is not fair. Sport is a cut throat institution where coaches worth four times my salary accuse black woman of being men because they're pissy the person they've been training for years choked at the last second. Racism in sport is built upon accusing minorities who are better than you of having an unfair advantage. Sex verification testing has always been used as a weapon.
If people were truly concerned about equity in sport, they would be discussing whether or not it's fair for an athlete from a dirt poor country with the same population as the amount of a people in the showing of Spiderman: No Way Home I attended, to be competing against athletes from first world nations with coaches whose salary is worth more than my house. It takes guts to train in running while still trying to figure out where you next meal is coming from.
 
Like, did you know that the tallest WNBA player in history is 218cm (7ft 1in – Margo Dydek) and the shortest is 157cm (5ft 1in – Shannon Bobbitt). Hell, there is a 42.40cm (16in) difference between the tallest and shortest player on the Phoenix Mercury team with Brittney Gine being 210cm (6ft 9in) and Olivia Epoupa 167.6cm (5ft 5in).* Of course you didn't, because you don't really give a shit about what's "fair"."
 
I'll add that Michael Phelps has innate genetic advantages that made him far better than any other swimmer. Should he have been stopped from competing?
 
Edit: I'll further add that the effects HRT has on the body and therefore sporting performance are far from certain either way.
 
Oh, and while we're on the topic, something similar from the same author:
 
"Maybe I'm jaded, but every time I hear some random dickhead talking about wanting "to protect women" (in this instance from trans women) I think about how rape survivors are treated by the public, how cis women are slut shamed, I think about how men's shitty behaviour towards women is dismissed as "boys will be boys". I think about sex workers (particularly women) are criminalised for their work, how domestic violence shelters have been defunded, and how violence against women is blamed on women rather than the perpetrators. I think about how violence against cis women by other cis women is ignored.
 
I think about the systemic misogyny and sexism levelled at cis *and* trans women, and how trans men's lives are dismissed as "silly little girls"*. I think about how women, and AFAB people are treated as a whole, and I hear the unsaid words:
"I want to protect women but not in ways which matter".
 
The trans community are not threats to the cis community. Cis women aren't under attack by trans women - a group who also experience misogyny and sexism. Who we're under attack from are legislators refusing to implement laws that protect survivors of violence, those who limit our safety nets, and take away our reproductive choices. We're under attack from a society who values the feelings and lives of badly behaved cis men more than the safety and security of women.
 
We're under attack from world using a vulnerable minority as a scapegoat for its failings. From conservatives and regressives projecting their behaviour onto the trans community. The same groups lobbying to end abortion rights are the same groups fearmongering about trans women under the slogan "protect women" because they know armchair slacktivists with white knight complexes will lap it up. The silence around sexually abusive coaches and doctors in sport is deafening.
 
Because at the end of the day, it's not about protecting anyone. It's about delusionally kidding yourself that you're doing something productive. White knights love this shit because they can play the saviour role while directing the misogyny they want to direct at cis women, towards trans women.
 
Give me a ****ing break.
 
You want to protect women? You protect all of us. Cis, trans, Muslim, black, queer, disabled - not just the pretty blonde girls you can weaponised the fertility of, while reducing them to fragile, delicate dolls.
Bigotry is not activism. Hatred is not reform. It's not the answer. It's the ****ing problem. What is misogyny if not systematic widespread acceptable hate?
 
If you actually want to protect women, you would do so in ways that actually count. But you won't. Why would you? There's safety in throwing stones at trans women because it means you don't need to throw them at yourselves."
 
Edited by leicsmac
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jon the Hat

Jon the Hat

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

One moment...I do know someone who does.

So in summary because there is already variation in physical capability of women, we should let men complete as women?  Why have separate categories for women at all then?  Let men win everything where muscle mass and body size is an advantage and let the girls concentrate on the stuff where that is less relevant and skill is more important.  Except women want to compete against each other to be the fastest swimmer or runner, and they have that right, and some bloke deciding he is a woman and taking that form them is utter sexist bollocks.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

So in summary because there is already variation in physical capability of women, we should let men complete as women?  Why have separate categories for women at all then?  Let men win everything where muscle mass and body size is an advantage and let the girls concentrate on the stuff where that is less relevant and skill is more important.  Except women want to compete against each other to be the fastest swimmer or runner, and they have that right, and some bloke deciding he is a woman and taking that form them is utter sexist bollocks.

...except the part where HRT's effects on the aforementioned muscle mass and body size are far from certain and the rather patchy record of trans athletes in events (where they've been allowed to compete) is testament to that. I can quote scientific literature on this if needed.

 

And, with all due respect, this is a very "easy" topic for going on about sexism and "defending women" - easy target, lots of clout. I would hope that if one really cared about the matter there would be equally strong feelings about other, possibly more important matters for women - like some of the ones mentioned above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
marbles

marbles

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...except the part where HRT's effects on the aforementioned muscle mass and body size are far from certain and the rather patchy record of trans athletes in events (where they've been allowed to compete) is testament to that. I can quote scientific literature on this if needed.

 

And, with all due respect, this is a very "easy" topic for going on about sexism and "defending women" - easy target, lots of clout. I would hope that if one really cared about the matter there would be equally strong feelings about other, possibly more important matters for women - like some of the ones mentioned above.

Sooo, sh1t all over one group in order to make another group feel good about themselves. 

Then if the first group has an issue, tell them they have other issues they should be concerned with ??

 

Very disappointed in you @leicsmac 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, marbles said:

Sooo, sh1t all over one group in order to make another group feel good about themselves. 

Then if the first group has an issue, tell them they have other issues they should be concerned with ??

 

Very disappointed in you @leicsmac 

 

 

:dunno: This whole chain of conversation began with a politician who would according to his beliefs be happy to see women "barefoot and pregnant" (perhaps that's a bit much but it's the general idea) deciding to perform some incredibly performative allyship by shitting on a much more marginalised group.

 

This whole situation is incredibly complex, far more so than deSantis or any of the contributors on here, including myself, can really sift through. I take issue with people with power pulling these kinds of incredibly hypocritical stunts on those that have much less.

 

As per above, the trans community are, barring a few very-well publicised exceptions (because of course, they have to be demonised), not a threat to cis women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
marbles

marbles

Posted
Posted

Not a threat to woman?

Really?

Potentially taking scholarships away, or careers in professional sports sure sounds threatening to me.  
It really is a damn shame that one group of people (woman) has to suffer setbacks in order to make another group (trans) happy.

But hey, you’re okay with it.
 


 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, marbles said:

Not a threat to woman?

Really?

Potentially taking scholarships away, or careers in professional sports sure sounds threatening to me.  
It really is a damn shame that one group of people (woman) has to suffer setbacks in order to make another group (trans) happy.

But hey, you’re okay with it.
 


 

...hence the "barring a few well-publicised exceptions" in the previous post.

 

There does have to be some balance struck in this case and the issue needs looking into with care and attention to all parties involved, but deSantis doesn't want balance and I'm reasonably sure he doesn't care about women's rights unless it's politically expedient for him to do so anyway.

 

I feel no need whatsoever to apologise for this stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
marbles

marbles

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...hence the "barring a few well-publicised exceptions" in the previous post.

 

There does have to be some balance struck in this case and the issue needs looking into with care and attention to all parties involved, but deSantis doesn't want balance and I'm reasonably sure he doesn't care about women's rights unless it's politically expedient for him to do so anyway.

 

I feel no need whatsoever to apologise for this stance.

Every last thing said and done by politicians, is done for politically motivated reasons.  You dont like him, but he is no different than any other elected official.

 

I see no reason you would ever apologize for your opinion, just like I will never apologize for mine - its the benefit of freedom! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, marbles said:

Every last thing said and done by politicians, is done for politically motivated reasons.  You dont like him, but he is no different than any other elected official.

 

I see no reason you would ever apologize for your opinion, just like I will never apologize for mine - its the benefit of freedom! 

Fair to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jon the Hat

Jon the Hat

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

...except the part where HRT's effects on the aforementioned muscle mass and body size are far from certain and the rather patchy record of trans athletes in events (where they've been allowed to compete) is testament to that. I can quote scientific literature on this if needed.

 

And, with all due respect, this is a very "easy" topic for going on about sexism and "defending women" - easy target, lots of clout. I would hope that if one really cared about the matter there would be equally strong feelings about other, possibly more important matters for women - like some of the ones mentioned above.

This is pure whataboutery.  I feel strongly about all those issues too, but you posted about this one.

 

I agree the aforementioned politician a religious nut, and his motivations questionable, but that doesn't mean he is wrong about everything.

 

Are blaming "a few exceptions" is completely missing the point.  We have established and long fought for categories for women in categories from language to public policy to sport to prisons to bathrooms to scholarships for a reason, and to dismiss that in favour of a tiny tiny minority whose feeling might get hurt is utter nonsense.  It won't stand.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

This is pure whataboutery.  I feel strongly about all those issues too, but you posted about this one.

 

I agree the aforementioned politician a religious nut, and his motivations questionable, but that doesn't mean he is wrong about everything.

 

Are blaming "a few exceptions" is completely missing the point.  We have established and long fought for categories for women in categories from language to public policy to sport to prisons to bathrooms to scholarships for a reason, and to dismiss that in favour of a tiny tiny minority whose feeling might get hurt is utter nonsense.  It won't stand.

I'm sure that you do. I'm also sure that deSantis doesn't, hence my post in the first place.

 

As I said above, this is a complex issue that he is trying to simplify and use to capitalise for political gain. That reductive approach is what I'm questioning here, not the entire issue which does need careful scrutiny (even if I have my own viewpoint on the debate, I don't deny the debate exists). Sorry if that wasn't clear

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Finnaldo

Finnaldo

Posted
Posted

Would it not make more sense just to have trans men/trans women divisions? They get to identify as their gender and there’s no controversy around biology and genetics. Seems the most productive way of dealing with it, I don’t think it could be considered transphobic in the same way not having mixed men’s/women’s divisions isn’t sexist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

Would it not make more sense just to have trans men/trans women divisions? They get to identify as their gender and there’s no controversy around biology and genetics. Seems the most productive way of dealing with it, I don’t think it could be considered transphobic in the same way not having mixed men’s/women’s divisions isn’t sexist?

Better to have divisions based on something other than a gender binary in the first place.

 

I'm sure that's possible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...