Transgender

[ShanDog]

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.

 

[CM86]

Yeah.

Ok, I'll do it. But only because you wanted it.

 

[DemonTim]

So edgy. Got your own waleed aly and Peter hellier thing going on with Gough.

Although whatever it is you're wasting your time on that no one has requested, it's amusing that you'll go to that much effort when no one cares

 

[CM86]

I jumped on bigfooty, to add to a point I'd made earlier, in reply to TimmeT.
I've then looked at the newest page, to double check my comment and make sure I hadn't made any stupid spelling errors.

C'mon, Gough put your money where your mouth is. Where did I say something so offensive? Are you going to actually stand by what you said for once? Or are you going to prove you're nothing more than a wannabe shock jock that makes uninformed remarks they never have to back up?

I've opened to the latest page, and at the top of the page (p39) is the above post from Herculez.
It's clear that Gough has accused him of something, and that that something was "something so offensive".
I then skip over the quote block from Madman, that I now see has the post in it. But unfortunately I didn't read it.

I've then replied to another poster, and as an afterthought decided to say something nice (relative) about Herculez. Because I had thought he was just like most of the other posters in this thread, but have come to realise that he isn't. So I had been lumping him in with the others, and reading his posts with a bent that wasn't required.
It was also a bit of a sweeping gesture, to try and show that I'm not always completely one sided.

Having read some of kirsti's posts, I feel I can answer that.
Yes, there could be concerns, such as the concerns that Kirsti has voiced.
Which is why she has repeatedly posted about the changes in rules for the AFL and IOC.


Also, Gough I don't think it's fair to have lumped herculez09 in with the other posters. I can't think of where he was offensive or insulting. He may have liked some posts that weren't great, but he hasn't posted anything that I feel is derogatory or insulting.

Now in reply to the above post, you posted the following.

So since you wanna go with the same viewpoint

Can you please quote these pot shots?

Which, to begin with... was wrong.
I'd just said Herculez wasn't doing anything wrong. So how is that me saying I agree with Gough's viewpoint?
But I guessed at what you were talking about, and gave you a few names of people who have actually posted offensive things.

Igon and TimmeT spring to mind. As well as the recent slur from Cloked. Did you not notice them? Do you want me to go back through the thread and re-post them?
What do you want me to do about the deleted posts?
Did you see my previous post about SpartanWA's deleted thread?

Then you replied with this.

You said herculez was specifically not like the rest, so you're saying I've made pot shots. Igor TimmeT and cloked weren't even mentioned by Gough. You haven't even referenced any of the people Gough said we're doing it (and interestingly Gough didn't even mention those doing the actual potting)

And yes. I called cloked out on it and reported the post. Kristi actually liked me doing so, which was confusing because I'm been accused of being transphobic by her.

"You said herculez was specifically not like the rest, so you're saying I've made pot shots." I ignored this false logic, because you always have so much spurious s**t in your posts, and then spend pages being disingenuous about it.

In this post though, you talk about who Gough mentions, so to get a better idea of the discussion we are having, and to see if I was barking up the wrong tree (with my side comment that was an afterthought in a post...) I went looking for the actual post.

I read the post and looked at the posts around it, and interpreted it as Gough calling out people who were almost seeming to be attacking Kirsti, to be as open and honest as she has been.

Then we spent the next page, with me trying to explain my original post, and my reasoning for it, and you getting things more and more convoluted, and making things up.



All because I have started to like Herculez of late, and in a moment of weakness, went against Gough, and sided with Herc.

 

[DemonTim]

I jumped on bigfooty, to add to a point I'd made earlier, in reply to TimmeT.
I've then looked at the newest page, to double check my comment and make sure I hadn't made any stupid spelling errors.

I've opened to the latest page, and at the top of the page (p39) is the above post from Herculez.
It's clear that Gough has accused him of something, and that that something was "something so offensive".
I then skip over the quote block from Madman, that I now see has the post in it. But unfortunately I didn't read it.

I've then replied to another poster, and as an afterthought decided to say something nice (relative) about Herculez. Because I had thought he was just like most of the other posters in this thread, but have come to realise that he isn't. So I had been lumping him in with the others, and reading his posts with a bent that wasn't required.
It was also a bit of a sweeping gesture, to try and show that I'm not always completely one sided.


Now in reply to the above post, you posted the following.

Which, to begin with... was wrong.
I'd just said Herculez wasn't doing anything wrong. So how is that me saying I agree with Gough's viewpoint?
But I guessed at what you were talking about, and gave you a few names of people who have actually posted offensive things.


Then you replied with this.


"You said herculez was specifically not like the rest, so you're saying I've made pot shots." I ignored this false logic, because you always have so much spurious s**t in your posts, and then spend pages being disingenuous about it.

In this post though, you talk about who Gough mentions, so to get a better idea of the discussion we are having, and to see if I was barking up the wrong tree (with my side comment that was an afterthought in a post...) I went looking for the actual post.

I read the post and looked at the posts around it, and interpreted it as Gough calling out people who were almost seeming to be attacking Kirsti, to be as open and honest as she has been.

Then we spent the next page, with me trying to explain my original post, and my reasoning for it, and you getting things more and more convoluted, and making things up.



All because I have started to like Herculez of late, and in a moment of weakness, went against Gough, and sided with Herc.

And yet all of that makes zero sense. Still.

So you just wanted to say something nice about herculez, and you hadn't read goughs post. But you knew Gough had questioned numerous posters...

Yeah. I'm the one "making things up"

 

[CM86]

And yet all of that makes zero sense. Still.

So you just wanted to say something nice about herculez, and you hadn't read goughs post. But you knew Gough had questioned numerous posters...

Yeah. I'm the one "making things up"

I didn't know Gough had questioned numerous posters... You did just make that up...

I honestly don't think I could explain it any clearer than I have...


* me...

 

[DemonTim]

I didn't know Gough had questioned numerous posters... You did just make that up...

I honestly don't think I could explain it any clearer than I have...


**** me...

"Also, Gough I don't think it's fair to have lumped herculez09 in with the other posters. I can't think of where he was offensive or insulting. He may have liked some posts that weren't great, but he hasn't posted anything that I feel is derogatory or insulting."

 

[CM86]

"Also, Gough I don't think it's fair to have lumped herculez09 in with the other posters. I can't think of where he was offensive or insulting. He may have liked some posts that weren't great, but he hasn't posted anything that I feel is derogatory or insulting."

Yes, did you read my explanation? It was a big post, but I did it all for you.
It was in terms of what I was thinking, and how I viewed the thread (possibly obnoxiously thinking I held a common view).

Yes I understand how you can interpret my post. But it wasn't what I actually meant.

 

[cartwright]

Can't ignore mods.

Sure you can. I've never used an ignore function on a forum.

I just ignore some people, outright.

Yes we can tell. It's probably why you only post here, in a non football section, of a football forum.



""

That's quite the stalkerish claim Tim

 

[DemonTim]

Yes, did you read my explanation? It was a big post, but I did it all for you.
It was in terms of what I was thinking, and how I viewed the thread (possibly obnoxiously thinking I held a common view).

Yes I understand how you can interpret my post. But it wasn't what I actually meant.

So you've cracked it at me for interpreting in a way that you can see why it was interpreted that way? Am I making it up, or are you saying it's there, just a different interpretation?

 

[DemonTim]

Sure you can. I've never used an ignore function on a forum.

I just ignore some people, outright.



That's quite the stalkerish claim Tim

Took a click onto his profile, it was a hunch I had

Maybe ask chief to remove the option if you consider it stalking

OMG you know my name. Dats so stalkerish!!!!!

 

[CM86]

So you've cracked it at me for interpreting in a way that you can see why it was interpreted that way? Am I making it up, or are you saying it's there, just a different interpretation?

I didn't crack anything... I've spent this entire time trying to explain to you that you interpreted my post incorrectly...
Just because you've interpreted something a certain way, doesn't give it actual validation...

It isn't there, but I can see how you have incorrectly interpreted it.

 

[DemonTim]

I didn't crack anything... I've spent this entire time trying to explain to you that you interpreted my post incorrectly...
Just because you've interpreted something a certain way, doesn't give it actual validation...

It isn't there, but I can see how you have incorrectly interpreted it.

Obviously it doesn't validate. But the person who said it, saying they can understand why it was interpreted in a certain way probably does.

 

[DemonTim]

If you're saying you can see why it was taken the wrong way that's fine, I'm man enough to admit that I was wrong if that's the case. A misunderstanding from both parties

 

[CM86]

If you're saying you can see why it was taken the wrong way that's fine, I'm man enough to admit that I was wrong if that's the case. A misunderstanding from both parties

I can see how you could interpret it. Not why. But it sounds great.
I definitely should have looked at Gough's post before trying to be nice to Herculez.
But it's never good to make a statement on something, without knowing all of the information, which is what I did. Sorry everyone.

 

[kirsti]

I reckon its a good time to call the first 41 pages a draw no winners no losers

I would love to get back to chatting about the subject hopefully this time we can all play the ball not the man biological or trans.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

I can see how you could interpret it. Not why. But it sounds great.
I definitely should have looked at Gough's post before trying to be nice to Herculez.
But it's never good to make a statement on something, without knowing all of the information, which is what I did. Sorry everyone.

The problem was that even Gough's claims about laying yourself bare or whatever on the site are false. I have on different topics, here's an example: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/female-violence-against-men.1155295/
Alternatively, my admission the other day is another example.

It is indisputable that Gough was claiming that we were all attacking her. We weren't. When we asked him why he thought that, he refused to come back. At least I, you, DemonTim, and so forth have the decency to explain our positions, and if wrong, concede that we were mistaken.

 

[DemonTim]

The problem was that even Gough's claims about laying yourself bare or whatever on the site are false. I have on different topics, here's an example: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/female-violence-against-men.1155295/
Alternatively, my admission the other day is another example.

It is indisputable that Gough was claiming that we were all attacking her. We weren't. When we asked him why he thought that, he refused to come back. At least I, you, DemonTim, and so forth have the decency to explain our positions, and if wrong, concede that we were mistaken.

Just read through that. Horrible s**t to deal with. Sounds a lot like stuff my best mate went through. I had to be an eventual witness for him when she tried to go to the cops and say he was abusive.

 

[CM86]

The problem was that even Gough's claims about laying yourself bare or whatever on the site are false. I have on different topics, here's an example: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/female-violence-against-men.1155295/
Alternatively, my admission the other day is another example.

It is indisputable that Gough was claiming that we were all attacking her. We weren't. When we asked him why he thought that, he refused to come back. At least I, you, DemonTim, and so forth have the decency to explain our positions, and if wrong, concede that we were mistaken.

Sorry to hear about that as well. You have been through a lot, and I hope things keep getting better for you.

Gough wasn't claiming that you were attacking her. But I don't see how his post can be read, without it being assumed that you were.

Demontim was making the all or nothing, black or white argument. While Kirsti was not appearing to accept the binary logic on such a complex issue. You were trying to moderate it and explain it clearer to Kirsti. I think you were actually helping, rather than attacking.

It wasn't a fair post from Gough. But I view it as someone who has been through similar situations through his life, and has just made a post out of frustration, calling out any posters who aren't agreeing with Kirsti. Rather than something malicious.

 

[Aeglos]

Is someone able to tag me if this thread ever goes back on topic and the discussion comes around to the biology of a trans athlete?

 

[DemonTim]

Sorry to hear about that as well. You have been through a lot, and I hope things keep getting better for you.

Gough wasn't claiming that you were attacking her. But I don't see how his post can be read, without it being assumed that you were.

Demontim was making the all or nothing, black or white argument. While Kirsti was not appearing to accept the binary logic on such a complex issue. You were trying to moderate it and explain it clearer to Kirsti. I think you were actually helping, rather than attacking.

It wasn't a fair post from Gough. But I view it as someone who has been through similar situations through his life, and has just made a post out of frustration, calling out any posters who aren't agreeing with Kirsti. Rather than something malicious.

I didn't mean to come across as that at all. I was just trying to show that there will always be people who feel discriminated against by the rules that are put in place

Herculez said he agreed with it, I think he was trying to help explain it so that it didn't get taken as an attack (which is wasnt)

I don't think I've ever said it's black and white. I said my view was that currently due to their not being enough research, that's trans women shouldn't compete with women, but I wasn't particularly strong in my views because of a lack of research into it. Aeglos elaborated well in a way similar to how I feel

 

[kirsti]

Is someone able to tag me if this thread ever goes back on topic and the discussion comes around to the biology of a trans athlete?

Definately you posted some great links I am reading through them and I would love to keep chatting about the issues with you.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Sorry to hear about that as well. You have been through a lot, and I hope things keep getting better for you.

Gough wasn't claiming that you were attacking her. But I don't see how his post can be read, without it being assumed that you were.

Demontim was making the all or nothing, black or white argument. While Kirsti was not appearing to accept the binary logic on such a complex issue. You were trying to moderate it and explain it clearer to Kirsti. I think you were actually helping, rather than attacking.

It wasn't a fair post from Gough. But I view it as someone who has been through similar situations through his life, and has just made a post out of frustration, calling out any posters who aren't agreeing with Kirsti. Rather than something malicious.

I appreciate the well wishes, but I'd imagine we've all gone through bad things in life!

I still believe that DT's line of questioning was reasonable as without exploring a topic that deeply, how can we all hope to understand it?
I for one learnt a lot from it. Prior to his questions, I'd never realllllly considered how divided transpeople could be on particular topics. Sometimes I'll err in perceiving minority groups to be homogeneous in nature. Thanks to that robust debate, which was free of any transphobia(not withstanding whoever it was that made the comment about how you should hear what he says when he's not online), I was able to learn more about how nuanced the trans community can be, with respect to both sport and bathroom policy. Questioning someone isn't intrinsically bad, it's only if that questioning is genuinely sinister in nature.

It's comments like Gough's I believe that stop people from being able to understand these issues further. I am a strong believer that sometimes it's better to hear someone with prejudices voice them, as then you are able to understand where their dislike stems from and address it. I think that largely this forum is reasonable in letting people voice their opinions - I've never received an infraction - but I was very, very hesitant to weigh in on that debate yesterday.

 

[kirsti]

The problem was that even Gough's claims about laying yourself bare or whatever on the site are false. I have on different topics, here's an example: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/female-violence-against-men.1155295/
Alternatively, my admission the other day is another example.

It is indisputable that Gough was claiming that we were all attacking her. We weren't. When we asked him why he thought that, he refused to come back. At least I, you, DemonTim, and so forth have the decency to explain our positions, and if wrong, concede that we were mistaken.

Herc I didn't take offence to your contributions and I get where you were coming from last night.

I am sorry to here of the troubles you have faced, your a good person I can clearly see that

 

[CM86]

I didn't mean to come across as that at all. I was just trying to show that there will always be people who feel discriminated against by the rules that are put in place

Herculez said he agreed with it, I think he was trying to help explain it so that it didn't get taken as an attack (which is wasnt)

I don't think I've ever said it's black and white. I said my view was that currently due to their not being enough research, that's trans women shouldn't compete with women, but I wasn't particularly strong in my views because of a lack of research into it. Aeglos elaborated well in a way similar to how I feel

Have to be honest... I saw the alert that you had quoted me, and I sighed... But this was a good post!

I have a problem of judging people on experience, and then viewing their posts through that lense.
To me, I saw it as a "gotcha" kind of thing.

I took your messages to mean that unless you accept everyone into a women's league, you are discriminating. Ignoring just how complex this issue is. And how most sports and the Olympics already have restrictions on entry for things like drug cheating, medically raising testosterone levels, that kind of thing.
And that it's hard enough to have society accept transsexuals in female only sports, that having no restrictions would just create huge outrage.

It didn't occur to me that other people hadn't already thought these things, so rather than engage in a discussion, or trying to explain my thoughts... I ignored you and put it down to disingenuous trolling.


Kirsti has pointed out a few times, that trans athletes have been a thing for a while. And that with the previous conditions, there had been no major problems. But she is concerned that with the changes in certain areas, problems could arise. This would not be good for transsexual athletes, because if they suddenly started winning everything, their accomplishments would be tarnished and our society would be outraged.


It is a difficult issue... I could claim tomorrow that I am a woman, and anyone who laughed at me or claimed it a lie, could be considered transphobic.

The problem lies in knowing someone's true intent.

 

[CM86]

I appreciate the well wishes, but I'd imagine we've all gone through bad things in life!

I still believe that DT's line of questioning was reasonable as without exploring a topic that deeply, how can we all hope to understand it?
I for one learnt a lot from it. Prior to his questions, I'd never realllllly considered how divided transpeople could be on particular topics. Sometimes I'll err in perceiving minority groups to be homogeneous in nature. Thanks to that robust debate, which was free of any transphobia(not withstanding whoever it was that made the comment about how you should hear what he says when he's not online), I was able to learn more about how nuanced the trans community can be, with respect to both sport and bathroom policy. Questioning someone isn't intrinsically bad, it's only if that questioning is genuinely sinister in nature.

It's comments like Gough's I believe that stop people from being able to understand these issues further. I am a strong believer that sometimes it's better to hear someone with prejudices voice them, as then you are able to understand where their dislike stems from and address it. I think that largely this forum is reasonable in letting people voice their opinions - I've never received an infraction - but I was very, very hesitant to weigh in on that debate yesterday.

Reading your post has given me perception that I didn't have. I obnoxiously didn't think that people wouldn't have thought of those things already. Transsexualism has been a thing for a long time, so I've had time to think those thoughts, and assumed that most other people had as well. I didn't think of it as deep, I thought of it as surface level thinking, to create a gotcha situation.
I think I look for agendas too much.

Again, I'll say that I don't think Gough's post was fair.
But, I think (like the difference between being a female, and competing as a female), there is a difference between someone voicing their prejudice... and someone deliberately giving out false information, to generate hate and fear.