- Jun 3, 2018
- 221
- 543
The genderedintelligence.co.uk website would probably be worth looking at but I think talking to the local fa would also be beneficial as it's such a minefield and they have knowledge of the best way to deal with issues arising
Gendered Intelligence have knowledge on the best way to deal with the fact that a person is not good enough to make the team? What has that to do with them?The genderedintelligence.co.uk website would probably be worth looking at but I think talking to the local fa would also be beneficial as it's such a minefield and they have knowledge of the best way to deal with issues arising
So the league kicked the poor girl out just for being good? Fucking hell.I have no idea how you would handle that situation (aside from creating a transgender team).
However it reminds me of when I was a kid (think it was under 11s) we had a striker who was a girl. She was top goalscorer in the league and we played the league leaders and beat them 5-2 (she scored a hatrick).
The team then complained to the league and she was told she could no longer play football for us. It even made the BBC and they came in and recorded us taking shots where I proceeded to fluff my shot and skew it wide, it made the 6 o'clock news.
At the time I couldn't understand it and I was more than a little furious, must admit I am still baffled by it. I think there was a problem with the pitch.
Shame about the girl too.
(I’ve not read any other comments as yet)An issue has arisen at my my boys under 15 team that is causing the club an issue, and I'm wondering if anyone else has experienced anything similar.
A few months back "a girl" moved to the area(in calling her that for the purposes of this thread because biologically that is what she is). She came to the club on sign up day and said she classified herself an non binary and wanted to play in the boys team even though the club has a girls team for her age group u15. They are allowed to play mixed at that age so the club had no issue with it. Fast forward a few weeks and the parents have had a word with the coach that the boys are being too rough with their child in training. Fact is they are being no different to how they are with each other. The coach explained this and again mentioned the girls team to and the parents took offense to this, saying their child was being discriminated against. They are now asking why she hasn't yet featured in a competitive match(pre lock down) and would lodge a formal complaint if this persisted when they resume. Problem is this girl is very slight and weak in training and would fare even worse in the league.
Anyone experienced anything similar and how it was dealt with?
but the parents are kicking up a fuss because of the added non-binary gender element which is helpful to precisely nobody, least of all the player.
Yes, ok, but taken at face value of the OP ... she. is. not. good. enough. for. the. team.You may be right, but I think we do need to be a little bit careful about rushing to judgements in situations like this. If someone is part of a discriminated against group, or are parents of a child that is part of a discriminated against group, it makes sense that they would see things in a totally different way to someone who has not experienced the form prejudice or discrimination which is alleged. We are all shaped by our experiences and those experiences both consciously and unconsciously influence how we perceive and respond to any given situation. Sometimes we might overreact to a situation based on things that have happened to us in the past but on the other hand we might bring important insight which someone who has not had those experiences lacks.
Yeah it's complicated. If I'm honest I don't personally believe it's even a thing. I mean in that for me you are biologically one or the other. That said I'm perfectly happy to try to use what ever terminology that makes that person feel comfortable. The issue for me is like you say it takes some getting used to and is certainly not something that comes naturally especially to older generations. As such I actively try to avoid conversation with the child in question and it's parents because it's easier than getting it wrong.
I consider myself under-educated on trans issues and therefore usually avoid commenting on them because I don't know what I'm talking about, but even so I do feel the need to point out that it's probably a bit insensitive to refer to the kid as an "it" in that sentence: "and their parents" would supply the common courtesy of recognising the subject of your sentence as a human rather than an "it".
If you were typing that sentence out about another boy or girl in the teams and didn't use "his/her parents", I'm sure you would have typed "their parents" instead of "its parents". Would be a good place to start as an easy win for being appropriately sensitive.
Actually, he can say 'guys' as there is plenty of evidence that the term 'guys' although previously gender-specific, is now used in a gender-neutral fashion everywhere. You just need to watch a little bit of television to find countless examples of 'guys' being used to refer to a mixed-gender group. I can understand that he may not be comfortable doing so, given the situation, but technically, there is nothing that stops him from using the term.Honestly it's really confusing for an old schooler like myself. It's pretty crazy that the coach can't even say stuff like "well played guys" at the end of training, because he's been told it may offend one individual. It's like he said having a girl in the squad would be no issue as he'd just say boys and girls, and now he's having to refer to them constantly as "team". Sounds trivial but in the heat of a game it's a lot harder to do, having to constantly think about what he's saying.
Cheers for that, most helpful and I'll pass it on.If it's any assistance to anyone, there are what is termed 'gender neutral pronouns' that you can use if you'd like a specific term that avoids using 'it' and 'they' etc. There are a number, but here's one example - it starts from the root 'ze'. It goes like this:
ze = he / she
zim = him / her
zir = his / her
zis = his / hers
zieself = himself / herself
I'm not suggesting these terms must be used, just putting them there if it helps people engage more comfortably. I'll use the terms in the rest of the post just to give an actual example of how it works in practice (although it's fairly self-explanatory! ).
With regard the situation itself, the individual's parents are on shaky ground. If, as you say, Trix, that when ze arrived, ze specifically stated that ze wanted to play in the boys' team, then zir parents can't then claim that their child is being discriminated against.
@McArchibald you stated that it would be unfair for zim to be getting preferential treatment (I'm only referring to your post specifically because it was the first to speak of it - not because I'm looking to drag you over the coals). Philosophically, you're correct. However, the Equality Act 2010 allows for preferential treatment because people in protected groups sometimes need what may seem like preferential treatment because they are naturally disadvantaged - it's considered a levelling of the playing field (rather apt, given what we're talking about)
However, in this situation, that doesn't extend to the club altering their practices, most especially because they have facilities that cater to the specific needs of the individual - in this case (according to zer parents) that ze not be treated too roughly, etc, etc. The girls team (I'm assuming) has those circumstances, therefore ze can always play for the girls team.
The supreme irony is that the child's parents have actually restricted themselves by trying to claim discrimination. If it was their insistence that their child play in the boys team and therefore rejecting the girls team altogether, they are actually arguing against gender equality, because they are essentially saying that the natural state of competition is male. If they say that the girls team is not competitive enough, they are essentially saying that girls are lesser. Not very woke, is it? This is one of the biggest problems in the fight for real equality - idiots who think that equal rights means they can do as they want and anything that doesn't serve that is automatically discriminatory. They forget that along with rights come responsibilities, one of which is the requirement to actually be equal.
The above may seem like I'm trying to say the situation is easy. Unfortunately, even not having any direct knowledge, I have no doubt that it's anything but. I can easily imagine the manner in which the 'injured' party is conducting itself: hectoring, a little shrill, perhaps? It's the usual flavour. And again, it damages the real fight for equal rights.
Should transgender, or non-binary, or questioning people (as well as all people in all the other myriad vulnerable groupings) be protected? Absolutely, because discrimination (and pretty horrific discrimination, at that) is still very much part of all human societies.
Does it mean that people who are part of vulnerable groups should expect everyone to conform to their specific definition of what equality is? No.
The Equality Act is quite a helpful piece of legislation. But, contrary to what people may have been told by the likes of the Daily Hate-Mail, it's not a blanket bomb that gives those it covers anything and everything they want. If one were to look at the number of equality cases taken to court, you'd see that a large proportion fail - a lot of the times because the complaint has no standing in law as it's currently drafted. (Whether the law as it's currently drafted is sufficient is a different argument).
Again, we come back to the idea of rights and responsibilities. If you have rights, you also have responsibilities. One has a right to not be discriminated against, but along with that, one has a responsibility to know what discrimination actually is. Essentially, what you said McArchibald - knowing what is and isn't unfair.
There was one other individual point that I thought was of interest too and then I'll stop because I've gone on faaaaar too long.
Actually, he can say 'guys' as there is plenty of evidence that the term 'guys' although previously gender-specific, is now used in a gender-neutral fashion everywhere. You just need to watch a little bit of television to find countless examples of 'guys' being used to refer to a mixed-gender group. I can understand that he may not be comfortable doing so, given the situation, but technically, there is nothing that stops him from using the term.
It's a tough situation, doubtless, but it sounds like over-protective parents trying to get what they want and enflaming the situation with very emotive arguments. They seem to be refusing to see that the solution is right in front of them because it would require them to concede they're specific expectation of what equality should be.
I have little sympathy for them, because they are actually working against the greater interests of their child. I have sympathy for the child in being put in this situation. If ze wants to identify with a specific gender or not I don't feel ze is old enough to determine, but if ze has, then that's zir state of mind. Ze should be guided through this stage to see if it's permanent or not. But picking a fight with a football club is a terrible choice. There are far greater, more important (and let's face it, more 'correct') fights that they can and should be picking.
This is an incredible post fellaIf it's any assistance to anyone, there are what is termed 'gender neutral pronouns' that you can use if you'd like a specific term that avoids using 'it' and 'they' etc. There are a number, but here's one example - it starts from the root 'ze'. It goes like this:
ze = he / she
zim = him / her
zir = his / her
zis = his / hers
zieself = himself / herself
I'm not suggesting these terms must be used, just putting them there if it helps people engage more comfortably. I'll use the terms in the rest of the post just to give an actual example of how it works in practice (although it's fairly self-explanatory! ).
With regard the situation itself, the individual's parents are on shaky ground. If, as you say, Trix, that when ze arrived, ze specifically stated that ze wanted to play in the boys' team, then zir parents can't then claim that their child is being discriminated against.
@McArchibald you stated that it would be unfair for zim to be getting preferential treatment (I'm only referring to your post specifically because it was the first to speak of it - not because I'm looking to drag you over the coals). Philosophically, you're correct. However, the Equality Act 2010 allows for preferential treatment because people in protected groups sometimes need what may seem like preferential treatment because they are naturally disadvantaged - it's considered a levelling of the playing field (rather apt, given what we're talking about)
However, in this situation, that doesn't extend to the club altering their practices, most especially because they have facilities that cater to the specific needs of the individual - in this case (according to zer parents) that ze not be treated too roughly, etc, etc. The girls team (I'm assuming) has those circumstances, therefore ze can always play for the girls team.
The supreme irony is that the child's parents have actually restricted themselves by trying to claim discrimination. If it was their insistence that their child play in the boys team and therefore rejecting the girls team altogether, they are actually arguing against gender equality, because they are essentially saying that the natural state of competition is male. If they say that the girls team is not competitive enough, they are essentially saying that girls are lesser. Not very woke, is it? This is one of the biggest problems in the fight for real equality - idiots who think that equal rights means they can do as they want and anything that doesn't serve that is automatically discriminatory. They forget that along with rights come responsibilities, one of which is the requirement to actually be equal.
The above may seem like I'm trying to say the situation is easy. Unfortunately, even not having any direct knowledge, I have no doubt that it's anything but. I can easily imagine the manner in which the 'injured' party is conducting itself: hectoring, a little shrill, perhaps? It's the usual flavour. And again, it damages the real fight for equal rights.
Should transgender, or non-binary, or questioning people (as well as all people in all the other myriad vulnerable groupings) be protected? Absolutely, because discrimination (and pretty horrific discrimination, at that) is still very much part of all human societies.
Does it mean that people who are part of vulnerable groups should expect everyone to conform to their specific definition of what equality is? No.
The Equality Act is quite a helpful piece of legislation. But, contrary to what people may have been told by the likes of the Daily Hate-Mail, it's not a blanket bomb that gives those it covers anything and everything they want. If one were to look at the number of equality cases taken to court, you'd see that a large proportion fail - a lot of the times because the complaint has no standing in law as it's currently drafted. (Whether the law as it's currently drafted is sufficient is a different argument).
Again, we come back to the idea of rights and responsibilities. If you have rights, you also have responsibilities. One has a right to not be discriminated against, but along with that, one has a responsibility to know what discrimination actually is. Essentially, what you said McArchibald - knowing what is and isn't unfair.
There was one other individual point that I thought was of interest too and then I'll stop because I've gone on faaaaar too long.
Actually, he can say 'guys' as there is plenty of evidence that the term 'guys' although previously gender-specific, is now used in a gender-neutral fashion everywhere. You just need to watch a little bit of television to find countless examples of 'guys' being used to refer to a mixed-gender group. I can understand that he may not be comfortable doing so, given the situation, but technically, there is nothing that stops him from using the term.
It's a tough situation, doubtless, but it sounds like over-protective parents trying to get what they want and enflaming the situation with very emotive arguments. They seem to be refusing to see that the solution is right in front of them because it would require them to concede they're specific expectation of what equality should be.
I have little sympathy for them, because they are actually working against the greater interests of their child. I have sympathy for the child in being put in this situation. If ze wants to identify with a specific gender or not I don't feel ze is old enough to determine, but if ze has, then that's zir state of mind. Ze should be guided through this stage to see if it's permanent or not. But picking a fight with a football club is a terrible choice. There are far greater, more important (and let's face it, more 'correct') fights that they can and should be picking.
If it's any assistance to anyone, there are what is termed 'gender neutral pronouns' that you can use if you'd like a specific term that avoids using 'it' and 'they' etc. There are a number, but here's one example - it starts from the root 'ze'. It goes like this:
ze = he / she
zim = him / her
zir = his / her
zis = his / hers
zieself = himself / herself