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?
So the league kicked the poor girl out just for being good? Fucking hell.
(I’ve not read any other comments as yet)
Yes, ok, but taken at face value of the OP ... she. is. not. good. enough. for. the. team.
).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.
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.
