Turn on thread page Beta

Labour discussing plans to include trans women on women only shortlists watch

    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkilled)
    I find the acronym LGBTQ offensive because it is exclusionary to straight white able-bodied cisgendered males.
    Theres nothing wrong with being a straight cis-het male (lgbtq had nothing to do with disabilities so i excluded that)
    What is wrong is your inability to accept that how other live and identify isnt really your business
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkilled)
    I'm afraid chromosomes will never go away, my friend no matter how many dicks you chop off.
    No one is saying that. Other than morons like you that can only construct strawman after strawman.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkilled)
    A man does not best represent a woman.
    But it's the woman's choice (vote) if she thinks this man represents her views better than some woman.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    Again, similar situation. It was a training session without a number of their players whilst rotating their team resulting in a lack of cohesion. There's also the fact that they have beaten youth teams in the past. They were not playing to get results, "We’ve played probably 40 matches against boys over the last 18 months and the objectives are always the same, to test out our players to find out their strengths and weaknesses to see where our team structure is good and where it’s not good."

    I don't think all sports should be integrated in terms of sex, so we agree to an extent. Just don't use silly examples.
    A 7-0 thrashing is not a silly example you numpty.

    There is no men's team that would lose to U 15s. You're also forgetting that these boys' teams aren't exactly top of the line either. Rotation or not, those are still the best women those countries have to offer, be it the top 11 or the top 30. Your excuses are laughable.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    how do people not get trans women aren't women?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    A 7-0 thrashing is not a silly example you numpty.

    There is no men's team that would lose to U 15s. You're also forgetting that these boys' teams aren't exactly top of the line either. Rotation or not, those are still the best women those countries have to offer, be it the top 11 or the top 30. Your excuses are laughable.
    Excuses? Just providing a justification. Look into digesting it. It was an informal warm-up training session where they were testing out new players and tactics. They weren't playing for results.

    Your lack of understanding shines through where you describe the opposing team as not 'top of the line' - they were a youth wing of a professional men's football team and not some random blokes knocking about.

    Sure, 7-0 is bad. But when you take into account the nature of the game and the fact that they have beaten these teams before - it really shouldnt be an argument. Again, dont use silly examples.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    Excuses? Just providing a justification. Look into digesting it. It was an informal warm-up training session where they were testing out new players and tactics. They weren't playing for results.

    Your lack of understanding shines through where you describe the opposing team as not 'top of the line' - they were a youth wing of a professional men's football team and not some random blokes knocking about.

    Sure, 7-0 is bad. But when you take into account the nature of the game and the fact that they have beaten these teams before - it really shouldnt be an argument. Again, dont use silly examples.
    I was in a youth team of a professional men's football team. I was nowhere near good enough to make it. Afaik, no one else did either of my year group.

    Again, don't be a numpty, if you think "trying things" would lead to a men's team to losing to a boy's team. Already the difference in play between U21 and men's is so huge you can visibly see it in a game. Much less U15. But hey, losing 7-0 to boys is absolutely no indication that women shouldn't play against men. Nope. Not at all.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    I was in a youth team of a professional men's football team. I was nowhere near good enough to make it. Afaik, no one else did either of my year group.

    Again, don't be a numpty, if you think "trying things" would lead to a men's team to losing to a boy's team. Already the difference in play between U21 and men's is so huge you can visibly see it in a game. Much less U15. But hey, losing 7-0 to boys is absolutely no indication that women shouldn't play against men. Nope. Not at all.
    It's not down to just 'trying things'. Why are you being silly and not reading my responses? Also, I'm not attempting to make the case here that women should be playing against men which suggests a misunderstanding of my responses. I'm attempting to demonstrate why you're being ridiculous with the whole "HURR HURR LOOK AT THESE PROFESSIONAL WOMEN LOSE AGAINST BOYS".
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    It's not down to just 'trying things'. Why are you being silly and not reading my responses? Also, I'm not attempting to make the case here that women should be playing against men which suggests a misunderstanding of my responses. I'm attempting to demonstrate why you're being ridiculous with the whole "HURR HURR LOOK AT THESE PROFESSIONAL WOMEN LOSE AGAINST BOYS".
    You are trying to justify their loss to mean that the loss is not an indication that women shouldn't play football against men. Premise: lose to boys, of course lose to men. Your counter: well there's a reason for the loss, it wasn't that important, etc. Why are you being daft and not actually understanding what you are reading?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    You are trying to justify their loss to mean that the loss is not an indication that women shouldn't play football against men. Premise: lose to boys, of course lose to men. Your counter: well there's a reason for the loss, it wasn't that important, etc. Why are you being daft and not actually understanding what you are reading?
    I don't actually think football should be an integrated sport because men would have the advantage.

    So why have I made the responses? Because your examples are silly. That's all there is to it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    I don't actually think football should be an integrated sport because men would have the advantage.

    So why have I made the responses? Because your examples are silly. That's all there is to it.
    Exactly, because you think the examples don't form a good argument.

    You're wrong. And looking mighty silly in the process.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Exactly, because you think the examples don't form a good argument.

    You're wrong. And looking mighty silly in the process.
    Please tell me how I am wrong.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    Please tell me how I am wrong.
    "Oh a bit of tactic practice and player rotation is such a deficit" :rolleyes:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    "Oh a bit of tactic practice and player rotation is such a deficit" :rolleyes:
    I've responded with more than that. Why you can't understand that is beyond me.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    I've responded with more than that. Why you can't understand that is beyond me.
    Oh yea, they sometime do win against boys. My bad, so much better now.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Oh yea, they sometime do win against boys. My bad, so much better now.
    This is the first time on this site I have been at a loss for words. It's amazing how you insist on your points despite being given context and ample justification.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    This is the first time on this site I have been at a loss for words. It's amazing how you insist on your points despite being given context and ample justification.
    I am amazed at the arrogance you show in thinking you simply writing something is "ample justification".

    Your "justification" boils down to "I think in a friendly game trying something and rotating players is a good enough reason for a 7-0 trashing".

    That is almost as laughable as your claim that it is "ample justification".
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    I am amazed at the arrogance you show in thinking you simply writing something is "ample justification".

    Your "justification" boils down to "I think in a friendly game trying something and rotating players is a good enough reason for a 7-0 trashing".

    That is almost as laughable as your claim that it is "ample justification".
    Not quite. So far you have:

    i) Showed a lack of understanding of my responses.
    ii) Misrepresented my responses.
    iii) Showed a lack of understanding of your own points.
    iv) Omitted crucial information in your original post.

    The whole "HURR HURR LOOK AT THESE PROFESSIONAL WOMEN LOSE AGAINST BOYS" is stupid.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    Not quite. So far you have:

    i) Showed a lack of understanding of my responses.
    ii) Misrepresented my responses.
    iii) Showed a lack of understanding of your own points.
    iv) Omitted crucial information in your original post.

    The whole "HURR HURR LOOK AT THESE PROFESSIONAL WOMEN LOSE AGAINST BOYS" is stupid.
    Are you talking about yourself? Projecting much?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Are you talking about yourself? Projecting much?
    No, it's about yourself funnily enough.
 
 
 
Poll
Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.