By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
It is difficult to keep up with what terminology is acceptable and what's not acceptable. I mean - when does the transition of non offensive to offensive actually occur and who decides it and what triggers the apparent expiry date? It's a tight rope now and if you slip up your completely f*cked. I'd hate to work in HR.
Exactly.
Language and terminology has moved on so much this century it`s enough to make your head spin. The social networks in this period imo are the melting pot of all that is right and wrong in our society. If you never use it, trust me, don`t start. It seems the place to go to see, every conceivable group have some agenda against another for a multitude of reasons, and more often than not amongst themselves. Politics and gender being the most diversive, with terms like Gammon, Terf, Cis, Non binary and many many more, plus old favourites such as Nazi, racist etc etc. It`s a minefield, and once in a while although we try to engage and understand we also trip up from time to time. It happens on here and we are supposed to all support the same team.
'You didn't know that was wrong, but now you do. If you do it again, I'll know you are doing it on purpose.'
2
Greg Clarke gone on 15:47 - Nov 11 with 1828 views
Sir Les to replace him? I would be delighted as long as others like Chris Ramsey stayed at the club. Les has done a very good job for us taking us from being a basket case of a club, restructuring the organisation and putting us on the road to sustainability, which is necessary if we are to remain in business and aim to be competitive and successful in the future.
If Ferdinand was to be offered and accept the position it would reflect well on the profile, image and progressive nature of our club. It may even give us a friend in the shady world of football governance.
I'm sure we could find someone, maybe even from within, to continue on the same path and with the work that he has achieved to date.
0
Greg Clarke gone on 15:55 - Nov 11 with 1801 views
Missing the point. He epitomises everything that the BAME see is wrong with our institutions.
Doesn't matter about the point, the fact that you have used offensive slurs would mean under woke Utopia, that you should now be forced to resign from your position hence forth and everyone should encourage a monstetous pile on. And if anyone dare leap to your defence, they too shall be castigated with a verbal volley of non evidence based slandering.
0
Greg Clarke gone on 16:01 - Nov 11 with 1794 views
Doesn't matter about the point, the fact that you have used offensive slurs would mean under woke Utopia, that you should now be forced to resign from your position hence forth and everyone should encourage a monstetous pile on. And if anyone dare leap to your defence, they too shall be castigated with a verbal volley of non evidence based slandering.
In that case I shall be applying for the role of Chairman of the FA.
0
Greg Clarke gone on 16:54 - Nov 11 with 1748 views
I'm in my late 60's, but I can't see any problem with keeping up with what terms are allowed & what terms are deemed offensive.
It matters not that we used to say couloured rather than black, all of you KNOW that the current terminology is to refer to a black person. It also matters not that we might not know the reason why one term is offensive & another term isn't. Just accept that this is the case!
I also cringe when people state what was acceptable when they were young as if that means that this was OK then. Secondary schoolteachers often referred to their pupils by "nicknames" & cared not whether the pupil liked this. It could also lead to that person suffering bullying when their contemporaries referred to them with the same reference.
3
Greg Clarke gone on 18:06 - Nov 11 with 1665 views
I'm in my late 60's, but I can't see any problem with keeping up with what terms are allowed & what terms are deemed offensive.
It matters not that we used to say couloured rather than black, all of you KNOW that the current terminology is to refer to a black person. It also matters not that we might not know the reason why one term is offensive & another term isn't. Just accept that this is the case!
I also cringe when people state what was acceptable when they were young as if that means that this was OK then. Secondary schoolteachers often referred to their pupils by "nicknames" & cared not whether the pupil liked this. It could also lead to that person suffering bullying when their contemporaries referred to them with the same reference.
Exactly Terry. I grew up in the 60s and 70s with Love Thy Neighbour, Jim Davidson etc. I'm olive skinned and was called the P word. I found that offensive then, but people regularly talked about the P shop on the corner, so some people thought it was acceptable. Gay people were called p**fs. Women were birds or ball and chains. I'm glad times have changed and terminology has changed. As you say, it's not really a big deal to not offend people, and doesn't take much effort.
2
Greg Clarke gone on 18:55 - Nov 11 with 1617 views
Exactly Terry. I grew up in the 60s and 70s with Love Thy Neighbour, Jim Davidson etc. I'm olive skinned and was called the P word. I found that offensive then, but people regularly talked about the P shop on the corner, so some people thought it was acceptable. Gay people were called p**fs. Women were birds or ball and chains. I'm glad times have changed and terminology has changed. As you say, it's not really a big deal to not offend people, and doesn't take much effort.
Alastair Stewart was made to resign from his ITV job for causing offence by quoting Shakespear.
Jamie Oliver caused offence for publishing a rice recipie.
Alastair Stewart was made to resign from his ITV job for causing offence by quoting Shakespear.
Jamie Oliver caused offence for publishing a rice recipie.
Adele caused offence for a hair style...
Don't really see your point. I'm talking about specific examples of offensive language and types of humour. Quoting back at me examples that don't have anything to do with my examples seems a bit pointless. But what I would say is that there would be less ammunition for the I'm-more-woke-than- you crowd, if there was less genuinely offensive language and behaviour around.
1
Greg Clarke gone on 19:27 - Nov 11 with 1562 views
Exactly Terry. I grew up in the 60s and 70s with Love Thy Neighbour, Jim Davidson etc. I'm olive skinned and was called the P word. I found that offensive then, but people regularly talked about the P shop on the corner, so some people thought it was acceptable. Gay people were called p**fs. Women were birds or ball and chains. I'm glad times have changed and terminology has changed. As you say, it's not really a big deal to not offend people, and doesn't take much effort.
"it's not really a big deal to not offend people, and doesn't take much effort"
I would like to think that everyone on LFW wouldn`t see fit to use any of the language you have used in the examples in 2020, but, and further to my post above we have now moved into the twilight zone when, lets take for example, gender and pronouns. Some would argue that there is only truely 2 genders, others would say that there are infact many many more. Last time i checked around 100 existed, with pronouns as the likes of Ze/zem. In some places on the planet by not using prefered pronouns could see you end up in court or worse for hate speech. My point being, do we need to rewrite our language constantly ?
'You didn't know that was wrong, but now you do. If you do it again, I'll know you are doing it on purpose.'
0
Greg Clarke gone on 19:34 - Nov 11 with 1551 views
"it's not really a big deal to not offend people, and doesn't take much effort"
I would like to think that everyone on LFW wouldn`t see fit to use any of the language you have used in the examples in 2020, but, and further to my post above we have now moved into the twilight zone when, lets take for example, gender and pronouns. Some would argue that there is only truely 2 genders, others would say that there are infact many many more. Last time i checked around 100 existed, with pronouns as the likes of Ze/zem. In some places on the planet by not using prefered pronouns could see you end up in court or worse for hate speech. My point being, do we need to rewrite our language constantly ?
Language constantly evolves as does acceptable societal norms.
Never knowingly understood
2
Greg Clarke gone on 19:37 - Nov 11 with 1542 views
Language constantly evolves as does acceptable societal norms.
It most certainly does, and at break neck speed in today`s world. That`s why some could be forgiven for getting it wrong once in a while. But there`s going to be an element of the population that won`t keep up. Just for clarity i`m not defending Greg clarke.
JK Rowling is a Terf...How many posters here knows/knew what a Terf is ?
'You didn't know that was wrong, but now you do. If you do it again, I'll know you are doing it on purpose.'
1
Greg Clarke gone on 20:53 - Nov 11 with 1453 views
It most certainly does, and at break neck speed in today`s world. That`s why some could be forgiven for getting it wrong once in a while. But there`s going to be an element of the population that won`t keep up. Just for clarity i`m not defending Greg clarke.
JK Rowling is a Terf...How many posters here knows/knew what a Terf is ?
I do. It means trans exclusionary radical feminist. It was because she said women have periods, objecting to the terms menstruators or people who menstruate on sanitary products. For this she's been vilified and because she supported Maya Forstater. MF supports the right of people to choose their gender, ie be transgender.
However, she questioned the proposed legislation that anyone could self ID as another gender because of the threat to women's and girls spaces (prisons, rape crisis centres, changing rooms, domestic abuse shelters etc).For this she lost her job. It's a very complex subject with no simple solutions and one of competing rights and protections of the vulnerable. There are arguments with merits in both sides. However, it has been characterised by TRAs (Trans radical activists) as a simple case of discrimination and abuse. TRAs refuse to allow even a discussion on how both females and TW can be protected, and many believe that lesbians are transphobic if they refuse to sleep with trans women.
2
Greg Clarke gone on 21:26 - Nov 11 with 1426 views
I do. It means trans exclusionary radical feminist. It was because she said women have periods, objecting to the terms menstruators or people who menstruate on sanitary products. For this she's been vilified and because she supported Maya Forstater. MF supports the right of people to choose their gender, ie be transgender.
However, she questioned the proposed legislation that anyone could self ID as another gender because of the threat to women's and girls spaces (prisons, rape crisis centres, changing rooms, domestic abuse shelters etc).For this she lost her job. It's a very complex subject with no simple solutions and one of competing rights and protections of the vulnerable. There are arguments with merits in both sides. However, it has been characterised by TRAs (Trans radical activists) as a simple case of discrimination and abuse. TRAs refuse to allow even a discussion on how both females and TW can be protected, and many believe that lesbians are transphobic if they refuse to sleep with trans women.
As i pointed out earlier, a minefield. In the case of transgender alone, we are not only crossing the boundaries of language and terminology but that of law, biology and faith. I don`t know the answer to issues facing many facets of humanity but i`ve lost sight of the question.
'You didn't know that was wrong, but now you do. If you do it again, I'll know you are doing it on purpose.'
-1
Greg Clarke gone on 22:32 - Nov 11 with 1353 views
I do. It means trans exclusionary radical feminist. It was because she said women have periods, objecting to the terms menstruators or people who menstruate on sanitary products. For this she's been vilified and because she supported Maya Forstater. MF supports the right of people to choose their gender, ie be transgender.
However, she questioned the proposed legislation that anyone could self ID as another gender because of the threat to women's and girls spaces (prisons, rape crisis centres, changing rooms, domestic abuse shelters etc).For this she lost her job. It's a very complex subject with no simple solutions and one of competing rights and protections of the vulnerable. There are arguments with merits in both sides. However, it has been characterised by TRAs (Trans radical activists) as a simple case of discrimination and abuse. TRAs refuse to allow even a discussion on how both females and TW can be protected, and many believe that lesbians are transphobic if they refuse to sleep with trans women.
It’s probably not helpful for a straight white bloke to wade in Trans issues to a women but here goes.
The Lesbian thing is a myth Nix. It’s sad that it spread so widely.
There are around 450,000 transgender men and women in the UK and last year 36 were convicted of sexual violence. That is a lower conviction rate than CIS Men and CIS women.
However 40% of transgender men and women have reported violence (including sexual violence) AGAINST them. This is higher than both CIS Men and CIS women.
Lots of fake news flying around. I recommend Stonewall for more information, but in general, Trans men and women are by a huge factor more likely to be victims of assault than the perpetrator.
It’s a huge issue for the left at the moment, and while I don’t have any personal stake in the game, I have heard some tragic stories though work of newly trans women losing their jobs, families, and developing poor mental health due to the stigma they face. Also anecdotally in my twelve years working on the Underground I was involved in two ‘one unders’ and coincidentally both were trans. One of them had just come back from an argument with her family who had disowned her. Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through just to attack CIS women in toilets and prisons and strong arm Lesbians into sex.
My instinct is trans women should be able to self identify as they wish and access the same rights and facilities as CIS women, and face conviction if they commit sexual assault in the same way any other man or women would, if solely for the fact it is no skin off anyone’s nose to have it that way.
When opportunities arise to make people happy for very little work we should grab it with both hands.
If you apply the principles of the 'woke' people then, as you imply, they should be equally offended by this. But they won't be, because it's all one way. This whole taking offence at pretty much everything these days is all well beyond my comprehension. Unless it is vindictive or malicious then there simply should not be a problem. It's all quite frankly ridiculous
When people use terms which cause offense through ignorance, education is a better resort than termination/recriminations IMO. But no tolerance for then making that or similar mistakes again. There are also certain high profile roles, like the CEO of a company, or say, head of a major union, where there should be a higher level of expectation about understanding what is acceptable.
When it comes down to it there is always a grey area. But if you aren't sure whether something might be offensive, does it really make your life that much worse if you spend three seconds to think of another word which might just make the person you're talking to or about feel less like sht?
This comment not aimed at you in particular, using the point you made as a starting point for the conversation.
0
Greg Clarke gone on 08:05 - Nov 12 with 1205 views
It’s probably not helpful for a straight white bloke to wade in Trans issues to a women but here goes.
The Lesbian thing is a myth Nix. It’s sad that it spread so widely.
There are around 450,000 transgender men and women in the UK and last year 36 were convicted of sexual violence. That is a lower conviction rate than CIS Men and CIS women.
However 40% of transgender men and women have reported violence (including sexual violence) AGAINST them. This is higher than both CIS Men and CIS women.
Lots of fake news flying around. I recommend Stonewall for more information, but in general, Trans men and women are by a huge factor more likely to be victims of assault than the perpetrator.
It’s a huge issue for the left at the moment, and while I don’t have any personal stake in the game, I have heard some tragic stories though work of newly trans women losing their jobs, families, and developing poor mental health due to the stigma they face. Also anecdotally in my twelve years working on the Underground I was involved in two ‘one unders’ and coincidentally both were trans. One of them had just come back from an argument with her family who had disowned her. Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through just to attack CIS women in toilets and prisons and strong arm Lesbians into sex.
My instinct is trans women should be able to self identify as they wish and access the same rights and facilities as CIS women, and face conviction if they commit sexual assault in the same way any other man or women would, if solely for the fact it is no skin off anyone’s nose to have it that way.
When opportunities arise to make people happy for very little work we should grab it with both hands.
My wife would definitely argue that having a self identifying trans woman who may or may not have a penis in a woman's safe area is skin off her nose. And I'm not mansplaining , she , a thoughtful feminist,is quite vocal on the subject.
On a lighter note, at one of the care facilities she worked in, the manager gave them a talk about how the company is an inclusive employer and that trans members of staff would be sharing the women's toilet.
There was only one staff toilet there anyway.
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 09:10 - Nov 12 with 1153 views
It’s probably not helpful for a straight white bloke to wade in Trans issues to a women but here goes.
The Lesbian thing is a myth Nix. It’s sad that it spread so widely.
There are around 450,000 transgender men and women in the UK and last year 36 were convicted of sexual violence. That is a lower conviction rate than CIS Men and CIS women.
However 40% of transgender men and women have reported violence (including sexual violence) AGAINST them. This is higher than both CIS Men and CIS women.
Lots of fake news flying around. I recommend Stonewall for more information, but in general, Trans men and women are by a huge factor more likely to be victims of assault than the perpetrator.
It’s a huge issue for the left at the moment, and while I don’t have any personal stake in the game, I have heard some tragic stories though work of newly trans women losing their jobs, families, and developing poor mental health due to the stigma they face. Also anecdotally in my twelve years working on the Underground I was involved in two ‘one unders’ and coincidentally both were trans. One of them had just come back from an argument with her family who had disowned her. Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through just to attack CIS women in toilets and prisons and strong arm Lesbians into sex.
My instinct is trans women should be able to self identify as they wish and access the same rights and facilities as CIS women, and face conviction if they commit sexual assault in the same way any other man or women would, if solely for the fact it is no skin off anyone’s nose to have it that way.
When opportunities arise to make people happy for very little work we should grab it with both hands.
Bazz, please re-read my post. It says nothing about not recognising the vulnerability of trans people. I could equally talk about two women a week being killed by male partners. I actually stressed that they were a vulnerable group. Also women who have been raped or subject to domestic violence are vulnerable.
I was talking about self-ID, where anyone can just claim to be a woman and get access to women's spaces. Surely you can see that it might be a problem for convicted male rapists to be in a woman's prison? But because it would be listed as a crime perpetrated by a woman, we would never know unless it came to court.
The lesbian thing is not a myth. https://terfisaslur.com/cotton-ceiling/ This is a site for TRA's so it's not just someone's anecdotal evidence. Stonewall is completely biased in favour of the TRA lobby and holds tremendous power.
It annoys me that women who have fought for their rights for thousands of years are not allowed to even have a discussion about people who self ID being able to enter girls and women's spaces . For transgender people to automatically enter women's athletic sports, win prizes for women in business etc. Please read the other side of this. It's certainly not a case of women wanting trans women to be abused and have no rights. I was very clear to say that there needs to be discussions to ensure everyone's rights are protected. Calling people bigots, saying they should be raped, should die, suck my lady dick as has happened to JKR is not helpful. Have you read her actual response? Have you even read women's concerns or just got all your information from Stonewall and Labour Party sources?
But what really annoys me is that it's women who have always been welcoming to TW, never had a problem, always supported trans rights, that are now getting all the abuse. JKR is one of them.
I'm not going to say anything more about this. There is no upside in even discussing this if you hold any view other than we shouldn't even be considering women's rights, TW are all that matter and trump everyone else's.
[Post edited 12 Nov 2020 9:13]
2
Greg Clarke gone on 09:15 - Nov 12 with 1136 views
My wife would definitely argue that having a self identifying trans woman who may or may not have a penis in a woman's safe area is skin off her nose. And I'm not mansplaining , she , a thoughtful feminist,is quite vocal on the subject.
On a lighter note, at one of the care facilities she worked in, the manager gave them a talk about how the company is an inclusive employer and that trans members of staff would be sharing the women's toilet.
There was only one staff toilet there anyway.
Well she probably already has on many occasions and either hasn’t realised it or accepted it as normal.
Like a say, statistics show that attacks from trans women (or trans men) just doesn’t happen. Your wife is at more danger from non trans women.
0
Greg Clarke gone on 09:45 - Nov 12 with 1093 views
Wow, this thread has moved into new territory and has been frankly pretty educational.
But to me the key points were (and excuse me for para-phrasing) ..
Antti's point about context. An ordinary older man may use language and even have views that offend today. But someone who leads a major organisation, particularly one as big and diverse as football, has a duty to be educated and inclusive in their actions and words. Failure to do so makes them unfit for office.
Bazza's comment that if we can make people happy for very little effort or downside then we should just do it.
It seems to me that if we follow these two principles we won't go far wrong.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
