Transgenderism

[Davkaus]

3 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I think thats the beauty of forums though differing opinions

I think this is the worst thing about forums and nobody will change my mind.

[lapal_fan]

23 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

I totally respect you view, but to say black people would be buzzing to be represented in a Christmas advert is a bit too far for me. I agree we needed more diversity on TV, but its going a bit to far as always with the media.

In the 1959 Barbie was a big deal to little girls because it was the first dolly made for little girls, after little boys had a few years of gi Joe beforehand.

It wasn't until 1969, 10 years later a black doll was invented for little black girls to play with.  There wasn't a black Barbie doll until 1980, 21 years after the original Barbie.

There's a fun documentary which was in Netflix (might still be, but it's been a few years since I saw it) about "toys that made us" I think.  You want to watch it, the reaction from the black community to a black doll being available has stuck in my head, it was monumental to those little black girls, that they finally had "someone like me" to play make believe with.  Not surprisingly, it sold like hotcakes.

Some black people felt the same about seeing black people in adverts. 

I don't think it's a bad thing to have an increased number of ethnicities on TV.  I have noticed it over the last 20 or so years, but it doesn't really matter does it?  It's something you notice, because it's different from the norm, but it's not a problem, is it? 

[Demitri_C]

 

 

Quote

 

Sharron Davies 'facing financial ruin' after comments on transgender athletes

The Wiltshire resident has attracted a backlash in the past

Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies claims she has been left 'facing financial ruin' after she made critical comments about transgender athletes. The Wiltshire resident, 59, has said she is struggling to find work in recent months.

The Olympic medallist has been a vocal critic of transgender women taking part in sporting events, arguing that transgender athletes have a genetic advantage over women competitors who were born female. Her opinions have attracted a backlash and criticism from the transgender community who have accused Sharron of being unwelcoming to transgender athletes, reports PlymouthLive.

 

She has spoken out about the repercussions these comments have had on her work prospects after receiving negative attention. Speaking to the Mail on Sunday’s You Magazine, Sharron says she’s been ditched by agents, struggled to find work, and has been shunned by charities she has worked with and supported over the years.

READ NEXT: Who is Wiltshire resident Sharron Davies MBE?

The Plymouth-born athlete told the weekend magazine: “There’s been so much hate and bullying. It’s been very hard. Charities I’ve worked with for 30 years have dropped me, agents I’ve worked with for 30 or 40 years don’t use me any more, because the trans activists can be so vicious and malicious – they go after your work, after your brand, they attack everything.”

She went on to explain that she has been forced to live off the inheritance she received from her mother who died five years ago – but fears those funds are running out.

She said: “The money’s nearly gone now. But I can’t back down. If you have the courage of your convictions you have to back those up with evidence and science and then you just have to hold your ground.”

Sharron has caused outrage after she hit out at the Rugby Football Union after she felt they didn’t take a tough enough stance against transgender women taking part in the sport.

She has also hit out at Labour MP Charlotte Nichols who defended a transgender swimmer. Davies accused former women's and equalities spokesman and current Warrington North MP of 'abandoning' women's rights for her comments about US swimmer Lia Thomas.

Her controversial comments have provoked threats online – with the star even receiving death threats due to her views.

 

Click

Its a massive shame she is receiving death threats for having an opinion whether you agree with it or not  

[Ingram85]

Of course it’s mental she’s getting death threats. But that’s a separate issue. 

Of course she’s entitled to an opinion as well, but she’s not entitled to freedom of any consequence of making those opinions public. 

[fruitvilla]

22 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

but she’s not entitled to freedom of any consequence of making those opinions public. 

This is why we hide behind pseudonyms.  Post you name and address and see what happens and bear the consequences of your opinions.

Do we honestly think someone who has a little bit of fame should be threatened with financial ruin because some people can't fight fair in a debate? It is not as though Davies does not have a point that needs to be addressed. When we say she has the right to bear the consequences of her public opinions you seem to be condoning internet bullying.

Edited August 1, 2022 by fruitvilla

[Stevo985]

On 07/07/2022 at 21:30, Davkaus said:

Agree with your post generally. While I haven't seen it in well over a decade, I always remembered it as being fairly gay-friendly. The representation of Ross's lesbian wife always seemed fairly even-handed, and while there were some jokes about it, they usually came at Ross' expense, as an insecure ex-husband, worried his son might turn gay.

Whether I'd still have that opinion watching it ~20 years later, I can't say  

Old post but I have to say it is quite homophobic. 
 

Nothing malicious or vicious, and at the time nothing that anyone would blink an eye at. But in 2022 it doesn’t sit quite right. 
 

Basically just an undercurrent of it’s not “normal” to be gay and it’s a negative thing. Whereas in think one 2022 we’ve arrived at the (correct) conclusion that being gay is perfectly “normal”

[Ingram85]

4 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

This is why we hide behind pseudonyms.  Post you name and address and see what happens and bear the consequences of your opinions.

Do we honestly think someone who has a little bit of fame should be threatened with financial ruin because some people can't fight fair in a debate? It is not as though Davies does not have a point that needs to be addressed. When we say she has the right to bear the consequences of her public opinions you seem to be condoning internet bullying.

In what way am I? Im condoning sponsors and employers cutting ties with individuals who don’t hold similar values. It’s that simple. 

[fruitvilla]

1 hour ago, Ingram85 said:

employers cutting ties with individuals who don’t hold similar values. It’s that simple. 

Are you suggesting employers are sufficiently invested in supporting transgenderism or just perhaps they may just want avoid adverse publicity. DO you think companies are risk adverse when it comes to these things? I don't know what Davies has said that warrants ostracizing, perhaps you can point the exact offending words, please.  

2 hours ago, Ingram85 said:

In what way am I? Im condoning sponsors

Your words seem at to be at ease with people (and companies) jumping on the the dog pile. Do you disagree that they should ostracize Davies?

[Ingram85]

6 hours ago, fruitvilla said:

Are you suggesting employers are sufficiently invested in supporting transgenderism or just perhaps they may just want avoid adverse publicity. DO you think companies are risk adverse when it comes to these things? I don't know what Davies has said that warrants ostracizing, perhaps you can point the exact offending words, please.  

Your words seem at to be at ease with people (and companies) jumping on the the dog pile. Do you disagree that they should ostracize Davies?

I think you need to read my post as you seem dead set to twist what I’m saying to serve your own messed up agenda.

She is entitled to her opinion and does not deserve death threats or whatever. However, once you’ve put your opinion into the ether there are real world consequences. A company who has certain values may not wish to be aligned with someone who has values opposing their own. 

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence. 

[tomav84]

death threats are wrong

but i can't believe the money has really gone. an unofficial site i just saw has her net worth at around 1.5m

bearing in mind she's talking to the mail's magazine, so they're obviously happy to give her some column inches. i'm sure they could find a space for her to do a regular anti-trans piece. their readers would lap it up

[StefanAVFC]

It's honestly completely bizarre right now.

EVERYTHING to do with women is turned into an attack on trans women.

I literally saw this exchange yesterday. (paraphrased)

Journo: Congrats to the women

Another journo: HOW CAN YOU CONGRATULATE WOMEN WHEN YOU WANT TO RUIN THEM BECAUSE YOU SUPPORT TRANS WOMEN

And then a multitude of tweets like: "Wonderful women! Just ACTUAL women and not a penis in sight!!!"

[LondonLax]

33 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

It's honestly completely bizarre right now.

EVERYTHING to do with women is turned into an attack on trans women.

I literally saw this exchange yesterday. (paraphrased)

Journo: Congrats to the women

Another journo: HOW CAN YOU CONGRATULATE WOMEN WHEN YOU WANT TO RUIN THEM BECAUSE YOU SUPPORT TRANS WOMEN

And then a multitude of tweets like: "Wonderful women! Just ACTUAL women and not a penis in sight!!!"

It’s so funny how internet algorithms work. I barely see any of it in my travels around the internet but am constantly bombarded about stories about Elon Musk for some reason

(though now I’ve engaged in this thread that will probably all change). 

[Sam-AVFC]

Sharron Davies was getting work before this?! She hasn't been as visible in my lifetime as she has since taking up this crusade. I'm sure she'll find a way to monetise it.

[mjmooney]

On 07/07/2022 at 23:11, lapal_fan said:

In the 1959 Barbie was a big deal to little girls because it was the first dolly made for little girls, after little boys had a few years of gi Joe beforehand.

Eh??? Unless I'm missing some clever irony/sarcasm here, this is complete nonsense. 

Barbie was the first dolly made for little girls? In 1959? You mean apart from the literally thousands of dollies that had been made for little girls for centuries? And far from 'years of GI Joe' before 1959, it wasn't launched until 1965. And was arguably the bigger stereotype breaker - sure, boys had played with toy soldiers for years, but for all its military macho, this was undeniably a 'dressing up doll'. 

The black Barbie point, I agree with, however (is there a black GI Joe/Action Man?) 

[lapal_fan]

1 minute ago, mjmooney said:

Eh??? Unless I'm missing some clever irony/sarcasm here, this is complete nonsense. 

Barbie was the first dolly made for little girls? In 1959? You mean apart from the literally thousands of dollies that had been made for little girls for centuries? And far from 'years of GI Joe' before 1959, it wasn't launched until 1965. And was arguably the bigger stereotype breaker - sure, boys had played with toy soldiers for years, but for all its military macho, this was undeniably a 'dressing up doll'. 

The black Barbie point, I agree with, however (is there a black GI Joe/Action Man?) 

Should have read *first Barbie released.

I'm only paraphrasing what I saw on TV and TV doesn't lie, maybe your memory is just bad becoz you is well old, innit? 

 

[Designer1]

8 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

(is there a black GI Joe/Action Man?) 

Yeah, I had one.

Called Tom iirc.

 

**EDIT**

Here he is:

Edited August 2, 2022 by Designer1

[Chindie]

They released a black GI Joe figure the second year of making them. Although it was literally just a repaint of the existing figure.

[bickster]

19 minutes ago, Designer1 said:

Yeah, I had one.

Called Tom iirc.

Lets hope he didn't have any siblings with kids

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, Designer1 said:

Yeah, I had one.

Called Tom iirc.

 

**EDIT**

Here he is:

A big influence on S1W.

[Demitri_C]

20 hours ago, Ingram85 said:

Of course it’s mental she’s getting death threats. But that’s a separate issue. 

Of course she’s entitled to an opinion as well, but she’s not entitled to freedom of any consequence of making those opinions public. 

She shouldnt be getting death threats period over this in my view. She is entitled to have her opinion whether we agree or not. 

The last thing society needs is everyone to express their opinion on things. What message does that say? Just getting gagged. This world would be a very boring place if there was not debates on things