Yeah, and there will probably be somebody on here later, after a few beers, complaining about kettle abuse!.
ST gets away with telling folk to ‘**** off’ all the time on this forum & constantly gets away with it. He wouldn’t be doing that in person outside of this forum, coward like behaviour - that’s what my issue was. It is 100% worse if you say this to a woman whether you like it or not, I appreciate Helen can stand on her own 2 feet but it needs calling out for what it is.
But surely if he tells everyone to **** off like you say, then it's not sexism when he does it to a woman?
I’ll go back to my original point, he goes around shouting expletives at folk on here without any consequence.
It definitely isn’t sexism but swearing at someone does feel aggressive and it’s definitely scarier as a woman when a man is being aggressive towards you, you instantly become aware how physically vulnerable you are. Probably even more so because men generally try to avoid swearing at us like that so it’s more shocking when someone does as we’re not conditioned to it. I don’t believe for one second that ST was trying to take advantage of that fact that he’s a man and Helen is a woman but it doesn’t change the fact that it happens. I do take issue with Helen saying earlier that ‘her feelings don’t matter because she is a silly little woman’ though when redrum and others (can’t remember names without checking back) were also argued against. It’s the stance that attracted the comments not that she’s a woman. That just undermines everything.
Anyway, looking at the results the board is over whelmingly male, way more so than the crowd at Oakwell yesterday.
I'll take that to be honest. I didn't really consider it as a man woman thing at all, just a person person thing but you're right and I'll cut it out. One thing I'd say though is I guess it's all to do with experiences. As you say your experience is that it's rare so you feel more vulnerable when it happens. My experience is that some of the women I work with (and worked with at my last job too) are the most aggressively speaking people I've ever met so to reply in kind doesn't seem aggressive to me it's just natural to treat women equally when it comes to language. Not an excuse but a reason
I suppose the point is if you distinguishing between Blue and Red you don't need the prefix Navy. I'd never describe myself as Cis Male. Don't care if anyone else describes me as such mind.
Distinguishing between red and blue is like distinguishing between men and women. No prefix needed. Navy blue or Light blue is like the distinction between cis men and trans men. Only needed when more specificity is required.
“Cis man” or “Cis woman” aren’t identities. The gender identity is man or woman, cis just means that your identity matches your sex assigned at birth that’s all. I really can’t understand why anybody would have an issue with it in the slightest, other than ignorance with regard to what it means.
Yeah I understand that. Just seemed unnecessary. I assume the purpose was so that we weren't only labelling trans people? If you have a man and a trans man then it was clear anyway. Then the term cis became used more widely despite nobody ever having being particularly confused prior to that.
If you only have a modifier for one subset of a group and not the other, can you see how that would be upsetting to the group that has the modifier?
Of course as it reminds them that they're sex is not the one they wish it to be. Don't think this solves that issue. But hey ho it's hardly a big problem. The well intentioned strive for inclusiveness and equality has sone bigge problems to deal with I guess.