Indyref 2 (2) - Page 121 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Indyref 2 (2)


Recommended Posts

To use a sporting analogy, imagine a footballer born and bred in England, who qualifies to play for Scotland by family heritage. Are they Scottish, yes or no?

You would be justified in saying, well, it depends, in one sense yes in another sense no. It's not necessarily a single straight answer. And the difficulty in answering the question doesn't prove the point of one side or another.

Edited by exile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sports is an actual problem. Due to the advantages of androgens etc.

It's also an existing problem in female competition due to biological diveristy in women and various sex "disorders" meaning folk of certain configurations are vastly more represented in elite competition than against the general population.

It's up to the governing bodies to police their sport though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, phart said:

 

It's up to the governing bodies to police their sport though.

I agree and in the UK, sports bodies have that ability due to the exemption in the equality act specifically for sports.

It can be tricky for sports though as there’s an obvious contradiction there.  On one hand sports are founded on the fundamental principles of equality and by their nature are inclusive - everyone can compete regardless of their race, creed or colour, and at grass roots level, their ability  

 On the other hand they are inherently competitive and we know that specifically transwomen who have gone through male puberty have a competitive physical advantage.  

So - putting safety to one side in physical contact sports - do they promote inclusivity or do they promote fairness?

In the context of the GRR bill though, anyone who advances an argument predicated on sports is selling snake oil, particularly as it’s open to sports bodies to ban transgender people from competing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, exile said:

To use a sporting analogy, imagine a footballer born and bred in England, who qualifies to play for Scotland by family heritage. Are they Scottish, yes or no?

You would be justified in saying, well, it depends, in one sense yes in another sense no. It's not necessarily a single straight answer. And the difficulty in answering the question doesn't prove the point of one side or another.

I've always thought the best way answer to that question is to ask them. I think in particular by the time you get to signing contracts age then you know what you are, and if there is ambiguity, that's where eligibility rules step in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Bzzzz said:

I've always thought the best way answer to that question is to ask them. I think in particular by the time you get to signing contracts age then you know what you are, and if there is ambiguity, that's where eligibility rules step in. 

That's not really the same though.  the eligibility rules are made up by the football authorities.  They could change them at any time to require international players to have been born in the country they represent.  It's not the same as ignoring scientific facts because someone "feels" they are not actually what they are. And GRR is not the problem; it's the concept of self ID that is the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alibi said:

That's not really the same though.  the eligibility rules are made up by the football authorities.  They could change them at any time to require international players to have been born in the country they represent.  It's not the same as ignoring scientific facts because someone "feels" they are not actually what they are. And GRR is not the problem; it's the concept of self ID that is the problem.

Are you a scientist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alibi said:

That's not really the same though.  the eligibility rules are made up by the football authorities.  They could change them at any time to require international players to have been born in the country they represent.  It's not the same as ignoring scientific facts because someone "feels" they are not actually what they are. And GRR is not the problem; it's the concept of self ID that is the problem.

Ah, I wasn't replying to the thread apologies, just the eligibility thing, I stay well away from this GRR debate as IMO there are far too many self righteous fowk intent on overcomplicating things to make a statement.
I completely agree with what you're saying, I think it's been allowed to become ridiculous to the point where it's counter productive to even equality and sensibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Are you a scientist?

I started out at uni doing physics and maths, but changed to civil engineering.  With hindsight I should have done mechanical engineering, but when I was at school we got no careers guidance whatsoever.  The world is very fortunate that although I was also offered a place to do medicine, I turned that down as I didn't actually have any interest in it. Just put it on the form as I had to fill in the last option box & my parents, both doctors, wanted me to do medicine.  My youngest daughter has just finished her first year doing mechanical engineering, and it's great to see that there are so many girls doing engineering subjects.  When I was at uni, there were practically no female engineering undergraduates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alibi said:

That's not really the same though.  the eligibility rules are made up by the football authorities.  They could change them at any time to require international players to have been born in the country they represent.  It's not the same as ignoring scientific facts because someone "feels" they are not actually what they are. And GRR is not the problem; it's the concept of self ID that is the problem.

The analogy here, I think, is more like under those circumstances a person claiming to have been born in Glasgow when they were actually born in Paris. 

Language is changeable and separate to realities, I think.

Interesting concepts here though tambers.  It has gave me pause for thought.  I don't think many people have badness at heart here. 

Edited by PapofGlencoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Alibi said:

That's not really the same though.  the eligibility rules are made up by the football authorities.  They could change them at any time to require international players to have been born in the country they represent.  It's not the same as ignoring scientific facts because someone "feels" they are not actually what they are. And GRR is not the problem; it's the concept of self ID that is the problem.

In the 'adoptive mother' analogy one could say that calling an adoptive mother a mother was 'ignoring scientific facts' because they were just 'acting' as a mother, but did not scientifically factually give birth.

But society accepts that an adoptive mother is legally the mother, even if not biologically.

Adoptive parents have to go through processes for them to be given that legal status. But once they have it, they expect to be accepted for what they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PapofGlencoe said:

The analogy here, I think, is more like under those circumstances a person claiming to have been born in Glasgow when they were actually born in Paris.

If I may mix my analogies, I'd say someone could be not born Scottish, but be 'adopted' by Scotland, and so play for Scotland. To my mind that does not involve any deceit or factual inaccuracy. It is about recognition, even if it means shifting (extending) meaning of what 'to be Scottish' is.

...Another example would be 'new Scots'. Are new Scots, Scots? Yes and no.

Maybe the problem is people on either side insisting there is only one answer, whether yes or no, when the reality is 'yes and no' (yes in one sense, no in another)?

 

5 hours ago, PapofGlencoe said:

Interesting concepts here though tambers.  It has gave me pause for thought.  I don't think many people have badness at heart here. 

👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, exile said:

If I may mix my analogies, I'd say someone could be not born Scottish, but be 'adopted' by Scotland, and so play for Scotland. To my mind that does not involve any deceit or factual inaccuracy. It is about recognition, even if it means shifting (extending) meaning of what 'to be Scottish' is.

...Another example would be 'new Scots'. Are new Scots, Scots? Yes and no.

Maybe the problem is people on either side insisting there is only one answer, whether yes or no, when the reality is 'yes and no' (yes in one sense, no in another)?

 

👍

You could and it makes sense for it to be yes, no or in between as nationality is a human creation and it's meaning can change.  I agree it made me think. It wasn't the point I was making though with my attempt to strip out language from imovable fact.  Some things would be fact even if we had no words to describe it.  Those things arent questionable in my view.

Haha  down the wormhole here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scathing piece on UK inflation   Brexit and energy being blamed. FFS Scotland wake up . 

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/why-inflation-uk-higher-usa-eu-price-rises-cpi-energy-bills-food-labour-brexit-b1076737.html

As Chancellor a year ago, Rishi Sunakstressed the global nature of inflation to underline how it would take time to bring pricesback under control. 

But today, the UK seems to stand further and further adrift from its economic peers. In the G20 table of inflation, the UK sits in the relegation zone, ahead of only Turkey and Argentina.

Countries like the US with plenty of their own oil could weather the storm more easily, while differences in policy when the crisis hit set the UK apart from many EU countries. “Since the UK is a net energy importer, higher energy prices hit it harder than the US, which is a net exporter,” says Ruth Gregory, Capital Economics’ deputy chief UK economist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we have to accept that although Scots built the modern world, we are held back by those amongst us that have no imagination.  In a nation of intelligent people, indy support would be at the level seen when Norway voted for indy - something like 99%.  What sort of people believe Scotland can't support itself but nevertheless are perfectly happy to be, as they believe, subsidy junkies?  Have they no self respect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alibi said:

I think we have to accept that although Scots built the modern world, we are held back by those amongst us that have no imagination.  In a nation of intelligent people, indy support would be at the level seen when Norway voted for indy - something like 99%.  What sort of people believe Scotland can't support itself but nevertheless are perfectly happy to be, as they believe, subsidy junkies?  Have they no self respect?

It is the brain-washed.

It has been going on from within families for generations and unless those within families are strong enough to form their own opinion then they too will be brain-washed into thinking the union is pure, just and the be all and end all of their existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Alibi said:

I think we have to accept that although Scots built the modern world, we are held back by those amongst us that have no imagination.  In a nation of intelligent people, indy support would be at the level seen when Norway voted for indy - something like 99%.  What sort of people believe Scotland can't support itself but nevertheless are perfectly happy to be, as they believe, subsidy junkies?  Have they no self respect?

Couldn't agree more. A blatant lack of ambition, self respect and dignity.

To think that it's an acceptable position for a nation to be in to have your own country and people cowering meekly in the shadow of a master that sneers and looks down at you at the slightest opportunity, keeps your money and gives pocket money to survive, asset strips you and uses you and your children for it's wars, for me, is beyond pathetic. This is why I dislike yoons so much, that attitude, that like of pride and self respect is alien to me and always will be. I don't even think it's nationalism, I think it's plain common sense and self respect. 

Generations of brainwashing has damaged Scotland's mental health. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bzzzz said:

Couldn't agree more. A blatant lack of ambition, self respect and dignity.

To think that it's an acceptable position for a nation to be in to have your own country and people cowering meekly in the shadow of a master that sneers and looks down at you at the slightest opportunity, keeps your money and gives pocket money to survive, asset strips you and uses you and your children for it's wars, for me, is beyond pathetic. This is why I dislike yoons so much, that attitude, that like of pride and self respect is alien to me and always will be. I don't even think it's nationalism, I think it's plain common sense and self respect. 

Generations of brainwashing has damaged Scotland's mental health. 

The UK government do just enough in terms of the bare minimum to make the vast majority of people feel like they’re doing okay, simply because things could be worse. 

Huge news coverage of benefits, food banks etc. show that despite the diminishing living standards for everyone, the vast majority of the working class will always simply just about get by. And the fact that we’ve got such an extreme lower level of poverty, the bulk of voters who sit above them think to themselves ‘things aren’t that bad’.  Comparably, there’s very little coverage of the ridiculous increases in wealth inequality, so people don’t realise the extent to which they are being fucked over and as a result have no real demand or expectation for anything better. This is where Scotland finds itself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2023 at 2:46 PM, AlfieMoon said:

The UK government do just enough in terms of the bare minimum to make the vast majority of people feel like they’re doing okay, simply because things could be worse. 

Huge news coverage of benefits, food banks etc. show that despite the diminishing living standards for everyone, the vast majority of the working class will always simply just about get by. And the fact that we’ve got such an extreme lower level of poverty, the bulk of voters who sit above them think to themselves ‘things aren’t that bad’.  Comparably, there’s very little coverage of the ridiculous increases in wealth inequality, so people don’t realise the extent to which they are being fucked over and as a result have no real demand or expectation for anything better. This is where Scotland finds itself. 

Agree with this, plus simply a general lack of ambition by much of the population. We are a pretty negative nation, preferring to think ‘what could I lose’ as opposed to ‘what could the entire country gain’ .

I cant remember any time in my  life that the UK has been viewed more negatively  than it is now. From both inside and outside the UK. Yet 50 % of  Scotland still just lamely accepts this is as good as it gets. 

Absolutely no one disputes that Scotland could not be successful on its own, even Better Together with their negative campaign admitted this. Their message was that we were Better Together. Currently we have inflation running higher than any every country in the G20,   apart from Argentina and Turkey. Our inflation problem is due to the consequence of Brexit, which Scotland rejected, and high import energy prices,  when Scotland has an abundance of energy . Better Together indeed. 
Unless this country adopts a tougher mindset nothing will change . If independence does come I cannot see it being with an overwhelming majority. We embrace mediocrity . 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

 

Watched it yesterday, Jim fairlie is a great guy and good at doing the nitty gritty for his constituents however he is not the best put on a platform like that, salmond was brilliant as usual, the labour robot was annoying as hell butting in all the time and I hate the cunt Cole Hamilton 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

Watched it yesterday, Jim fairlie is a great guy and good at doing the nitty gritty for his constituents however he is not the best put on a platform like that, salmond was brilliant as usual, the labour robot was annoying as hell butting in all the time and I hate the cunt Cole Hamilton 

Jim is very poor, he gets rattled far too easily and starts talking before he has thought through what it is he actually has to say. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2023 at 7:26 PM, exile said:

In the 'adoptive mother' analogy one could say that calling an adoptive mother a mother was 'ignoring scientific facts' because they were just 'acting' as a mother, but did not scientifically factually give birth.

But society accepts that an adoptive mother is legally the mother, even if not biologically.

Adoptive parents have to go through processes for them to be given that legal status. But once they have it, they expect to be accepted for what they are.

This is a much better analogy. Factually they are not a birth mother but once they have gone through the process they are the mother with all the legal rights etc that come with it. As you say they are also entitled to be treated as such.

It also has its limitations though, using the same analogy. I havent heard of any mother who has adopted trying to argue that they are factually the same as a birth mother, ie in terms of DNA of the child etc. They accept for whatever reason that they didnt give birth to the child but are now legally and otherwise the childs mother.

The problem I sometimes see in this debate is that some are not willing to and in most cases are offended by the "facts" being presented to them. People born with penises were not women. They can go through a process where they can legally become a women and should thereafter be treated as such but the fact remains that they arent identical to naturally born women. Not that this should make any difference to how people treat them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...