LGB Discussion

[Ensay]

Getting a slight sinking deja vu feeling again so just gonna park it there so as not to derail. (ETA referring here to mine and Daydreamer's exchanges)

On another note, watching Wimbledon atm (excellent Alcaraz v Berrettini match) and it crossed my mind there's still a way to go before gay players might feel totally comfortable to be 'out' in this sport, at this level. Nothing to do with these two players in the match I'm watching, but just thinking of the heteronormative scenario of the wife/girlfriend/boyfriend watching from the player's family box. I don't think I've ever seen any same sex partner referred to. It'd be a good day for lgb equality if it was totally the norm for the commentators to note casually, 'And there's Mr Xxxx's husband/Ms Xxx's wife, nervously living through every point of this nerve-shredding set.'

Yeah I've never really understood why gay men seem to find it difficult to come out in tennis, considering you don't get hooligans and insulting stadium chants in tennis. It's just not really that kind of sport.

Also there have been plenty of open lesbians in tennis for years. Martina Navaratilova being a prime example (she came out in the 1980s). So I don't really think any sponsor would drop a gay male player for coming out.

The only gay male tennis player I know of is Jan-Michael Gambill and he came out after he'd retired, as so many gay professional sportsmen seem to do.

 

[Ensay]

A couple of news items that caught my attention recently. Wolves have recently become the first football club to be punished by the FA solely for a homophobic chant. More at the link below:

https://www.archive.is/oldest/https...olves-fa-football-homophobic-chanting-chelsea

To this I say well done. Sick of people thinking homophobia is somehow less offensive than racism, which should also be nipped in the bud immediately. Maybe the knuckle draggers will think twice before saying homophobic chants in the future.

-----

This one from America, where a Judge has been using a homophobic Supreme Court ruling to argue she can refuse to perform same-sex weddings.

Texas judge cites SCOTUS ruling to argue against performing same-sex weddings

Justice of the peace Dianne Hensley has been arguing with Texas to not perform same-sex weddings since 2019

www.independent.co.uk

Just a suggestion, but maybe if she doesn't want to carry out an aspect of her role, she could find another job? There's an idea!

 

[Deeznutslol]

A couple of news items that caught my attention recently. Wolves have recently become the first football club to be punished by the FA solely for a homophobic chant. More at the link below:

https://www.archive.is/oldest/https...olves-fa-football-homophobic-chanting-chelsea

To this I say well done. Sick of people thinking homophobia is somehow less offensive than racism, which should also be nipped in the bud immediately. Maybe the knuckle draggers will think twice before saying homophobic chants in the future.

-----

This one from America, where a Judge has been using a homophobic Supreme Court ruling to argue she can refuse to perform same-sex weddings.

Texas judge cites SCOTUS ruling to argue against performing same-sex weddings

Justice of the peace Dianne Hensley has been arguing with Texas to not perform same-sex weddings since 2019

www.independent.co.uk

Just a suggestion, but maybe if she doesn't want to carry out an aspect of her role, she could find another job? There's an idea!

It’s only recently they’ve started properly cracking down on racial abuse as well, there’s still a long way to go with homophobia. I think it’s a great start to be honest though, I hope to see more clubs getting fined and individuals being banned for homophobic abuse in the future.

 

[Ensay]

It’s only recently they’ve started properly cracking down on racial abuse as well, there’s still a long way to go with homophobia. I think it’s a great start to be honest though, I hope to see more clubs getting fined and individuals being banned for homophobic abuse in the future.

Oh yeah I agree, I'm still hearing about cases of racial abuse in football stadiums and people rightly getting lifetime bans for it. I still find it shocking that people still behave that way, even now.

Homophobic chants would probably be filed under "it's just a joke lol" by most of the people who shout them in football stadiums, but it's not a joke. They have no care for who might hear that. I've experienced it myself in the past, and it's not just chants, but there's pretty much always been several mouthy idiots near me who've yelled homophobic abuse at players - sometimes their own if they miss a shot.

It brings back memories of homophobic bullying at school and it also makes you feel unwelcome as someone who's gay. Like it's straight-only territory. I've been to football matches with a partner in the past and we both knew that not even very subtle signs of being a couple were wise. I don't mean kissing (I'd never do that in public regardless of sexuality) but even very small things you can sometimes do unconsciously like leaning in a bit close to each other.

So I think punishing homophobic chants is a breath of fresh air. It feels like they're finally recognising how homophobia at football matches makes for an intimidating and unpleasant atmosphere for many people - not just LGB fans.

 

[Ensay]

Taking this from another thread as I'd rather talk about it here instead:

Belfast Pride: Officers told not to wear police uniforms

ACC Bobby Singleton says he understands some staff will be disappointed by the move.

www.bbc.co.uk

I think it's kind of disappointing. Homophobic attacks are on the rise and historically the gay community would often not report homophobic hate crimes for fear that little would be done. Added to that, you've got cases like Stephen Port where a catalogue of errors were made and deaths weren't linked, arguably because the victims were all gay men and the Police didn't seem to give a crap.

Plus added to all that you've got the recent exposure of WhatsApp messages sent by Police officers that showed homophobic messages (along with sexist and generally awful messages, too). Confidence in the Police is very low and then they pull out of appearing at Pride - despite having done so in recent years.

I mean, they might as well say to LGB Northern Irish people that they really don't give a duck about them. With the backdrop of religion there and attitudes to abortion, it doesn't seem to be a great place for LGB people or women.

 

[HockyRorror]

Taking this from another thread as I'd rather talk about it here instead:

Belfast Pride: Officers told not to wear police uniforms

ACC Bobby Singleton says he understands some staff will be disappointed by the move.

www.bbc.co.uk

I think it's kind of disappointing. Homophobic attacks are on the rise and historically the gay community would often not report homophobic hate crimes for fear that little would be done. Added to that, you've got cases like Stephen Port where a catalogue of errors were made and deaths weren't linked, arguably because the victims were all gay men and the Police didn't seem to give a crap.

Plus added to all that you've got the recent exposure of WhatsApp messages sent by Police officers that showed homophobic messages (along with sexist and generally awful messages, too). Confidence in the Police is very low and then they pull out of appearing at Pride - despite having done so in recent years.

I mean, they might as well say to LGB Northern Irish people that they really don't give a duck about them. With the backdrop of religion there and attitudes to abortion, it doesn't seem to be a great place for LGB people or women.

I Disagree (lol, at this point, expectedly!?) The police should be on the face a completely neutral force for the general public, for everybody, and should not be promoting any political or social agenda in any way shape, or form IMO.

Really not getting the correlation between not being forced to put on rainbow uniform vs the murder victims of Stephen Port. The argument always seems to be “it’s about visibility”, the proponents of this seem to largely forget it also works (better, arguably) in the opposite direction, that those that didn’t need any pushing suddenly feel like they're being pushed.

The police presence in pride has been an absolute joke in the last few years. Same sex supporters being openly assaulted whilst they are in the background perfecting the Macarena . If they’ve been disciplined and told to hold a more professional line - GOOD.

 

[Ensay]

I Disagree (lol, at this point, expectedly!?) The police should be on the face a completely neutral force for the general public, for everybody, and should not be promoting any political or social agenda in any way shape, or form IMO.

Really not getting the correlation between not being forced to put on rainbow uniform vs the murder victims of Stephen Port. The argument always seems to be “it’s about visibility”, the proponents of this seem to largely forget it also works (better, arguably) in the opposite direction, that those that didn’t need any pushing suddenly feel like they're being pushed.

The police presence in pride has been an absolute joke in the last few years. Same sex supporters being openly assaulted whilst they are in the background perfecting the Macarena . If they’ve been disciplined and told to hold a more professional line - GOOD.

Hi bestie! Long time no speak!

I'm off out for the day, so I'll try to reply properly later, but my concerns are around homophobia in the Police. Marching in Pride parades doesn't make that magically disappear (I'm not that naive lol), but it sends a message that they're at least trying to improve. If they'd never marched I wouldn't say so much, but to march for a few years and then withdraw sends a message that they're backtracking on improving homophobia in the Police.

I'll post more about the Stephen Port case later (it's a shocking one) and -- being brutally honest -- if I was subject to a homophobic hate crime I honestly don't know for sure if I'd report it. I don't have confidence the Police would take it seriously or even care. I think they'd maybe pretend to on the surface while sniggering behind my back because, after all, I'm just some silly poof who probably deserved it. That's just how I feel - my confidence is at an all time low with them.

They're as bad when it comes to racism, but that's a whole other topic!

 

[HockyRorror]

if I was subject to a homophobic hate crime I honestly don't know for sure if I'd report it. I don't have confidence the Police would take it seriously or even care. I think they'd maybe pretend to on the surface while sniggering behind my back because, after all, I'm just some silly poof who probably deserved it. That's just how I feel - my confidence is at an all time low with them.

Ayyyy Macarena!


in all seriousness, report gay crimes as trans for now, and they will be prioritised. Nobody cares about the - in your words - “poofs” anymore. That’s so 00’s.

 

[Ensay]

Ayyyy Macarena!


in all seriousness, report gay crimes as trans for now, and they will be prioritised. Nobody cares about the - in your words - “poofs” anymore. That’s so 00’s.

Lol you're obsessed.

 

[HockyRorror]

Lol you're obsessed.

…what?

 

[Ensay]

…what?

Well I was talking about the police and you start going on about trans again.

 

[HockyRorror]

Well I was talking about the police and you start going on about trans again.

…I wasn’t though…I was following on from your post saying police “don’t care about ‘poofs’ anymore”. Keep up mate…if it all ends up triangulated into the same thing then……we tried to explain this to you a few pages back…

 

[Ensay]

…I wasn’t though…I was following on from your post saying police “don’t care about ‘poofs’ anymore”. Keep up mate…if it all ends up triangulated into the same thing then……we tried to explain this to you a few pages back…

I didn't say they don't care about us "anymore", because that would imply they once did. I said they wouldn't care - and I meant that's the status quo. Keep up, mate.

Also, the "we tried to explain this" line is a bit daft because that implies your opinion is fact. You gave your view, that's it.

 

[HockyRorror]

I didn't say they don't care about us "anymore", because that would imply they once did. I said they wouldn't care - and I meant that's the status quo. Keep up, mate.

Also, the "we tried to explain this" line is a bit daft because that implies your opinion is fact.You gave your view, that's it.

You gave your view, that's it.

Right, I thought that was it. You seem to want to take it further and stretch it longer for some reason though. Yea, it’s my view, as yours is yours… not sure what point you’re trying to make here? My opinion was not a fact, just my opinion.


still unsure of how you think I’m obsessed about that subject when your very post tied into it in the first place. Although if some seek to desperately not see the elephant in the room then there’s no helping some people, I guess.

 

[Ensay]

You gave your view, that's it.

Right, I thought that was it. You seem to want to take it further and stretch it longer for some reason though. Yea, it’s my view, as yours is yours… not sure what point you’re trying to make here? My opinion was not a fact, just my opinion.


still unsure of how you think I’m obsessed about that subject when your very post tied into it in the first place. Although if some seek to desperately not see the elephant in the room then there’s no helping some people, I guess.

Huh? You replied to me. If you'd made an independent post about trans I'd have just ignored it, but you quoted my post which was nothing to do with trans just to mention it. So don't act like I'm the one who wants to take it further when you're the one who quoted me and brought the subject up.

And my post didn't tie into it, you shoehorned it in, because you read something into it that wasn't there.

Plus all this "if some seek to desperately not see", "we tried to explain", "there's no helping some people" type wording is a bit much for a thread with "discussion" in its title. Especially using "we" as a way of saying your view is shared widely. It's a not very subtle way of saying "well, we all think this so we must be right", as though the majority thought process should never be challenged. It's a form of intimidation but it won't work on me.

You're so convinced you're right that to the point that you seem to think your opinions are fact. I have my view, but I don't say I'm definitely right, it's just what I think. Maybe I will be proven wrong in time, maybe I'll be proven right. Who knows?

I can accept you think differently to me and I don't see why you feel the need to make snidey remarks that imply I'd see it your way if you I could just be a bit more intelligent.

 

[daydreamer95]

I Disagree (lol, at this point, expectedly!?) The police should be on the face a completely neutral force for the general public, for everybody, and should not be promoting any political or social agenda in any way shape, or form IMO.

It’s suggested in that article other associations made similar requests to wear uniform as part of the reason for U turn, I’m not sure what other associations have been allowed or refused in the past

Peter Tatchell article from 2022 he didn’t want the Met to March in uniform

https://amp.archive.is/oldest/https...ll-not-march-in-uniform-at-london-pride-event

 

[HockyRorror]

Huh? You replied to me. If you'd made an independent post about trans I'd have just ignored it, but you quoted my post which was nothing to do with trans just to mention it. So don't act like I'm the one who wants to take it further when you're the one who quoted me and brought the subject up.

And my post didn't tie into it, you shoehorned it in, because you read something into it that wasn't there.

Plus all this "if some seek to desperately not see", "we tried to explain", "there's no helping some people" type wording is a bit much for a thread with "discussion" in its title. Especially using "we" as a way of saying your view is shared widely. It's a not very subtle way of saying "well, we all think this so we must be right", as though the majority thought process should never be challenged. It's a form of intimidation but it won't work on me.

You're so convinced you're right that to the point that you seem to think your opinions are fact. I have my view, but I don't say I'm definitely right, it's just what I think. Maybe I will be proven wrong in time, maybe I'll be proven right. Who knows?

I can accept you think differently to me and I don't see why you feel the need to make snidey remarks that imply I'd see it your way if you I could just be a bit more intelligent.

Try not sarcastically addressing me as “bestie” in future and my subsequent replies to you will not be snide.

 

[Ensay]

Try not sarcastically addressing me as “bestie” in future and my subsequent replies to you will not be snide.

Oops sorry I didn’t intend any offence! On another forum I frequent we all call each other “bestie” or say “hi besties” as a collective greeting, so it’s like second nature to me.

And I actually was pleased to see you because I hadn’t seen you for a little while. I genuinely don’t dislike anyone here; I’ll argue my point strongly (as you can definitely attest) but I don’t bear you or anyone else any ill will. Life’s far too sh0rt.

(No idea why tattle is censoring that phrase if I use an O rather than 0 in short)

 

[HockyRorror]

Oops sorry I didn’t intend any offence! On another forum I frequent we all call each other “bestie” or say “hi besties” as a collective greeting, so it’s like second nature to me.

And I actually was pleased to see you because I hadn’t seen you for a little while. I genuinely don’t dislike anyone here; I’ll argue my point strongly (as you can definitely attest) but I don’t bear you or anyone else any ill will. Life’s far too sh0rt.

(No idea why tattle is censoring that phrase if I use an O rather than 0 in short)

Apologies for taking it in the wrong way, I genuinely thought you were being sarcastic to my reply which I was confused about because in my first reply I responded genuinely and honestly to you and was annoyed you dismissed it and confused as to why you were being so sarcastic to me

 

[Ensay]

Apologies for taking it in the wrong way, I genuinely thought you were being sarcastic to my reply which I was confused about because in my first reply I responded genuinely and honestly to you and was annoyed you dismissed it and confused as to why you were being so sarcastic to me

It's OK! Tone is always hard to determine in text, which is why I sometimes use emoticons even though I don't really like them. And, even then, emoticons can send the wrong message. It's a minefield!

---

I noticed Rishi put out this tweet on Monday in recognition of it being 10 years since same sex marriages were signed into law:


He got some pushback though from lots of people who pointed out to him that he's never voted for equal gay marriage rights and he's abstained twice on votes for equal gay rights. Talk about getting egg on one's face!

One of the first gay couples to get married in the UK are still going strong and they've got two adopted children:

This is our time: Our day helping to make history by first newlyweds

Peter McGraith and David Cabreza became first gay couple to marry in the UK in ceremony in Islington

uk.movies.yahoo.com