f_c_dundee
-
Posts
335 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by f_c_dundee
-
-
Just now, ATLIS said:
Dundee hardly look much better
Every third touch of the ball is a miskick or a bad touch
That's standard the last few weeks apparently
0 -
Cove look like my wee bairns team playing , every single one of them within a few feet of the ball
0 -
Time wasting b*****ds wtf
Just hae a wee sit doon on the pitch pal and we'll stop the match again.
0 -
1 minute ago, TxRover said:
Hummm…switch over to look at the storms coming with forecasts of grapefruit sized hail possible or listen to Dee’s moan about Fox and Cove shitfesting…moaning it is!
Would you no moan if you had to watch Dundee?
40 odd years of "fucksake" for me.
1 -
2 minutes ago, Crawford said:
Fair play to cove, they've made Hartley look younger and somehow, less greasy.
But like... rounder.
0 -
3 minutes ago, North Terrace Gazza said:
I’m not a fan of the Cove style of football but that away strip is class
I was just saying that myself. Reminds me of 80s Adidas kits.
0 -
3 minutes ago, jagfox said:
This is pish. I'm going to the fridge to grab a can. Anybody want anything?
Probably something strong for this
1 -
4 minutes ago, strichener said:
I agree, at least @f_c_dundee was posting responses to other posts rather than posting drivel and then taking 10 posts to explain why they weren't going to read articles that didn't support their views.
I don't think it was a call for a ban either - I took it as a wry comparison to when I got "a wee holiday".
Cos this site has a bit of a sense of humour, eh!
0 -
1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:
What carpetmonster is doing isnt even close to what that dundee roaaster was doing
What a minter to call for a ban to try and win an argument
0 -
1 hour ago, carpetmonster said:
No of course not. The problem isn't the guy who spends most of his time accusing trans people of being paedophiles on social media, it's the people who object to him being platformed. There's no way, in this day and age, for folks to have a discussion without being face to face. I haven't referred to any gender in that post; I know you're as desperate to paint yourself as the victim as VT is to win an argument on the internet but nah, sorry.
No one is painting anyone as victim, where did you get that?
What I said was without the protest blocking it, "people watched a film" would be a really shit news story. The protest created the drama.
0 -
2 hours ago, carpetmonster said:
The entire movie is free to access on YouTube, should you be interested in watching the movie and not just turning up to make a show of yourself on the camera. At least Elaine Miller kept her merkin to herself this time.
The event yesterday was also to involve a discussion according to the organisers, so that's a wee bit of a twisted interpretation. No show or drama would occur though, if you didn't have people blocking them from attending a film showing and being allowed to talk...
Stay at home and watch YouTube wimmin!
-1 -
On 24/04/2023 at 22:05, rambling syd rumpo said:
I'm torn between "FFS it's Cove Rangers" and "FFS it's Dundee".
0 -
26 minutes ago, Benjamin_Nevis said:
Amazing
Astute analysis as always. Top drawer.
I'm no going to cry if you laugh at me you know.
1 -
On 09/04/2023 at 18:15, Bully Wee Villa said:
Yes, it does.
Here's just one example where I was told you can.
But of course it's not reproductive sex, it's...the other kind I think I was told?
0 -
13 minutes ago, Ginaro said:
I must've missed the posts in this thread that were saying people can change sex.
Probably just next to the ones saying there are 6 sexes?
0 -
On 18/04/2023 at 11:45, Boo Khaki said:
I'm not going to ask you to go back and read every post of mine in this thread, so for the sake of convenience I'll provide a brief summary of views I've already expressed in here regarding how I see the 'GC' position. For a start, despite being an advocate of GRR myself, I'm technically 'Gender Critical' as I do not believe human beings can change their biological sex, and 'Gender', despite being a very real 'thing' with significant implications, is nothing more than a social construct and not something that is innate.
So you agree with me on the most fundamental point that I am making, that humans cannot change sex. You do realise that actually makes you a transphobe though?
If you post that on Twitter, you'll get some interesting replies I'm sure.
On 18/04/2023 at 11:45, Boo Khaki said:I have also said that I do not accept that every single person with gender sceptical views is a bigot, phobic, hateful, misinformed, or easily led by biased media sources pushing an agenda. I have no doubt whatsoever that many of the people expressing 'genuine concerns' absolutely legitimately hold those concerns and are not motivated in the slightest by hate, however, if you take that position you must also accept that you are indistinguishable from the element who are absolutely and entirely motivated by hate of trans people. I find it bizarre that when someone like Nicola Sturgeon makes this exact point, it's invariably met by howls of outrage along the lines of 'how dare she call us transphobes!!' by the people who are adamant they are not transphobes and merely hold legitimate concerns about rights to single sex spaces etc (hello mumsnetters). After all, if you are not a transphobe, then the point being made does not apply to you, so you have no reason to be offended.
Why must we accept that? Who says? You've gone a bit "Hitler was a vegetarian, so all vegetarians are evil" if you go down that route.
You have missed the point - it's not about being offended. It's about being dismissed as a transphobe/heretic/witch instead of being listened to about your legitimately held concerns. I've never been offended by being told I must be a transphobe, I just roll my eyes at the logic fail really.
On 18/04/2023 at 11:45, Boo Khaki said:Why I reject 'GC' arguments about single sex spaces in spite of my own compliance with what is generally described as the underpinnings of 'GC' view is really quite simple. We are told over and over that the threat to women and vulnerable people comes from predatory and abusive men. I do not accept the conflation between these two groups, and I see no legitimate reason whatsoever to continue to deny dignity to trans people based on the actions of a criminal element of society. To argue for this is to lump all trans people in with, and hold them accountable for the actions of 'predatory men', and that is both repugnant and entirely unjustifiable.
But this is how we do safeguarding. If you want to work or volunteer with vulnerable people, you must apply for the PVG scheme, you can't be all outraged at being lumped in with potential criminals.
Men should still be excluded from the category of women, because nothing changes when they change how they identify (as you yourself believe - they can't change sex). So there is just as much chance of them being a criminal as there is for any other man. We can't excuse them from the category of men based on identification.
I posted a good few pages back about crime statistics, not to be down on men, but to show the reasons why people are not happy.
On 18/04/2023 at 11:45, Boo Khaki said:Abusive individuals absolutely do require better detection, policing, and management, but I can not countenance impeding a different class of people simply because of an inadequacy or deficiency in managing the former. I do reject the protestations by GC people that the trans 'debate' is nothing at all like what society went through with regard to homophobia a few decades back, because this aspect of the argument is absolutely the same. It was a commonly held view that gay men specifically could not be permitted to work with children and vulnerable people for fear of them taking advantage, so again, the conflation of two separate groups being deliberately contrived to posit an argument about restricting the right of one because of the actions of the other.
That was a bloody stupid view though, no? Based on actual prejudiced beliefs. Gay men would be in the category of men, like all other males, not a special extra dangerous category. The arguments might sound the same, but it is not the same thing.
On 18/04/2023 at 11:45, Boo Khaki said:Where there is a genuine threat to vulnerable people from abusive men, campaign for better policing and management of abusive men, and stop conflating them with trans and gender non-conforming individuals. It's this part that I find utterly objectionable, and it's the main, but not the only reason I do not accept the 'but single sex spaces' argument.
Have you seen the state of the police recently? No one will bother to report rape soon, as the conviction rates are so woefully low. They will just suffer in silence.
Spoiler(If anyone was going to come back with something about false accusations, go check the numbers before you do, please. They are miniscule in scale compared to this. False accusations should of course be dealt with and prosecuted seriously. They are wrong, but not a physical violation of someone's body though, are they)
On 18/04/2023 at 11:45, Boo Khaki said:Trans people have been using single sex spaces perfectly peaceably for decades without the sky yet falling in, so how there can be such a backlash against a piece of legislation that actually adds some barriers to abusive individuals over and above existing law, is beyond me.
Well no one actually asked women or men how they felt, did they? As pointed out previously, it was on a very small scale and composed mainly of male transexuals (this is the language used in the GRA before you panic) quietly trying to live as a woman. (don't even ask me what that means btw).
Since the 'transgender umbrella' became a thing, the category has expanded massively and now explicitly includes transvestites and 'gender fluid' people.
Again, it's apples and oranges you are comparing.
I'm in favour of freedom of expression, stereotypes are complete shite and I don't subscribe to them at all. It's when you are changing laws based in ill-defined and essentially unprovable terms like gender and transgender.
On 18/04/2023 at 11:45, Boo Khaki said:The outrage over people like Isla Bryson potentially claiming trans status for sinister purposes, the apparent fear of the GC lobby, is perfectly possible already, yet the GRR Bill added in some safeguards to address this supposed issue, yet it's been poo-pooed by those very same people expressing concern about abusive individuals ability to do just that. There is nothing about GRA that actually permits people to use a bathroom and suchlike, as they already have that right regardless of holding a GRA or otherwise, but the GRR amendment was intended to place some impediment upon sex-offenders obtaining a GRC where there are none currently, so it seems to me this was specifically intended to allay the precise concerns voiced by the 'but Isla Bryson' circus, yet the people being most vociferous about this rejected the very thing they are purporting to want, which lends credence to the suspicion that the reality is many of the 'GC' people are actually motivated by a desire to see GRA struck completely, which does just stink to high-heaven of phobia.
Are we are defining transphobia though as 'doesn't believe people can change sex', as I have been told?
Millions of people hold that view, even you. A phobia would imply that all these people think that trans people are just bad and wrong for no reason but prejudice, surely?
I have actually encountered some people who think that the UK GRA should be repealed, as they believe it is bad law.
They're not extremists as far as I can see, but they are pointing out that the law was not designed for the current numbers of people identifying as trans. It was assumed to be apply to such a tiny number of people, that no one would mind.
So to apply it to a larger group of people and simultaneously take away the safeguards put in place at the time, is not a reform that a lot of people can get behind logically. It also began some of the conflation of sex and gender, by creating a law mentioning 'acquired gender' but then also saying that these people could be considered a member of the opposite sex. (except for sex discrimination, where the comparator is a member of their own sex
).
It's just way more complicated than your homophobic bigots of the past, even if some of those old bigots are happy to chime in on this.
In my opinion the GRR bill was a joke, started with a committee who listened to one point of view much more than anther, and any amendments with teeth were voted down. Actually started with "consultations" which were attempted to be run without any publicity, and at the second attempt the SG dragged their feet massively about publishing comments as promised.
It's a mess and could have been discussed better from the start if discussion and debate were permitted and if so many people weren't too scared to say anything because (circling back) they were told they were bigots and transphobes.
0 -
Could have been a lot worse for me - one of my parents is a Dee and the other is an Arab.
Luckily I was saved from the Dark (aka tangerine) Side, unlike my sibling.
1 -
As a Dundee fan originally from very near Inverness, I can either be doubly insulted as a Teuchter Mink, or maybe they cancel each other out?
0 -
2 hours ago, Tattie36 said:
Spot on.
Once you can accept that fitba is entertainment and ignore this elusive “quality” then it makes it a much more enjoyable experience.
Say what you like about the quality, or the lack of, but I think it’s as exciting and competitive a league as you’ll find anywhere.
A different winner every year (obviously) and generally a different range of teams challenging for promotion or relegation every season. Add in the large turnover in clubs and it keeps the playing each other 4+ times a season thing a bit less monotonous then in the Premiership for example. I used to hate the playoffs and I don’t think the format is perfect, but it certainly adds excitement for pretty much every team, every season, right to the wire.
A chance of a different winner every year does really helps. It's just boring AF finding out if it's Rangers or Celtic this year.
Also agree with the earlier post regarding the general nonsense of seeing just how pish your team will be this week, or if you'll get a surprise decent performance.
1 -
15 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:
Just a minor point of pedantry, but absolutely nobody gets put in prison because they haven't paid TV licence. This is a wilful mangling of truth that has somehow become accepted wisdom. I have no idea why, unless it's been contrived to paint women as unfairly targeted by both the BBC and the judicial system, but it simply is not true.
Non-payment of TV licence carries a maximum penalty of a £1000 fine, not a custodial sentence. It is non-payment of the fine that potentially results in a custodial sentence, but even then you will not find anyone jailed for that alone. The reason women's prisons have an inordinate number of inmates who are currently serving a sentence for non-payment of the fine is because they were people who were on trial for an unrelated offence and had that pending, so their solicitors ask the Sheriff to take that into account and permit them to 'clear' that offence by serving the sentence concurrently with whatever they were actually going to prison for in any case.
In Scotland, even when you are punished for watching TV without a licence the fine is typically in the region of £40-75
I want to be clear, the point of bringing this up was not to attack you just for making the claim, because as I said, this appears to be a commonly held belief for some reason, so it's not at all uncommon or unusual to see it repeated as fact, but it simply is not what it is purported to be, i.e. "women being sent to prison because they didn't buy a TV licence".
As a fellow pedant that's totally fair.
It was a bit lazy to not specify that it was related to continuing non payment.
Just trying to make the point that the overall offending patterns for those in women's jail is different. Women's prisons trend to be smaller and hold fewer violent individuals.
Statistically many women in prison have suffered abuse themselves already, so to further traumatise them by forcing them to share facilities with male bodied people seems particularly cruel.
It may be only 'small numbers', but what number is deemed to be ok? Who signed off on the risk assessments that barely considered the women inmates and focused on the needs of the trans identifying individual?
The critical thinking process about the actual effects of introducing policies such as this seems to have been absent in many cases. Women prisoners as a group aren't being listened to either.
https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/news/2021-07-02/high-court-ruling-male-prisoners-womens-prisons
While the judge in this case agreed that the women prisoners were being discriminated against, they basically shrugged and ruled that it was lawful so, tough really.
Meanwhile you've people on here smugly joking about imaginary genital inspectors.
Which were a) never a thing and b) strangely never even joked about, until the widening of the expectation to segregate facilities by sex rather than 'gender identity'.
I'd love to know what kind of people you think I and others are that are not in 100% agreement with you though? I mean, I realise being a Dundee fan could lead to questions about my own overall sanity, but really? Are we all likely to be either misinformed, bigoted, or just reading the wrong news?
0 -
4 minutes ago, TxRover said:
Not trying to discredit, that’s already been done multiple times by multiple people. Just asking why you are so gosh darned certain you are on the side of the angels…when you have, by your own statement, no experience with any person suffering from the condition. It’s a person/people like you that causes people to internalize feeling and hide them away, to their detriment. You, who have no experience in this area, are willing to state that something is categorically not true/possible/real.
Maybe you should step back from your bunker and look around. You might realize that the unicorn you’ve been insisting doesn’t exist, was actually an anorexic rhino and does exist. The world isn’t as simple as you wish it to be, and I feel sorry for anyone having to deal with someone as closed minded and blinkered as you.
I'm not in a bunker, I read widely, I've looked masses of available evidence and opinion on both 'sides'.
My closest experience is through friends kids and kids at my oldest's school. You can find online though, as easily as I can the experiences of all kinds of people, young and old. Again even if my own kid felt like they were unhappy in their body, I'd not suddenly abandon everything I believe in. I'd be looking for proper support for them to deal with their feelings about themselves.
I'm as certain as I can be, because as I said words have meanings. Especially in law and in policies and in legislation.
If you blur what these words mean and get rid of boundaries, there are material effects.
Rhino or unicorn, people can't change sex. That's not closed minded. Queer theory and philosophical ponderings are ideas, not reality.
I'm sure you'll find some shit to pick at in my post and ignore 95% of what I say anyway.
If something is true/possible/real in somebody's head, that's not a basis for making new laws.
Like I said you can feel bad for your friends or family involved in this, but that's not a reason to pretend we should all agree that there's no effect and no one has the right to discuss it.
Should we?
-1 -
1 hour ago, welshbairn said:
The thing that annoys me about the gender critical arguments is that their complaints about the GRR act are a pretence, it will make minimal changes.
2 years> 3 months + 'reflection'
Medical diagnosis > sign a bit paper
Minimum age 18> crack on if you're 16
Nah just the same.
1 hour ago, welshbairn said:Nearly all the complaints they make already apply to the 2004 Gender Rights Act and the 2010 Equal Rights Act, those are the legal protections they're really attacking.
Nearly all?
We're attacking them how?
1 hour ago, welshbairn said:The Isla Bryson case being raised is particularly daft, it was under current legislation and the GRR Act if passed would give the Chief Constable the powers to deny the right of sexual offenders to apply for a gender recognition certificate.
So daft haha. Male violent criminals in women's prisons is just mildly silly.
Remind me again the demographics - what's the average crime for women in jail (clue: quite a lot of shoplifting, drug offences, not paying TV licences, that kinda thing) and how many are in for violent crime? Compare that to the men in jail.
It's not just the legislation. As per the screenshots I posted yesterday, this was done in the background - the prison service in Scotland was literally the experiment.
James Morton of the Scottish Trans Alliance explained that if they could get the SPS to accept self ID it would be easier to get it accepted in other organisations. (Paraphrasing, but you can Google it). Ideal eh, women prisoners - no one cares if they object!
1 hour ago, welshbairn said:People before 1970 had the right to change their gender on their birth certificates without asking for permission from anyone, anyone can still change the gender on their passport or driving license on the same basis.
That's not really a good thing though, is it, that documents can be changed so easily?
The idea of 'asking permission' is interesting. Reality exists and words have meaning. It's not about limiting people for the sake of it. It's about the effect of changing the meaning of words, in law and in day to day use.
1 hour ago, welshbairn said:The arguments also involve a refusal to accept that sex and gender are not necessarily the same thing, or more likely a feigned misunderstanding to legitimise the continual "Can a woman have a penis?" gotcha questions for politicians that delight the truly moronic. And at the same time as claiming that gender reassignment treatment and surgery is torture, so they have all angles covered.
Yes, they're different. It's not a feigned misunderstanding.
Sex is a material reality. Women never have a penis.
Gender as we previously knew it, is a bunch of crappy stereotypes of femininity and masculinity. Which limit both men and women.
The concept of gender as an identity which can supercede sex, is not the same thing.
1 -
1 hour ago, andyg83 said:
You know that's not true so why post that.
Exactly.
I already bored everyone's arse off with how long I've been hearing/thinking about it.
That makes me weird too though so I canny win.
If all you've got is havers though
-2 -
4 hours ago, TxRover said:
No, I’m talking about experience in the U.S., behavior in the UK and U.S., and laws in Scotland…it’s a bit of a mishmash, but still.
You still don’t explain where the nasty trans person touched you, or whatever trigger it is. Much like those saying “I’m not racist, I have a black friend”, you doth protest too much.
I've explained there's no such thing.
It's not about disliking trans people. We're discussing the fact that I find people's material sex to be a more important way of differentiation, than how they feel inside or want to be seen.
Honestly you're trying to discredit me again, instead of answering. It's getting boring now.
Are you convinced that only people who know someone trans personally are allowed an opinion on this topic, is everyone else just a bigot who is stupid and transphobic?
You don't need to be triggered to take an interest in any area of politics, last time I checked?
-1
Every third touch of the ball is a miskick or a bad touch
Dundee v Cove Rangers
in Scottish Championship General Chatter
Posted
Maybe - it's 7 year olds playing 4v4 with no keeper, they'd all be shattered by 45 mins so Dundee would have a chance