Kyle Walker

[Norfolk Mustard 106]

I've zero awareness of anything Kyle Walker may have done. tbh, I quite like it that way!...

[Terminally Yellow 2,614]

38 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Alpha males always have more sexual opportunities than beta males. It's a risk that wives and girlfriends of alpha males take 

Spoken like a true ****. 

[cambridgeshire canary 7,697]

41 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Alpha males always have more sexual opportunities than beta males. It's a risk that wives and girlfriends of alpha males take 

Can you repeat that in English?

[......and Smith must score. 1,554]

47 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Alpha males always have more sexual opportunities than beta males. It's a risk that wives and girlfriends of alpha males take 

Alpha males tend to be more Neanderthal so not surprising a lot of their relationships end up down the swanee. They rarely trouble the longest marriage section of the Guinness Book of Records.

[duke63 708]

On 05/02/2024 at 12:18, Well b back said:

Jude Bellingham does huge amounts to support the youth of Birmingham

That doesn't sell copies of the Daily Mail/Express/Sun though 😉

[Nuff Said 5,868]

29 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Can you repeat that in English?

It’s ok, I speak caveman: “Grrrr, ugh”.

[shefcanary 2,901]

1 hour ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

Might have lived in a council flat, but I thought he grew up in Sharrow, round the Eccy Road area, one of the nicest parts of Sheffield isn't it? 

He grew up on the Lansdowne Estate - see pic. I think he was brought up in the block on the left.

Yes it is in Sharrow but for much of the past 50 years Sharrow has been the butt end of those nicer areas of Nether Edge, Brincliffe Edge, Ecclesall Road and Collegiate. I luckily live in the leafier suburb next door, ironically on land that was known as Sharrow Moor until the early 1850's, but is now gentrified and deemed to be part of Nether Edge. 

[JonnyJonnyRowe 898]

2 hours ago, shefcanary said:

He grew up on the Lansdowne Estate - see pic. I think he was brought up in the block on the left.

Yes it is in Sharrow but for much of the past 50 years Sharrow has been the butt end of those nicer areas of Nether Edge, Brincliffe Edge, Ecclesall Road and Collegiate. I luckily live in the leafier suburb next door, ironically on land that was known as Sharrow Moor until the early 1850's, but is now gentrified and deemed to be part of Nether Edge. 

I just looked at Google Maps to refresh my memory and noticed it is a bit closer to London Road than the heart of Eccy Road, muggers alley and rough as **** around there despite it only being a 15 minute walk. Weird place is Sheffield 🤣

When you talk about local players won't get much more local than that for Sheff Utd. 

Edited February 12 by JonnyJonnyRowe
edited out a swearword

[Fen Canary 1,450]

12 hours ago, Bobzilla said:

Where homophobia has all but disappeared?  Yeah, right.

It hasn’t disappeared, it’s gone incognito.  It’s turned from outright banning gay people from various places, abusing them, beating them up, to more subtle forms of discrimination, lower pay rises and promotion prospects, being excluded from things, presumptions made.  We’re not enlightened, we’re covert.

I’ll assume you have lots of examples you can share with us of this rampant homophobia that pervades through every sector of society ?  

[A Load of Squit 6,205]

8 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

I’ll assume you have lots of examples you can share with us of this rampant homophobia that pervades through every sector of society ?  

You want somone to give examples of 'rampant homophobia' as they questioned your earlier claim that homophobia had all but dissappeared? 

Do you live life by only measuring by extremes?

[Bobzilla 207]

11 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

I’ll assume you have lots of examples you can share with us of this rampant homophobia that pervades through every sector of society ?  

Actually, yes I do.  The Tory MP than came out as trans?  The hate that the trans community has faced and the legal support that trans-phobia has received?  (And before you say that trans phobia is not homophobia, 1 - take a long hard look at yourself and 2 - ask the majority of the LGB community how they feel about transphobia, and what it says about societal acceptance of them).  

If you want to look at homophobia specifically, look at the number of people that will not come out as gay or bi because of how they expect to be treated by peers, colleagues, friends and family.  There’s some enlightening stats on Stonewall’s website - only 46% of LGB people feel comfortable actually coming out.

If you’re telling me that you wouldn’t see a friend or colleague in even the slightest different (negative) way if they suddenly came out as gay, you’re either incredibly enlightened or you’re lying.  Probably to yourself as much as to me and the rest of the people on this forum.  You might be one of the enlightened ones.  Most aren’t.

[Mr Angry 1,913]

16 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

I’ll assume you have lots of examples you can share with us of this rampant homophobia that pervades through every sector of society ?  

24,102 hate crimes recorded by police in England and Wales for the year to 31 March 2023 where the personal characteristic for the crime was sexual orientation, and 4,732 where the characteristic was being transgender. That’s nearly 29,000 or 79 per day.
Not enough for you? Well, that’s just the ones that have been reported to the police. A Government survey of the LGBTQ+ community in 2018 found that less than 1 in 10 victims reported hate crimes. So make that 288,340 crimes per year, or 790 per day.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023#police-recorded-hate-crime

[JonnyJonnyRowe 898]

On 05/02/2024 at 06:19, BroadstairsR said:

I suspect he is more cunning than bright.

His wife is the smart one.

They weren't married when Kyle Walker had his first secret kid.

Used that as leverage to push him into marriage when getting back together.

Now gets to take half his fortune two years later after the second one came to light. he doesn't sound very smart to me, sounds like she's done him up like a kipper, and fair play to her.

[Fen Canary 1,450]

9 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

You want somone to give examples of 'rampant homophobia' as they questioned your earlier claim that homophobia had all but dissappeared? 

Do you live life by only measuring by extremes?

No, but I said it had all but disappeared so by definition there wouldn’t be many examples of homophobic crimes. If it is as common as the poster claimed then they should be able to easily prove me wrong by providing numerous cases

[Fen Canary 1,450]

6 hours ago, Bobzilla said:

Actually, yes I do.  The Tory MP than came out as trans?  The hate that the trans community has faced and the legal support that trans-phobia has received?  (And before you say that trans phobia is not homophobia, 1 - take a long hard look at yourself and 2 - ask the majority of the LGB community how they feel about transphobia, and what it says about societal acceptance of them).  

If you want to look at homophobia specifically, look at the number of people that will not come out as gay or bi because of how they expect to be treated by peers, colleagues, friends and family.  There’s some enlightening stats on Stonewall’s website - only 46% of LGB people feel comfortable actually coming out.

If you’re telling me that you wouldn’t see a friend or colleague in even the slightest different (negative) way if they suddenly came out as gay, you’re either incredibly enlightened or you’re lying.  Probably to yourself as much as to me and the rest of the people on this forum.  You might be one of the enlightened ones.  Most aren’t.

Transphobia is not homophobia, as being transsexual/transgender is not in any way connected to being same sex attracted. The fact they’ve seemingly been lumped under the same umbrella makes no sense, and has seen many peel off to the new LGB group as a result (funnily enough a group that’s regularly attacked by trans allies as being bigoted, so perhaps homophobia is on the rise after all).

The fact you’ve had to drag the seperate trans debate into a discussion about homophobia implies that it isn’t actually common at all, although it may be more prevalent amongst some of the more religious ethnic minority communities I’ll grant you 

[Fen Canary 1,450]

1 hour ago, Mr Angry said:

24,102 hate crimes recorded by police in England and Wales for the year to 31 March 2023 where the personal characteristic for the crime was sexual orientation, and 4,732 where the characteristic was being transgender. That’s nearly 29,000 or 79 per day.
Not enough for you? Well, that’s just the ones that have been reported to the police. A Government survey of the LGBTQ+ community in 2018 found that less than 1 in 10 victims reported hate crimes. So make that 288,340 crimes per year, or 790 per day.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023#police-recorded-hate-crime

So it’s 66 a day then, not 79. Also many of these are hate crime incidents, whereby a crime doesn’t have to have taken place, or any proof required that homophobia was the cause. An accusation of homophobia is sufficient for it to be logged as such even if none was intended. Social media is a sewer for this, people claiming offence where none was intended, so I take these figures with a pinch of salt.

1 instance is too many obviously, however in a country of 70 million those numbers are exceptionally low 

[Mr Angry 1,913]

58 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

So it’s 66 a day then, not 79. Also many of these are hate crime incidents, whereby a crime doesn’t have to have taken place, or any proof required that homophobia was the cause. An accusation of homophobia is sufficient for it to be logged as such even if none was intended. Social media is a sewer for this, people claiming offence where none was intended, so I take these figures with a pinch of salt.

1 instance is too many obviously, however in a country of 70 million those numbers are exceptionally low 

The report suggests to me that these are the numbers of cases where an actual criminal offence has occurred, rather than the number of cases where people have just reported an incident-I might be wrong though.

[Fen Canary 1,450]

32 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

The report suggests to me that these are the numbers of cases where an actual criminal offence has occurred, rather than the number of cases where people have just reported an incident-I might be wrong though.

I think non crime hate incidents are still recorded as such, and even appear on your record with CRB checks even if the police don’t formally charge you. I could be wrong though, it’s happened before 

[Bobzilla 207]

On 13/02/2024 at 19:21, Fen Canary said:

So it’s 66 a day then, not 79. Also many of these are hate crime incidents, whereby a crime doesn’t have to have taken place, or any proof required that homophobia was the cause. An accusation of homophobia is sufficient for it to be logged as such even if none was intended. Social media is a sewer for this, people claiming offence where none was intended, so I take these figures with a pinch of salt.

1 instance is too many obviously, however in a country of 70 million those numbers are exceptionally low 

But you said ‘all but disappeared’.  Perhaps sir could put a precise figure on how many incidents per day are permissible before we must acknowledge that there is still a problem…

As for your assertion that transphobia does not equal homophobia, 1 - technically you are correct, but, and more importantly, 2 - that doesn’t matter in the slightest bit.  The point is that a court has ruled that having a hatred of a particular PROTECTED group is a belief system worthy of respect, so long as the person is only telling people that they are basically abhorrent rather than actually misgendering them…. I won’t deny that there are some in the LGB community that think that the trans issue is an existential threat to them as LGB persons, but by far the majority position is that the LGBT community needs to stick together rather than be splintered off.  The prevalence of transphobia is directly concerning to them because, to misquote Richey Manic, ‘if you tolerate this, then [we] will be next’.  If transphobia is acceptable, why is homophobia not acceptable?  After all, it’s the same old recycled arguments being used now as they were 15 years ago against the gay community.  The mere existence of transphobia as a legally sanctioned belief system worthy of respect is terrifying to everyone I know in the LGB community.

And, to be brutally honest, the fact that you’re here telling the community how they should feel, and that 70 incidences a day is ‘all but disappeared’ is a massive red flag that actually the issue is as alive and healthy as ever.

[Fen Canary 1,450]

8 hours ago, Bobzilla said:

But you said ‘all but disappeared’.  Perhaps sir could put a precise figure on how many incidents per day are permissible before we must acknowledge that there is still a problem…

As for your assertion that transphobia does not equal homophobia, 1 - technically you are correct, but, and more importantly, 2 - that doesn’t matter in the slightest bit.  The point is that a court has ruled that having a hatred of a particular PROTECTED group is a belief system worthy of respect, so long as the person is only telling people that they are basically abhorrent rather than actually misgendering them…. I won’t deny that there are some in the LGB community that think that the trans issue is an existential threat to them as LGB persons, but by far the majority position is that the LGBT community needs to stick together rather than be splintered off.  The prevalence of transphobia is directly concerning to them because, to misquote Richey Manic, ‘if you tolerate this, then [we] will be next’.  If transphobia is acceptable, why is homophobia not acceptable?  After all, it’s the same old recycled arguments being used now as they were 15 years ago against the gay community.  The mere existence of transphobia as a legally sanctioned belief system worthy of respect is terrifying to everyone I know in the LGB community.

And, to be brutally honest, the fact that you’re here telling the community how they should feel, and that 70 incidences a day is ‘all but disappeared’ is a massive red flag that actually the issue is as alive and healthy as ever.

What do you deem to be transphobia though? Is believing that female sports/spaces should be the preserve of biological females transphobic? Or that children shouldn’t be given puberty blockers? I wouldn’t class these views as being transphobic, however they’re often held up as examples. Trans people are statistically less likely to be victims of assault than the rest of the general population after all and I just don’t see the high levels of bigotry that are claimed. I see much more abuse coming from “trans allies” towards people they disagree with than the other way around.

For what it’s worth I only know a couple of gay lads so I’m not sure if their views are prevalent amongst others (they claim they’re common but I’ve no idea) and they see no reason why they’ve been lumped together with the whole trans debate. They think it’s because the old gay rights groups had run out of battles to fight after gay marriage was legalised so they latched on to a new cause to keep the money flowing which sounds plausible albeit a touch cynical.

[Bobzilla 207]

On 16/02/2024 at 20:21, Fen Canary said:

What do you deem to be transphobia though? Is believing that female sports/spaces should be the preserve of biological females transphobic? Or that children shouldn’t be given puberty blockers? I wouldn’t class these views as being transphobic, however they’re often held up as examples. Trans people are statistically less likely to be victims of assault than the rest of the general population after all and I just don’t see the high levels of bigotry that are claimed. I see much more abuse coming from “trans allies” towards people they disagree with than the other way around.

For what it’s worth I only know a couple of gay lads so I’m not sure if their views are prevalent amongst others (they claim they’re common but I’ve no idea) and they see no reason why they’ve been lumped together with the whole trans debate. They think it’s because the old gay rights groups had run out of battles to fight after gay marriage was legalised so they latched on to a new cause to keep the money flowing which sounds plausible albeit a touch cynical.

Let's take those issues.

Female sports and 'biological females'. The issue is competitive advantage.  The studies that have been done are, at best, ambiguous as to whether there is a competitive advantage when a trans female has gone through a male puberty.  The anti-trans lobby would have you believe that they are conclusive, but not enough have been done because the data simply isn't available - professional/serious amateur sport is a very small pool to be fishing in anyway, and the trans population is minute, comparatively speaking. 

But here's the rub.  It is perfectly possible to get a 'natal female' who has the same competitive advantage (muscle mass, testosterone) as a trans female; Castor Senyama come springs to mind. Do you ban them? Do you force them to take medication if they want to compete? That's a very slippery slope to appease a minority.  Looking at the evidence, of the really was an issue, trans females would dominate female sport in a way that was disproportionate to their incidence in the pool. But that isn't happening. So, to my mind, and many others', the jury isn't even out - the prosecution hasn't even presented anything like full evidence - but various bad actors want the jury to provide an early guilty verdict. That's not right.

Taking next the question of puberty blockers to 'children'.  Define 'child'.  In medical terms, the leading case is one of Gillick, from Norfolk as it happens.  The case focused on a girl under 16 who wanted to be put on the pill, and an over-protective mother who wanted to control all the health choices of her daughter.  This one went either to the Court of Appeal or House of Lords (can't remember which, can't be bothered to Google, there's no practical difference here).  It held that a 'child' can choose their own treatment and parents don't have to be involved if the child is capable of fully understanding the treatment itself and the consequences of that treatment. 

In a case such as puberty blockers, that is going to be a very thorough process, despite what Panorama might tell you - I've professionally been a victim of that hatchet job of 'investigative journalism', and their recent piece on ADHD diagnosis was incredibly dubious, even harmful. You don't just get handed out puberty blockers (or ADHD meds) like candy.  The psychological process involved for assessment is insanely rigorous.  So, my stance on puberty blockers for 'kids' is that it's a difficult and nuanced question being handled in a difficult and nuanced way, and trying to give a blanket one size fits all solution is not desirable for society at large. If they do it for them, what about the rest of us? What can we as a general population be denied because we can be legally deemed to not understand, even though we do as a matter of fact?

Also, there's a massive discrimination issue between the two above issues.  You won't allow trans females that have gone through a male puberty to play sports, but you won't permit puberty blockers either?  The two in conjunction sound very discriminatory to me.

On the sentiment of the LGBT community at large, I'm seriously involved in DE&I efforts at my employer (I'm autistic and lead our neurodivergent network) and as such work closely with our pride network representing our LGBT community, including many members.  I have seen a lot of support for the trans community there, and have never seen any reservations expressed.  The only person I've ever had a discussion with where they've expressed issues is with a straight white older man, who clearly has a whole load of skin in that particular game...

That conversation focused on the women's refuges that JK Rowling supports - he's a huge fan of her work, and thinks that allowing trans women in is abhorrent, and risks triggering women in there.  But when you talk to the women, my understanding is that a significant majority aren't actually bothered by trans women - the issue is not as pervasive as portrayed by the media.  But where's the line?  White woman triggered by black people because her abusive partner was black? So let's exclude black women from the refuge?  Would anyone even try to argue that sort of discrimination was acceptable?  If a women's refuge is incapable of running an individual risk assessment on the people it lets through its doors, then there's a real problem there. And if it can do that, blanket bans are unnecessary. Remember, discriminating against trans people is only permissible for single sex spaces if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.  Even if the aim is legitimate, the means has to be proportionate. Blanket bans when there should be risk assessment processes in place are not proportionate.

Prisons might be more of an issue, but again, individual risk assessment. They do it every single day on general population. And you know what? The biggest issue, seed offenders, are likely to be in the Seg, separated out from general population, usually with other sex offenders, with a higher guard ratio, closer monitored, tighter controls, because violence against sex offenders, cis or trans, is a massive risk anyway.

As for stonewall and money flow, i have no idea, but my bet is that general attitude is that if they can do it to trans people, they can do it to anyone. This is EVERYONE'S fight, whether they know it or not.

[Fen Canary 1,450]

10 minutes ago, Bobzilla said:

Let's take those issues.

Female sports and 'biological females'. The issue is competitive advantage.  The studies that have been done are, at best, ambiguous as to whether there is a competitive advantage when a trans female has gone through a male puberty.  The anti-trans lobby would have you believe that they are conclusive, but not enough have been done because the data simply isn't available - professional/serious amateur sport is a very small pool to be fishing in anyway, and the trans population is minute, comparatively speaking. 

But here's the rub.  It is perfectly possible to get a 'natal female' who has the same competitive advantage (muscle mass, testosterone) as a trans female; Castor Senyama come springs to mind. Do you ban them? Do you force them to take medication if they want to compete? That's a very slippery slope to appease a minority.  Looking at the evidence, of the really was an issue, trans females would dominate female sport in a way that was disproportionate to their incidence in the pool. But that isn't happening. So, to my mind, and many others', the jury isn't even out - the prosecution hasn't even presented anything like full evidence - but various bad actors want the jury to provide an early guilty verdict. That's not right.

Taking next the question of puberty blockers to 'children'.  Define 'child'.  In medical terms, the leading case is one of Gillick, from Norfolk as it happens.  The case focused on a girl under 16 who wanted to be put on the pill, and an over-protective mother who wanted to control all the health choices of her daughter.  This one went either to the Court of Appeal or House of Lords (can't remember which, can't be bothered to Google, there's no practical difference here).  It held that a 'child' can choose their own treatment and parents don't have to be involved if the child is capable of fully understanding the treatment itself and the consequences of that treatment. 

In a case such as puberty blockers, that is going to be a very thorough process, despite what Panorama might tell you - I've professionally been a victim of that hatchet job of 'investigative journalism', and their recent piece on ADHD diagnosis was incredibly dubious, even harmful. You don't just get handed out puberty blockers (or ADHD meds) like candy.  The psychological process involved for assessment is insanely rigorous.  So, my stance on puberty blockers for 'kids' is that it's a difficult and nuanced question being handled in a difficult and nuanced way, and trying to give a blanket one size fits all solution is not desirable for society at large. If they do it for them, what about the rest of us? What can we as a general population be denied because we can be legally deemed to not understand, even though we do as a matter of fact?

Also, there's a massive discrimination issue between the two above issues.  You won't allow trans females that have gone through a male puberty to play sports, but you won't permit puberty blockers either?  The two in conjunction sound very discriminatory to me.

On the sentiment of the LGBT community at large, I'm seriously involved in DE&I efforts at my employer (I'm autistic and lead our neurodivergent network) and as such work closely with our pride network representing our LGBT community, including many members.  I have seen a lot of support for the trans community there, and have never seen any reservations expressed.  The only person I've ever had a discussion with where they've expressed issues is with a straight white older man, who clearly has a whole load of skin in that particular game...

That conversation focused on the women's refuges that JK Rowling supports - he's a huge fan of her work, and thinks that allowing trans women in is abhorrent, and risks triggering women in there.  But when you talk to the women, my understanding is that a significant majority aren't actually bothered by trans women - the issue is not as pervasive as portrayed by the media.  But where's the line?  White woman triggered by black people because her abusive partner was black? So let's exclude black women from the refuge?  Would anyone even try to argue that sort of discrimination was acceptable?  If a women's refuge is incapable of running an individual risk assessment on the people it lets through its doors, then there's a real problem there. And if it can do that, blanket bans are unnecessary. Remember, discriminating against trans people is only permissible for single sex spaces if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.  Even if the aim is legitimate, the means has to be proportionate. Blanket bans when there should be risk assessment processes in place are not proportionate.

Prisons might be more of an issue, but again, individual risk assessment. They do it every single day on general population. And you know what? The biggest issue, seed offenders, are likely to be in the Seg, separated out from general population, usually with other sex offenders, with a higher guard ratio, closer monitored, tighter controls, because violence against sex offenders, cis or trans, is a massive risk anyway.

As for stonewall and money flow, i have no idea, but my bet is that general attitude is that if they can do it to trans people, they can do it to anyone. This is EVERYONE'S fight, whether they know it or not.

Your first point about going through male puberty not giving athletes a competitive advantage is simply b0ll0cks. Take Lia Thomas in the States for example. When Thomas was racing against men she wasn’t ranked in the top 500, when she switched to the female category she won convincingly. Only the most blinkered of activists could claim that men don’t have a physical advantage over women. I’m not saying trans women shouldn’t be allowed to compete in sports, I’m merely saying that the female category should be restricted to biological women in the interests of fairness.

The long term effects of puberty blockers aren’t known for certain, yet we know that they can reduce bone density, cause psychological issues and infertility. No child in my view is able to weigh up the long term consequences of taking experimental drugs of that nature, especially ones with such significant side effects. To compare it to the contraceptive pill which has been around for 60 years and has no permanent effects is simply nonsense.

Women’s refuges exist because of male violence towards women, therefore it’s perfectly understandable that some women at their most fragile wouldn’t want biological men to be in those spaces. Trying to link it with racism is pathetic, a woman isn’t going to be scared by another lady who happens to be the same colour as her abuser, but we do know that victims of domestic abuse can be fearful of men. Why should a transgender man’s wants take priority of the needs of an abused woman? Likewise with women’s prisons, most of the inmates have suffered domestic abuse, the last thing they need is to be forced to share a cell with a man.

This isn’t everybody’s fight, I side with the feminists in that women’s needs take priority over the wants of transgender people. I‘m not saying that they should be mistreated, but ultimately the safety of women and children has to take priority. 

[Foxy2600 374]

Jeez! What the **** happened to this thread.....

[Bobzilla 207]

A white straight guy decided that homophobia was no longer an issue is what happened.

1 hour ago, Foxy2600 said:

Jeez! What the **** happened to this thread.....

 

[CANARYKING 703]

4 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Your first point about going through male puberty not giving athletes a competitive advantage is simply b0ll0cks. Take Lia Thomas in the States for example. When Thomas was racing against men she wasn’t ranked in the top 500, when she switched to the female category she won convincingly. Only the most blinkered of activists could claim that men don’t have a physical advantage over women. I’m not saying trans women shouldn’t be allowed to compete in sports, I’m merely saying that the female category should be restricted to biological women in the interests of fairness.

The long term effects of puberty blockers aren’t known for certain, yet we know that they can reduce bone density, cause psychological issues and infertility. No child in my view is able to weigh up the long term consequences of taking experimental drugs of that nature, especially ones with such significant side effects. To compare it to the contraceptive pill which has been around for 60 years and has no permanent effects is simply nonsense.

Women’s refuges exist because of male violence towards women, therefore it’s perfectly understandable that some women at their most fragile wouldn’t want biological men to be in those spaces. Trying to link it with racism is pathetic, a woman isn’t going to be scared by another lady who happens to be the same colour as her abuser, but we do know that victims of domestic abuse can be fearful of men. Why should a transgender man’s wants take priority of the needs of an abused woman? Likewise with women’s prisons, most of the inmates have suffered domestic abuse, the last thing they need is to be forced to share a cell with a man.

This isn’t everybody’s fight, I side with the feminists in that women’s needs take priority over the wants of transgender people. I‘m not saying that they should be mistreated, but ultimately the safety of women and children has to take priority. 

Thought this thread was called  “ Kyle Walker “

[Bobzilla 207]

4 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Your first point about going through male puberty not giving athletes a competitive advantage is simply b0ll0cks. Take Lia Thomas in the States for example. When Thomas was racing against men she wasn’t ranked in the top 500, when she switched to the female category she won convincingly. Only the most blinkered of activists could claim that men don’t have a physical advantage over women. I’m not saying trans women shouldn’t be allowed to compete in sports, I’m merely saying that the female category should be restricted to biological women in the interests of fairness.

Your evidence is a survey of one? Jog on.

[Foxy2600 374]

2 hours ago, Bobzilla said:

A white straight guy decided that homophobia was no longer an issue is what happened.

 

So, as it descends into utter drivel, needs putting in 'Non-Football? 

 

MODS!!!!!!!

[Fen Canary 1,450]

2 hours ago, Foxy2600 said:

So, as it descends into utter drivel, needs putting in 'Non-Football? 

 

MODS!!!!!!!

It isn’t utter drivel, it’s an important subject currently as the many court cases being won by the feminists can testify. However you’re correct it’s long since diverged from the original point if Kyle Walker cheating on his missus 

[Fen Canary 1,450]

5 hours ago, Bobzilla said:

A white straight guy decided that homophobia was no longer an issue is what happened.

 

Why do you assume I’m white? What does a person’s ethnicity have to do with anything in regards to opinions on the debate? That sounds a rather racist opinion to hold in my view