Spat Thread

TRR

ha ha. I'll save us all some time here.

We see this slagging off as something funny. Nothing anyone writes will change our view on this.

Some see this in another light as some sort of sexism/discrimination. Nothing I write will change your mind.

menoscemo

RayCun wrote: »

If the club were Sportsworld and the joke was "the sportsworldettes" or Donore Harriers to the Donore Belles,

BTW that would be ridiculous. Have you seen those ugly feckers? :pac:

RayCun

ultrapercy wrote: »

Who was Brother Pearse anyhow?

This fecking nutter and his brother ran a school in the area. (They did have a sister but she wasn't involved afaik) The "athletics club" was originally a cover for gun-running and introducing Soviet counterfeit notes into Ireland.

menoscemo

RayCun wrote: »

Donore Harriers to the Donore Belles,

Got it!! It came to me during my run just now.

We'll call them the Donore Harriettes :pac:

theboyblunder

I think t-runner has raised important points. I also think that balance is very important in a discussion like this.

So perhaps its important to point out that the tallaght ac athletes on this thread are a bunch of thieving, illiterate, session-dodging, welfare-defrauding, burger chomping gits

menoscemo

theboyblunder wrote: »

So perhaps its important to point out that the tallaght ac athletes on this thread are a bunch of thieving, illiterate, session-dodging, welfare-defrauding, burger chomping gits

Yeah but TRR's Beermile time from Saturday night is faster than the mile PB of 99% of your clubmates

TRR

theboyblunder wrote: »

So perhaps its important to point out that the tallaght ac athletes on this thread are a bunch of thieving, illiterate, session-dodging, welfare-defrauding, burger chomping gits

ha ha We haven't been caught defrauding the welfare so take that back!

Are you fcukwits still planning on entering a team in the Frank Duffy? Can't spy on you any more since you made your club's (and I use the term loosely) facebook page private!

theboyblunder

menoscemo wrote: »

Yeah but TRR's Beermile time from Saturday night is faster than the mile PB of 99% of your clubmates

Haha i actually compile our race times and can state categorically that aint true . meno, my lidlflagonofcider-mile time is prob faster than your flat out effort right now.

TRR wrote: »

ha ha We haven't been caught defrauding the welfare so take that back!

Are you fcukwits still planning on entering a team in the Frank Duffy? Can't spy on you any more since you made your club's (and I use the term loosely) facebook page private!

Yip. Looking forward to it!

T runner

TRR wrote: »

ha ha. I'll save us all some time here.

We see this slagging off as something funny. Nothing anyone writes will change our view on this.

Some see this in another light as some sort of sexism/discrimination. Nothing I write will change your mind.

First of all you can only speak for yourself.

Secondly your post implies that something being "funny" and being discriminatory are mutually exclusive. That makes no sense.

For example, Some find jokes involving racism funny. You wont get many comedians telling them anymore though.

Perhaps I can clarify it for you. Would mocking a man from one race by calling him a member of another race be discriminatory? Yes or No?
Then mocking someone of one gender by calling them the other gender is discriminatory. If you disagree please explain why. You're an educated man apparently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjJQBjWYDTs

TRR wrote: »

very similar to TBB's running style

And youre correct. Nothing you write will change my view on your attitude.

ecoli

T,

With all due respect you will find that the majority of the "banter" between people in this situation are people who train together (despite being in different clubs) and socially interact outside of boards. You will also find that many of the people involved in the slagging are normally the first to support fund raising endeavours etc (even if we did try and "mistakenly" steal a number of raffle prizes :P) not to mention also singing their praise with regards their grassroots approach and actively developing a very healthy club spirit and infrastructure for development of their athletes off all levels.

I can get what you are saying but you are missing the context. Would you be as defensive if you interchanged these clubs with say English football clubs? (for example Man Utd and Liverpool fansor Cork and Kilkenny Hurling fans). There is always a focus of taunts with rivalries, in this incidence it is based around the clubs success much like Liverpool living in the past with regards Trophies won (still without a Premier League thankfully ) There is no social exclusion or even any negative influence of behavior towards either club here and in fact there is actually probably one of the healthier club relationships on a whole in the Dublin area IMO.

TRR

T runner wrote: »

Perhaps I can clarify it for you. Would mocking a man from one race by calling him a member of another race be discriminatory? Yes or No?
Then mocking someone of one gender by calling them the other gender is discriminatory. If you disagree please explain why.

No thanks I'm not getting into a circular debate thank you very much.

T runner wrote: »

And youre correct. Nothing you write will change my view on your attitude.

Ditto but I'll continue my jibes here! You can interpret them anyway you please!

T runner

ecoli wrote: »

T,

With all due respect you will find that the majority of the "banter" between people in this situation are people who train together (despite being in different clubs) and socially interact outside of boards. You will also find that many of the people involved in the slagging are normally the first to support fund raising endeavours etc (even if we did try and "mistakenly" steal a number of raffle prizes :P) not to mention also singing their praise with regards their grassroots approach and actively developing a very healthy club spirit and infrastructure for development of their athletes off all levels.

I can get what you are saying but you are missing the context. Would you be as defensive if you interchanged these clubs with say English football clubs? (for example Man Utd and Liverpool fansor Cork and Kilkenny Hurling fans). There is always a focus of taunts with rivalries, in this incidence it is based around the clubs success much like Liverpool living in the past with regards Trophies won (still without a Premier League thankfully ) There is no social exclusion or even any negative influence of behavior towards either club here and in fact there is actually probably one of the healthier club relationships on a whole in the Dublin area IMO.

OK, Lets use another sport as an example for clarification purposes. If you can logically explain why the following example is not discriminatory then you'll prove you're point.

Two swimming clubs in Dublin. One called "Irish Freestyle" swimming club the other say, Clondalkin swimming club. (There is a great relationship between the two clubs, and many of the swimmers engage in fundraising etc etc.)
Both have a contingent of "new" Irish members as the term goes.
Usually the white swimmers outperform the few swimmers from Africa.
In the "Irish Freestyle" swimming club, however, the African swimmers are winning more.

Back on the swimming forum on 'Surfboards.ie' the Clondalkin folks start to pull the p1ss out of the Freestylers.
They refer to them as the "Nigerian Freestyle Swimming club" or "the Nigerians", and when describing individual or groups of white members they mock them as "Nigerians" or "Blacks". The intention is lighthearted banter.

Is this discriminatory? I would Yes, definately. Does the discrimination fade because particular jokes are funny or because people don't object? No it doesn't.

It is not acceptable to use the term "Black" or "Nigerian" as a mocking description. People are not colour blind to race prejudice (as much) any more.
Once you replace race with gender, the blindness does seem to return however.
The lads doing the jibing don't realize this, they think its a bit of Craic. I believe that.

Using 'woman' as a mocking/derogatory term, needs to be as unacceptable as using 'black' as a mocking/derogatory term. One person at least should point that out.

Good luck.

TRR

grand so, on with the childish slagging and spatting!

theboyblunder

T runner wrote: »

OK, Lets use another sport as an example for clarification purposes. If you can logically explain why the following example is not discriminatory then you'll prove you're point.

Two swimming clubs in Dublin. One called "Irish Freestyle" swimming club the other say, Clondalkin swimming club. (There is a great relationship between the two clubs, and many of the swimmers engage in fundraising etc etc.)
Both have a contingent of "new" Irish members as the term goes.
Usually the white swimmers outperform the few swimmers from Africa.
In the "Irish Freestyle" swimming club, however, the African swimmers are winning more.

Back on the swimming forum on 'Surfboards.ie' the Clondalkin folks start to pull the p1ss out of the Freestylers.
They refer to them as the "Nigerian Freestyle Swimming club" or "the Nigerians", and when describing individual or groups of white members they mock them as "Nigerians" or "Blacks". The intention is lighthearted banter.

Is this discriminatory? I would Yes, definately. Does the discrimination fade because particular jokes are funny or because people don't object? No it doesn't.

It is not acceptable to use the term "Black" or "Nigerian" as a mocking description. People are not colour blind to race prejudice (as much) any more.
Once you replace race with gender, the blindness does seem to return however.
The lads doing the jibing don't realize this, they think its a bit of Craic. I believe that.

Using 'woman' as a mocking/derogatory term, needs to be as unacceptable as using 'black' as a mocking/derogatory term. One person at least should point that out.

Good luck.

women, on average....run slower than men, particular over shorter distances.

We had a woman in the club who was faster than the male club members on boards (of which I am one) over 5K.

It was an unusual situation, which dodnt exactly reflect well on the standard of male running at the club. The tallaght lads took advatange of this, and called us Sister's Pearse. Not because 'woman = bad', but because it reminded us that there was a woman faster some of our faster men at the club.

Even though myself and Ray were the main targets of this - we found it quite funny.

Its banter, and not sexist banter at that.

ultrapercy

T runner wrote: »

OK, Lets use another sport as an example for clarification purposes. If you can logically explain why the following example is not discriminatory then you'll prove you're point.

Two swimming clubs in Dublin. One called "Irish Freestyle" swimming club the other say, Clondalkin swimming club. (There is a great relationship between the two clubs, and many of the swimmers engage in fundraising etc etc.)
Both have a contingent of "new" Irish members as the term goes.
Usually the white swimmers outperform the few swimmers from Africa.
In the "Irish Freestyle" swimming club, however, the African swimmers are winning more.

Back on the swimming forum on 'Surfboards.ie' the Clondalkin folks start to pull the p1ss out of the Freestylers.
They refer to them as the "Nigerian Freestyle Swimming club" or "the Nigerians", and when describing individual or groups of white members they mock them as "Nigerians" or "Blacks". The intention is lighthearted banter.

Is this discriminatory? I would Yes, definately. Does the discrimination fade because particular jokes are funny or because people don't object? No it doesn't.

It is not acceptable to use the term "Black" or "Nigerian" as a mocking description. People are not colour blind to race prejudice (as much) any more.
Once you replace race with gender, the blindness does seem to return however.
The lads doing the jibing don't realize this, they think its a bit of Craic. I believe that.

Using 'woman' as a mocking/derogatory term, needs to be as unacceptable as using 'black' as a mocking/derogatory term. One person at least should point that out.

Good luck.

I have a serious question that requires a yes or no answer (but you can expand if you wish) that question is : is every second advert on radio and TV that portray men look like complete idiots incapable of simple tasks and women as a superior super race of far higher intelligence also discriminatory in your view? It also happens in TV shows and movies etc just interested to know your point of view on this or if you believe its an issue.

ecoli

T,

Your example is one which does not stand up again due to context.

Social perception, though usually not understand as to the actual biology, has led to a common perception of the certain athletic characteristic differences between male and female.

Very few have an insight into the genetic differences between races. As such your comparison does not hold up.

Humour loses value when has to be explained that's why most jokes are based on the most basic common perceptions hence why this term was taken here as opposed to any other form of taunt (would like to point out that social class discrimination was also brought up here but didn't get much of a consideration or would you not feel this as big an issue?)

T runner

theboyblunder wrote: »

women, on average....run slower than men, particular over shorter distances.

We had a woman in the club who was faster than the male club members on boards (of which I am one) over 5K.

It was an unusual situation, which dodnt exactly reflect well on the standard of male running at the club. The tallaght lads took advatange of this, and called us Sister's Pearse. Not because 'woman = bad', but because it reminded us that there was a woman faster some of our faster men at the club.

Even though myself and Ray were the main targets of this - we found it quite funny.

Its banter, and not sexist banter at that.

blacks, on average....swim slower than whites, particular in cold open water.

We had a Nigerian in the club who was faster than the Irish club members on surfboards (of which I am one) over 100m.

It was an unusual situation, which dodnt exactly reflect well on the standard of Irish swimming at the club. The Clondalkin lads took advatange of this, and called us "Nigerian/Black Freestylers" (and called white club members Nigerians/Blacks)

Not because 'Nigerian/black = bad', but because it reminded us that there was a Nigerian faster some of our faster white swimmers at the club.

Even though myself and Ray were the main targets of this - we found it quite funny.

Its banter, and not racist banter at that.

RayCun

T runner wrote: »

blacks, on average....swim slower than whites, particular in cold open water.

they do?

TRR

theboyblunder wrote: »

Even though myself and Ray were the main targets of this - we found it quite funny.

you're incorrect it was aimed at all male runners in your club equally

davedanon

I've had something to do with this, since it was me that photoshopped the BP container pic. I initially took it that 'Sisters Pearse' was just a play on words implying a lack of 'manliness' on the part of the male BP athletes on here. In which case, Trunner would have had a point. but, as tbb says, it was specifically because a FEMALE athlete was outperforming some of the men. This isn't a case of gender discrimination. If anything it's the opposite. Which brings me onto Trunner's corollary point, that it was also disrespectful to the male athletes. there's a thing about discrimination that a lot of people don't get. It's all to do with power, and the balance of that power. ultra p's question about bumbling men on tv is like white people who accuse black people of racism if they try and promote the interests of other black people. White people, specifically white males, are still the 'dominant' segment of society, like it or not. White people do better than black people, white men do better than white women. middle-class white men are at the top of the pile. This is obviously wrong, and society in general is slowly and painfully edging towards equality. But while we're still on top, we'll just have to put up with ads on telly portraying us as idiotic and pathetic. That'a because the reality is obviously so different. This is just an aspect of the gradual re-adjustment of society's ideas about men and women's abilities and entitlements. the day men can complain about this 'discrimination' is the day when the pendulum is allowed to swing too far, and women become dominant and start to oppress and out-earn men. Er, that's all.

And as Ian Dury said: "A sense of humour is required, amongst the bacon rinds"

davedanon

The "what if it was a black person?" mode of argument is quite tired, in my view.

Gringo78

T runner wrote: »

Two swimming clubs in Dublin. One called "Irish Freestyle" swimming club the other say, Clondalkin swimming club. (There is a great relationship between the two clubs, and many of the swimmers engage in fundraising etc etc.)
Both have a contingent of "new" Irish members as the term goes.
Usually the white swimmers outperform the few swimmers from Africa.
In the "Irish Freestyle" swimming club, however, the African swimmers are winning more.

Back on the swimming forum on 'Surfboards.ie' the Clondalkin folks start to pull the p1ss out of the Freestylers.
They refer to them as the "Nigerian Freestyle Swimming club" or "the Nigerians", and when describing individual or groups of white members they mock them as "Nigerians" or "Blacks". The intention is lighthearted banter

Not seeing the witty word play here which the tallaght boys used with the brothers/sisters swap here.....there's no connection between freestyle and black??

Do you have a view on whether the brothers need to modify their club name? Now that they are a mixed club with a successful female contingent, it strikes me that the name 'Brothers' is quite sinister or even 'odd and unpleasant' and suggests all the power in the club rests with the male element of the club (even though they are slower). Perhaps it's time for the club to move I to the 21st century and rename themselves Siblings Pearse?

theboyblunder

T runner wrote: »

blacks, on average....swim slower than whites, particular in cold open water.

How are they in any way the same?

There are sound physiological reasons why women run significantly slower than men on average. Its a large difference, and not disputed by anyone. So to make that assumption is not discriminatory in any way. One expects the faster men at a club to be faster than the faster women.

Thats why they give out mens and womens prizes seperately in running, but not in equestrian events.

Or are separate prizes discrimination too?

To make the same assumption about race is very different.

TRR

theboyblunder wrote: »

How are they in any way the same?

There are sound physiological reasons why women run significantly slower than men on average. Its a large difference, and not disputed by anyone. So to make that assumption is not discriminatory in any way. One expects the faster men at a club to be faster than the faster women.

Thats why they give out mens and womens prizes seperately in running, but not in equestrian events.

Or are separate prizes discrimination too?

To make the same assumption about race is very different.

The fact you are defending our jibes here makes me very happy

T runner

ultrapercy wrote: »

I have a serious question that requires a yes or no answer (but you can expand if you wish) that question is : is every second advert on radio and TV that portray men look like complete idiots incapable of simple tasks and women as a superior super race of far higher intelligence also discriminatory in your view? It also happens in TV shows and movies etc just interested to know your point of view on this or if you believe its an issue.

The bumbling dad stereotype is an example of how men can get short shrift in entertainment, but it's important to remember both:

that this stereotype was born in response to the dependable, perfect father of '50s TV
and

that it implies women are meant to be the more responsible — that's code for "nagging" partner.

Are repeated images of clueless men offensive? Sure.
But there are many other and varied representations of men available in media. The breadth of male characters simply crushes that of female characters (and LGBT ones, and non-white ones, for that matter).

ecoli wrote: »

T,

Your example is one which does not stand up again due to context.

Social perception, though usually not understand as to the actual biology, has led to a common perception of the certain athletic characteristic differences between male and female.

Very few have an insight into the genetic differences between races. As such your comparison does not hold up.

You're missing the point completely Ecoli.

When is it OK to mock a white person publicly by calling him "black"? The answer is never. Regardless of context. You are calling the person "black" to mock them. No more context is needed.

Its the exact same for gender as race. If they should be viewed differently please enlighten me.

(would like to point out that social class discrimination was also brought up here but didn't get much of a consideration or would you not feel this as big an issue?)

Social discrimination is a huge issue. (Is social class discrimination in the charter BTW?) I live in Ballybough and I see it first hand. I vote and more accordingly.
I can only address one issue at a time, however. That doesn't mean Im being hypocritical (which seems to be the implication of yours and Ultras comment). Enough whataboutery for now?

theboyblunder

TRR wrote: »

The fact you are defending our jibes here makes me very happy

somebody has to - you just arent intellectually capable

TRR

it's only a matter of time before this dude comes raining in on this party!

T runner

davedanon wrote: »

I've had something to do with this, since it was me that photoshopped the BP container pic. I initially took it that 'Sisters Pearse' was just a play on words implying a lack of 'manliness' on the part of the male BP athletes on here.

Mocking a white man by calling him "black" isn't a play of words.
Just as mocking a man by calling him "woman" isnt. Quite clear cut.


I'm going to leave ye to it.

davedanon

T runner wrote: »

Mocking a white man by calling him "black" isn't a play of words.
Just as mocking a man by calling him "woman" isnt. Quite clearcut.

The point is, the 'man' was being mocked not because women are inferior, but the opposite. The 'woman' was better than him.

Do you see the difference?

barryoneill50

Bloody owl ones the lot of ye....

ecoli

Moving on swiftly for our Yank com padres

davedanon

barryoneill50 wrote: »

Bloody owl ones the lot of ye....

To wit to woo.

Murph_D

That was quite a spat alright. Have to say I agree with T Runner - the origin of the term is irrelevant: what matters is that it relies on a general perception of women as relatively weak and unsporty to be "funny" for some. Without this general societal stereotype it would make no sense; but yet it helps perpetuate it. This happens whether the slur is intentional or just "banter".

But anyway we've been over all that. No doubt it has helped a few cogs to slowly turn.

ThisRegard

Murph_D wrote: »

But anyway we've been over all that. No doubt it has helped a few cogs to slowly turn.

Are you saying men are stupid and needs things spelled out to them ?

Murph_D

ThisRegard wrote: »

Are you saying men are stupid and needs things spelled out to them ?

If my post came across as condescending that certainly wasn't my intention. Apologies if it caused any offence. In my opinion, this is a complex issue and it certainly took ME a long time to get my head around all the issues involved. But of course it would be wrong of me generalise from my own experience.

Clearlier

Murph_D wrote: »

If my post came across as condescending that certainly wasn't my intention. Apologies if it caused any offence. In my opinion, this is a complex issue and it certainly took ME a long time to get my head around all the issues involved. But of course it would be wrong of me generalise from my own experience.

I think that there may have been some sarcasm involved

Clearlier

Wonder what people would think about Kenyan runners putting somebody down by describing their performance as European?

I can see the point that Trunner makes but I agree with ecoli that comparing the differences between men and women to the difference between people who have black skin and people who have white skin is invalid.

On average women are slower than men. We had a female olympian training with us who was aiming to qualify for Beijing. She wasn't by any means the fastest in the training group but she had reached a much higher level in women's running than any of the men had in mens running. There are inherent physiological reasons for this including (but not limited to) levels of testosterone and body fat. As a bit of a random aside women's legs take up a greater proporotion of their body height than mens which theoretically should give them an advantage. I'd be curious to know how a transgendered person (born with a female body but changing to a male one) would perform. I've heard of it the other way - obviously only anecdotal - but the report was that the runner very quickly started running equivalent times after they began the change chemically.

What would have been insulting (and remarkably stupid) would have been for me to tell our olympian that as she was a woman she must run more slowly than me. Fortunately it's pretty straightforward in running to get rid of any stupid misconceptions at an individual level.

It's possibly just me but when I first heard the joke about sisters pearse I thought that it was celebrating the achievements of their female athletes but that's what lack of context on a message board can do for you. the joke/barb/banter is funny because at a macro level there's a difference, it wouldn't be funny if people believed there to be a difference where none existed and it's never funny at an individual level.

The best advice that I ever got about interacting with people from anywhere in the world came when I worked for a company that changed pretty much overnight from being a regionally based organisation to having teams with members from all over the world. One of the big concerns was how we would all interact with culture clashes etc.. On my first trip to meet the new team we had a session about interacting with people from different cultures. The first couple of days of meetings we were all walking on eggshells worried that we would inadvertently offend someone from a different culture. Shortly afterwards somebody from HR came in to talk to us. He saw the book and said that we should read it because it's a good book but that never to forget that fundamentally we were working with individuals not cultures and that if we took the time to get to know the individual then the culture that helped to create them becomes relatively unimportant to understand. It's an obvious point but so important.

davedanon

Murph_D wrote: »

That was quite a spat alright. Have to say I agree with T Runner - the origin of the term is irrelevant: what matters is that it relies on a general perception of women as relatively weak and unsporty to be "funny" for some. Without this general societal stereotype it would make no sense; but yet it helps perpetuate it. This happens whether the slur is intentional or just "banter".

But anyway we've been over all that. No doubt it has helped a few cogs to slowly turn.

The origin is relevant, because as someone says upthread, it's actually celebrating female achievement, not comparing them unfavourably with males. But I'm not trying to re-start the whole debate. Let's, as they say, move on. nothing to see here.

menoscemo

Let's get back to the point of this thread.

Brothers Pearse AC (aka Sisters Pearse aka the grass trackers aka Knocklyon Joggers) are a bunch of posh wannabe, slow, useless, inept w*nkers. That statement applies to both their male and female Atheletes*

(*I use the term Athletes in the loosest possible sense)

jebuz

Clearlier wrote: »

I'd be curious to know how a transgendered person (born with a female body but changing to a male one) would perform.

Boy that escalated quickly. I mean that really got out of hand fast...

Slightly OT but to pick up on the highlighted point above, I'm reading a book called the "The Sports Gene" right now and it's just covered the area of transgender performance.

There's a transgender physicist, Joanna Harper who transitioned from a man to a woman using hormone therapy to suppress the testosterone levels. Aswell as being a scientist, she is also an accomplished age grade (55+) runner so naturally crunched some numbers along with 5 other subjects who made a similar transition.

What she found was there was a noticeable pattern of performance decline in all subjects, her own half marathon time went from 1:23 to 1:34 in the space of a year. She felt the same effort but just couldn't go faster yet she still remained as competitive in her age and gender category. As a female, her performance was just as good relative to when she was a man. Correspondingly the opposite holds true, when a female injects testosterone she gains a similar level of performance

So what they're hinting at is that testosterone is one of the primary generic advantages males have over women when it comes to athletic performance. Other more obvious advantages include height, broader shoulders, muscle mass, larger heart, denser bones, longer arms etc.

That's my spat contribution :pac:

davedanon

menoscemo wrote: »

Let's get back to the point of this thread.

Brothers Pearse AC (aka Sisters Pearse aka the grass trackers aka Knocklyon Joggers) are a bunch of posh wannabe, slow, useless, inept w*nkers. That statement applies to both their male and female Atheletes*

(*I use the term Athletes in the loosest possible sense)

Just spit it out, Meno, don't sugar the pill.

T runner

Clearlier wrote: »

Wonder what people would think about Kenyan runners putting somebody down by describing their performance as European?

I can see the point that Trunner makes but I agree with ecoli that comparing the differences between men and women to the difference between people who have black skin and people who have white skin is invalid.

On average women are slower than men. We had a female olympian training with us who was aiming to qualify for Beijing. She wasn't by any means the fastest in the training group but she had reached a much higher level in women's running than any of the men had in mens running. There are inherent physiological reasons for this including (but not limited to) levels of testosterone and body fat. .......to understand. It's an obvious point but so important.

You'll get no argument from me that men are faster than women for biological reasons. The lads can take the p1ss out of each other night and day about that for all I care. That's not the point.

The problem is that they are not just saying that BP women are faster than BP men etc......they are taking it one step further. They are using that as an excuse to call them women. Which is something completely different isn't it? That illogical jump is where the line is crossed into sexism.

The sentiment is that 'your women are faster than you, therefore you guys are a pack of women (haha)'

Again under no circumstances could anyone here come up with any context where it would be acceptable to mock a white person by calling him black.

Yet we seem to have no issue with mocking men by calling them women.

RayCun

menoscemo wrote: »

Let's get back to the point of this thread.

Brothers Pearse AC are the fastest growing club in Ireland, have trebled their number of juvenile coaches in the last 18 months, and have an active and engaged club membership at all levels.

Tallaght are running scared

fyp

Clearlier

jebuz wrote: »

Boy that escalated quickly. I mean that really got out of hand fast...

Slightly OT but to pick up on the highlighted point above, I'm reading a book called the "The Sports Gene" right now and it's just covered the area of transgender performance.

There's a transgender physicist, Joanna Harper who transitioned from a man to a woman using hormone therapy to suppress the testosterone levels. Aswell as being a scientist, she is also an accomplished age grade (55+) runner so naturally crunched some numbers along with 5 other subjects who made a similar transition.

What she found was there was a noticeable pattern of performance decline in all subjects, her own half marathon time went from 1:23 to 1:34 in the space of a year. She felt the same effort but just couldn't go faster yet she still remained as competitive in her age and gender category. As a female, her performance was just as good relative to when she was a man. Correspondingly the opposite holds true, when a female injects testosterone she gains a similar level of performance

So what they're hinting at is that testosterone is one of the primary generic advantages males have over women when it comes to athletic performance. Other more obvious advantages include height, broader shoulders, muscle mass, larger heart, denser bones, longer arms etc.

That's my spat contribution :pac:

I read the book too which is where I got the example from. I don't recall any discussion of somebody moving from a female body to a male body though but then I also didn't recall the name of the physicist or that there were other people studied who made the transition. Just checking that you're sure that there was a female to male athlete because I was wondering if the naturally longer legs (assuming that they had them) would have given the person changing their body from female to male an advantage. One of the physical characteristics that is said to give runners an advantage is relatively long legs. (swimmers by contrast have long torso's with Michael Phelps standing 6' 5" on a 28" inside leg measurement). Anyway, I doubt that there's ever going to be enough data for a serious study.

ThisRegard

Murph_D wrote: »

If my post came across as condescending that certainly wasn't my intention. Apologies if it caused any offence.

It didn't, I was just sticking with the general theme of late in looking for offence.

theboyblunder

T runner wrote: »

You'll get no argument from me that men are faster than women for biological reasons. The lads can take the p1ss out of each other night and day about that for all I care. That's not the point.

The problem is that they are not just saying that BP women are faster than BP menetc......they are taking it one step further. They are using that as an excuse to call them women. Which is something completely different isn't it? That illogical jump is where the line is crossed into sexism.

The sentiment is that 'your women are faster than you, therefore you guys are a pack of women (haha)'

Again under no circumstances could anyone here come up with any context where it would be acceptable to mock a white person by calling him black.

Yet we seem to have no issue with mocking men by calling them women.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057241424

davedanon

RayCun wrote: »

Tallaght are running scared

- scared


+ faster

Clearlier

T runner wrote: »

You'll get no argument from me that men are faster than women for biological reasons. The lads can take the p1ss out of each other night and day about that for all I care. That's not the point.

The problem is that they are not just saying that BP women are faster than BP menetc......they are taking it one step further. They are using that as an excuse to call them women. Which is something completely different isn't it? That illogical jump is where the line is crossed into sexism.

The sentiment is that 'your women are faster than you, therefore you guys are a pack of women (haha)'

Again under no circumstances could anyone here come up with any context where it would be acceptable to mock a white person by calling him black.

Yet we seem to have no issue with mocking men by calling them women.

Thought experiment: would it be acceptable to call a black person white if they sunburned easily or a white person black if the never got sunburned and their skin never changed colour? It veers towards the pointlessly stupid for me rather than the unacceptable.

T runner

theboyblunder wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057241424

No thanks.

HelenAnne

jebuz wrote: »

Boy that escalated quickly. I mean that really got out of hand fast...

Slightly OT but to pick up on the highlighted point above, I'm reading a book called the "The Sports Gene" right now and it's just covered the area of transgender performance.

There's a transgender physicist, Joanna Harper who transitioned from a man to a woman using hormone therapy to suppress the testosterone levels. Aswell as being a scientist, she is also an accomplished age grade (55+) runner so naturally crunched some numbers along with 5 other subjects who made a similar transition.

What she found was there was a noticeable pattern of performance decline in all subjects, her own half marathon time went from 1:23 to 1:34 in the space of a year. She felt the same effort but just couldn't go faster yet she still remained as competitive in her age and gender category. As a female, her performance was just as good relative to when she was a man. Correspondingly the opposite holds true, when a female injects testosterone she gains a similar level of performance

So what they're hinting at is that testosterone is one of the primary generic advantages males have over women when it comes to athletic performance. Other more obvious advantages include height, broader shoulders, muscle mass, larger heart, denser bones, longer arms etc.

That's my spat contribution :pac:

I read a story about a runner who transitioned from male to female in a book of collected articles called 'Going Long' (A runner's world title)> I wonder was it the same runner? But the result was the same -- despite any advantages a formerly-male body might have given her (taller frame, bigger heart and lungs, maybe less body fat) once the transition / hormones were complete her times got much slower. I thought it was really interesting.

One thing I always find really hard to cope with is my male training partners deciding to work a bit harder at their running and then, as a result, moving way out of my league. When a woman I train with starts to beat me in races, I think I can just train harder and keep with her, but when my male running pals do it (like Tabehodai and RedRunner) that's it -- they just keep improving and go way beyond me. I know it's physiological, but reading about how the physiological changes changed running results for that transgendered runner helped me to accept that that's just the way it is and there's no point beating myself up and feeling like I'm getting slower -- I'm not, they're just getting faster thanks to their damned testosterone!