MrWorldwideJr

I think also, for the younger generation who are watching the film for the first time now, the twist is just a part of popular culture. So you already know what is going to happen going in, which definitely took something away from the film for me. Similar for The Sixth Sense.

One thing I notice about people like Oaksoft is that they think that 'I have no problem with trans people' or 'I support trans rights' is something that they can just say but don't have to demonstrate in any way. This then shields them from any criticism whatsoever of their views on trans people. If you say 'I support trans rights' but then every time an actual trans right is brought up for discussion you are vehemently against it then you don't support trans rights. If you say 'I have no problem with trans people' but spend huge amounts of your time crying online about 'trans cultists', writing long rants about how being trans is nothing more than an opinion, refusing to do any research into the science around the topic but stubbornly (and wrongly) insisting that it backs you up, digging up any article that you can find which can help you to portray trans people or their supporters in a bad light, deliberately twisting peoples responses so that you can claim they are saying things that they obviously aren't saying and deflecting any suggestion that your views might be wrong or harmful to trans people by gloating about how you've riled up the 'woke warriors' then you in fact do have a problem with trans people. Ultimately this is a pointless post and I shouldn't let myself get reeled in but as Bairnardo said up the thread this isn't just winding people up on an internet forum, there is a real nasty streak to this kind of rhetoric and it causes real harm to real people in the real world. Being trans is incredibly difficult and whilst that is partly inherent and unavoidable because it is an confusing and scary thing to go through, a huge amount of what is hard about it is societal, about the attitude of the general public and how that ripples into all areas of your life - your healthcare, your legal status, your safety, your relationship with those around you, even your ability to open up Pie and Bovril in the morning without seeing a thread debating which rights you should get. I've written repeatedly on here about how there needs to be space to have conversations and ask questions about trans people. But a prerequisite for that is a willingness to show some basic empathy, do some basic research and be ready to have your preconceptions challenged.

Less than two years ago. Time sure does fly by when you're a fully paid up member of the trans cult.

I wouldn't bother. He's had all this explained to him multiple times on this thread already. He knows that 'the science' doesn't say what he claims that it says. He just doesn't care.

I don't know, I would say that his theory that trans people will be soon be 'cancelling' anyone who uses the word trans (including themselves presumably?) is more entertaining that most of his recent efforts. Especially since it requires him to pretend that he doesn't know how adjectives work.

A simple 'no, I can't explain what it means' would have sufficed.

You keep on repeating this. Feel free to back it up at any point with evidence. Judging by how confident you are in your findings I'm sure you've carried out an extensive review of the latest scientific research around sex and gender, gender dysphoria and transgender people. A short sentence or two demonstrating that you understand the difference between sex and gender identity would be a good start.

Trans/transgender is an adjective. You add it to the front of man or woman to add extra information about the person in question. He is a man, he is also trans, two separate pieces of information. It doesn't invalidate the man or woman that its describing anymore than saying 'a blonde man' or 'a tall woman' would invalidate them. Its just added information. The above reason is why there is no hyphen, its just 'trans man' or 'trans woman'.

For me, a big problem is that transgender people are treated in our society as a 'debate', as something to have an opinion on, to be discussed and argued over as a concept. As opposed to real people who's experience the general public don't know much about and should be looking to learn more about. Its this that leads people to choosing to die on the hill of refusing to use correct pronouns or a name rather than showing a little bit of respect for the human being behind those pronouns and name. I think this is actually quite well reflected on P&B. We have a few really good threads on here where different topics are discussed and the overall atmosphere in the thread is one of learning and sharing experiences. Where people will come to ask questions and others will come to share their thoughts from having lived through similar things. I'm thinking in particular of the depression, pregnancy and autism threads. By contrast the P&B thread about transgender people is titled 'the gender debate' and the mood reflects that. Its not really a place for learning or asking questions. Its a place to argue, to ask questions purely so that you can mock the answers and for entrenched views regardless of how little knowledge of the topic you actually have. I'm not really sure how to achieve this but we need the general discourse around trans people to move away from the latter and towards the former. Part of that is that there are spaces for people to learn about being transgender, to ask questions and to get things wrong in good faith and learn from it. As you say not everybody is going to be able to get their head around it immediately. I think part of it is also acknowleding that its OK to recognise that there are people who don't have any intention of getting their head around it and no amount of patience is going to get them to a place of understanding because they don't want to understand. I suspect that if a teacher is intentionally misgendering a child under their care despite everyone asking them to stop then they probably fall into the latter group. I've linked to it before but I'd urge anyone who wants to learn a little about what its like to be transgender to take a look at the gender dysphoria bible or seek out a similar resource. I think it does a good job of describing the lived experience of dysphoria and explaining some of the more common tropes you might see.

Noted trans rights supporter Oaksoft once again losing his mind at the mere mention of somebody having to respect trans peoples rights is it?

We had another poster on the previous page telling us that turning your back is also childish. This is all getting a bit confusing tbh.

Can you explain how a monarchy protects against Populist factions? Or indeed how it protects against having a 'lunatic' as Head of State given that we have absolutely no control over who the Head of State is?

Most of the things they want changed are things which were only brought in because 'something had to change' as well. The super licence points were brought in because people moaned about a super licence being too easy to get and now the same people are moaning about it because a driver they want to see can't get one. The same has happened in the past with the rules on driver coaching, the season or two when the Pirelli tires gave us about 4 stops a race, the period when drivers weren't allowed to change their helmet design etc. Can guarantee that if some sort of green-white chequer situation was brought in, there would be loud moaning about how it ruined the purity of the racing within about 2 years and we would be back to where we are now within 3.

Surely if there are any St Mirren fans who are desperate to pay their respect by observing a minute's silence in public they could seek out another event at which to do that. I'm sure there will be plenty of memorial services and the like they can attend if they want to. Really struggling to see who this mythical cohort of St Mirren fans are who really, really want to pay respect to the queen to the point of feeling robbed if they can't do it but also can't possibly do it at any other time than before the St Mirren vs Celtic match.

OK you theoretically could. But this comes back to my point about hypotheticals. Maximum viewing times or maximum number of views is not how VAR is implemented in any major league in the world. Its not on the table for being introduced in any major league in the world. Its not how VAR is going to be implemented in Scotland when VAR is introduced here. Therefore these things are irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not it will be a good thing when we implement it in Scotland. Because the version of VAR which we will all experience is one with no limit on viewing times or number of views.

We can't keep decisions to that though. We now have years worth of evidence from multiple leagues on what VAR actually is and how it actually works. We no longer need to engage in hypothetical 'well if they can keep it to this then it will be alright' scenarios because we know that no league in the world has been able to keep it to this. VAR should be judged on what it actually involves. It will regularly take 3, 4, 5 minutes to make decisions. It will regularly rule out goals and give penalties for minor infringements that nobody would have called major errors (in some cases even an error at all) 5 years ago. It does that in England, it does that in Spain, it does that in the Champions League. It will do that in Scotland too. For me, the actual realities of what VAR is in the real world wouldn't be worth it even if it meant that we got to 100% correct decisions. I just think that there are more important things in football and VAR tends to take them away in pursuit of a goal which it can't achieve and which I don't think is necessarily a goal we should be all that worried about achieving in the first place.

That would be very underwhelming (as would Schumacher to Alpine for that matter). I guess I can see the appeal of someone with a few years of experience who always looked competent enough, and I know that the F2 grid isn't exactly stellar this year but would feel very much like when they signed Esteban Gutierrez. Just an F1 comeback that nobody is asking for and that won't go anywhere or achieve anything.

Otmar Szafnauer's quotes in this article from earlier today certainly don't come across as if Piastri was on the verge of happily signing for Alpine. This one in particular: I don't think Szafnauer comes across particularly well in general in that piece. Seems thoroughly pissed off that Alonso and Piastri would dare to speak with other teams whilst he was busy playing them off against each other for a single seat. Feels like he's overplayed his hand and is scrambling now that Alonso has called his bluff.

Probably a poor example given that they signed Pedri from Las Palmas in the summer of 2020 after he'd already played a full season in the Segunda and put him straight into the first team. Gavi would be a better example if you want someone who they actually produced through their youth system.

Barcelona and Real Madrid suffer from exactly the same sense of entitlement as Celtic and Rangers. They believe they have a god given right to be winning trophies every single season. When they aren't or they suffer a financial setback the idea of taking a few years to build back sustainably is completely off the table because why would they lower themselves to something like that? Its the same thing that led to Rangers having their own little financial issue and then proving they had learned precisely nothing spending silly money in the lower leagues. And ultimately, they will always be able to do it because there will always be someone willing to foot the bill. You can guarantee that even if this does somehow lead to Barcelona going out of business they would be back at the top of La Liga spending hundreds of millions on players within 5/10 years.

Just watched Hendry's qualifying match against Mark Joyce there. This won't be a surprise to anyone who watched him over the last couple of years but he just looks completely done. There's no scoring power there unfortunately and it just leaves his opponents under no pressure. Joyce is obviously far from a world beater but he's always been a decent scorer and if you give him chances and put no pressure on him missing then he's going to win frames in one visit. Perhaps he's just enjoying playing but I struggle to see what Hendry is getting out of this. When he first came back I thought he would be able to get to a decent-ish level, win his first match fairly regularly and maybe have the occasional decent run where he shocks a top 32 player but he looks an absolute mile from anything like that at the moment. Which is sad, I'd love to see him get a result or two but it feels like it would be happening by now if it was going to.

I see we've switched gear smoothly from claiming there will be no records broken today and the Met Office have embarrassed themselves by predicting it straight to the fact that there has been a record broken today is irrelevent and the Met Office have embarrassed themselves by pointing it out.

Yeah ultimately in F1 there is always a way out of a contract if you need one. The point where I'll believe that Ricciardo is in a McLaren next season will be when they make a specific announcement of their driver line up for next season. Until then his contract is really just a guarantee that he will get a nice severance package if he loses the seat. Not really sure about this to be honest, in terms of running a 2hr race distance with all the tyre management, fuel saving etc. thats involved in that, IndyCar and Super Formula are going to have prepared him better than spending a year running hour long (at most) sprint races in F2 will. Not sure what he gets out of F2 other than learning the tracks and I guess a little familiarity with Pirelli tyres, but I would expect someone signing for McLaren to be able to work around those issues without a prep year.

Surprised you don't love the Old Course in that case. 'No instruction required Condoleezza, its really easy'. Sounds like an easy day at the office to me.

Also worth pointing out (and I know that you aren't saying this for a minute) that 'not wanting our children confused by questions of gender' is absolutely transphobic as well. The idea that children so much as being aware of the existence of transgender people will somehow corrupt and lead them astray is the very definition of a 'dig at trans people'. Children should absolutely be aware of the idea that non-cis gender identities are completely normal in the same way that they should be aware that not being heterosexual is completely normal. Hiding the existence of trans people from children doesn't stop them from existing, it just creates trans people who don't understand themselves or feel like they don't have a place in the world.