|
Post by Orbs on Sept 22, 2021 21:43:59 GMT
Sadly i think if we shoot ahead 20-30 years we wonât have males or females just âthemâ and âthey.â When you have 9-10 year olds so brainwashed that they want to identify as gender neutral and being encouraged to because itâs âtrendyâ thereâs a problem. I think for years to come there will be a huge issue for young people around not knowing their identities and being confused about their sexuality because theyâre learning about things that they shouldnât be exposed to at such a young age thereâs a problem. Do you think that being gender neutral and/or being transgender is âtrendyâ and/or due the fact âtheyâre learning about things that they shouldnât be exposed to at such a young age?â Do you think that those who are identifying as gender neutral or trans are therefore making it up? Itâs not real? Im not having a go - just genuinely wondering what you think.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Sept 22, 2021 22:06:28 GMT
Sadly i think if we shoot ahead 20-30 years we wonât have males or females just âthemâ and âthey.â When you have 9-10 year olds so brainwashed that they want to identify as gender neutral and being encouraged to because itâs âtrendyâ thereâs a problem. I think for years to come there will be a huge issue for young people around not knowing their identities and being confused about their sexuality because theyâre learning about things that they shouldnât be exposed to at such a young age thereâs a problem. Do you think that being gender neutral and/or being transgender is âtrendyâ and/or due the fact âtheyâre learning about things that they shouldnât be exposed to at such a young age?â Do you think that those who are identifying as gender neutral or trans are therefore making it up? Itâs not real? Im not having a go - just genuinely wondering what you think. I think the major issue is that you have young kids in some cases of primary school age being exposed to information in the media around a subject regarding sexual identity that theyâre nowhere near old enough to really understand and in some cases having views put on them that they simply arenât old enough to get without being influenced by others of an adult age who feel they should be the same as what they are. Why else would you have whole classes (a friend in education told me) of 10 year olds where 60/70 percent of the class want to identify as gender neutral. Is that young children identifying in that way because they genuinely believe theyâre not male or female or because all their friends are doing it and because if they think it makes them different from the norm it makes them cool? So in answer to your question maybe trendyâs not the right word but certainly in the case of youngsters Iâm not convinced they want to identify as non binary for necessarily the right reasons but because theyâre having the idea of a new gender being thrust upon them. Maybe Iâm old fashioned but I canât get my head around the fact that after 1000s of years of males and females we now have a new gender which says you donât have to be either. Like most things that are new and different it will appear cool I just donât think a child can make their mind up so early in their life as theyâre not mature enough too. In relation to trans I have absolutely no issue with that because itâs people being born in the wrong body and I know a young lad who was born female whoâs an incredible young person who knew from a young age that he wanted to be a male. Thatâs very different.
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Sept 22, 2021 22:48:51 GMT
Its a sign of the times and inevitable, however I'm 60 and still playing - and will always want to be referred to as batsman. The first person who calls me a batter will be in for a batter-ing Incidentally - not seen the same clamour to replace con-man with con person ? Are they not con-artists? I'm 30 and I think* that's what I've always known them as. *reserve judgement to change my mind on that one.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Sept 23, 2021 3:27:33 GMT
The only thing that bothers me about batters is that itâs a baseball term. Not that I dislike baseball either, itâs just⌠not cricket, so to speak
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Sept 23, 2021 3:54:21 GMT
To be fair Iâve heard a lot of commentators use the term âbattersâ in the last few years since the rise in popularity of the womenâs game and of course the rise of the permanently offended brigadeđ Batist
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Sept 23, 2021 5:06:41 GMT
To be fair Iâve heard a lot of commentators use the term âbattersâ in the last few years since the rise in popularity of the womenâs game and of course the rise of the permanently offended brigadeđ The Aussies have been using the term 'batter'interchangeably with' batsman'for decades.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Sept 23, 2021 6:11:49 GMT
To be fair Iâve heard a lot of commentators use the term âbattersâ in the last few years since the rise in popularity of the womenâs game and of course the rise of the permanently offended brigadeđ The Aussies have been using the term 'batter'interchangeably with' batsman'for decades. Fair dinkum Sheila
|
|
|
Post by thepremierbanksy on Sept 23, 2021 9:23:47 GMT
I donât really care but it seems a bit ott Whatâs the gender neutral term for Human or Mankind. Itâs ok you know in some circumstances for â______manâ to equally represent all 64 genders Thereâs only three genders As that labour mp put it Cervix or no cervix Plus of course on Rare occasions both Schrodinger's cervix?
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Sept 23, 2021 10:24:05 GMT
Correct. It's just changing the written laws to account for the fact that it's no longer an all male sport that the MCC governs. In an all man's game of cricket for instance, i don't think anyone will be offended if the term "batsman" is used by people in their actual speech. In fact (and despite what the faux outrage from the usual suspects would seem to indicate), i don't believe any of us have actually been asked to change or amend how we speak at all. Complete non-story but if you actually change the story to something other than the truth, then it gives the fossils something to moan about and shout "woke" at everyone about. are they fossils or just not pandering to all this current nonsense that some easily offended types are trying to bring into the language ? I wouldn't really say that not calling a woman playing cricket a batsMAN is really pandering to anyone is it? More like bloody obvious and common sense. Do you call a female member of the police force a policeman? The vast majority of people don't and have never moaned about "pandering" to them...because they're not men.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2021 10:27:23 GMT
are they fossils or just not pandering to all this current nonsense that some easily offended types are trying to bring into the language ? I wouldn't really say that not calling a woman playing cricket a batsMAN is really pandering to anyone is it? More like bloody obvious and common sense. Do you call a female member of the police force a policeman? The vast majority of people don't Nowhere did I mention the term batsman. Was talking the bigger picture .
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Sept 23, 2021 10:32:09 GMT
I wouldn't really say that not calling a woman playing cricket a batsMAN is really pandering to anyone is it? More like bloody obvious and common sense. Do you call a female member of the police force a policeman? The vast majority of people don't Nowhere did I mention the term batsman. Was talking the bigger picture . But this thread is about the term "batsmen" being used. You can't lump this in with a different agenda and say it's the same issue as having to accept different gender types or people who identify aa different genders to their biological gender etc. This is simply a case of not calling women "men". I genuinely fail to see why anyone could have any kind of problem with that. They're not men, so why the outrage from a load of blokes who seem to think "Nope, we're calling them men and they should just accept it... or if women don't want to be called men, then they MUST just be woke snowflakes". A bit fucking weird to be honest mate. Especially given that most complaining are the types who spout all the "there are only 2 genders and they should accept they're a man or a woman" stuff but now seem to think that EVERYONE should apparently just be called "men" even if they were born as (and identify as) a woman. As i said, a bit fucking weird really.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Sept 23, 2021 10:47:29 GMT
Nowhere did I mention the term batsman. Was talking the bigger picture . But this thread is about the term "batsmen" being used. You can't lump this in with a different agenda and say it's the same issue as having to accept different gender types or people who identify aa different genders to their biological gender etc. This is simply a case of not calling women "men". I genuinely fail to see why anyone could have any kind of problem with that. They're not men, so why the outrage from a load of blokes who seem to think "Nope, we're calling them men and they should just accept it... or if women don't want to be called men, then they MUST just be woke snowflakes". A bit fucking weird to be honest mate. Especially given that most complaining are the types who spout all the "there are only 2 genders and they should accept they're a man or a woman" stuff but now seem to think that EVERYONE should apparently just be called "men" even if they were born as (and identify as) a woman. As i said, a bit fucking weird really. I donât think the majority me included have a problem with women being called batters if they prefer The whole concept of the original post was the term being used universally Why should a man who self identifies as a man suddenly be referred to as a batter when he is clearly a batsman
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Sept 23, 2021 10:49:49 GMT
But this thread is about the term "batsmen" being used. You can't lump this in with a different agenda and say it's the same issue as having to accept different gender types or people who identify aa different genders to their biological gender etc. This is simply a case of not calling women "men". I genuinely fail to see why anyone could have any kind of problem with that. They're not men, so why the outrage from a load of blokes who seem to think "Nope, we're calling them men and they should just accept it... or if women don't want to be called men, then they MUST just be woke snowflakes". A bit fucking weird to be honest mate. Especially given that most complaining are the types who spout all the "there are only 2 genders and they should accept they're a man or a woman" stuff but now seem to think that EVERYONE should apparently just be called "men" even if they were born as (and identify as) a woman. As i said, a bit fucking weird really. I donât think the majority me included have a problem with women being called batters if they prefer The whole concept of the original post was the term being used universally Why should a man who self identifies as a man suddenly be referred to as a batter when he is clearly a batsman No one has said they have to be. They'll simply be called "batters" in the written laws at the MCC. Those are universal laws that apply to both genders so it makes absolute common sense to therefore use a universal term that covers both genders. No one has said that in speech at an all man's game that they CANNOT be called batsmen by you, me or anyone else or said you can't use the term "batswoman" at an all women's game. Batters is simply the term used in the written laws, no one is telling you that YOU have to use that term when you talk about the game. Linesmen in football aren't called linesmen in the FIFA rules but we still all use that term in general speech. We weren't told WE had to all stop using the term when "Assistant referee" came in, it's simply the term that's used in official written rules.
|
|
|
Post by callas12 on Sept 23, 2021 12:30:15 GMT
Women are still use 'Man On' during games as 'Woman On' takes too long!
Was in London yesterday & noticed that the majority of their traffic light crossing signs had the ⧠or âď¸âď¸ symbols on replacing the green & red man! I thought WTF are we turning ourselves into here & has someone actually complained about the man symbols or are the powers that be being forced into taking the so called initiative with it just incase someone complains in the future?!.. Inclusivitey has gone right bonkers these days!
|
|
|
Post by cheadlepotter on Sept 23, 2021 12:35:25 GMT
Women are still use 'Man On' during games as 'Woman On' takes too long! Was in London yesterday & noticed that the majority of their traffic light crossing signs had the ⧠or âď¸âď¸ symbols on replacing the green & red man! I thought WTF are we turning ourselves into here & has someone actually complained about the man symbols or are the powers that be being forced into taking the so called initiative with it just incase someone complains in the future?!.. Inclusivitey has gone right bonkers these days! Just be glad that youâre not the sort of person that needs the right shape on a crossing sign. If thatâs the sort of things some people get in a fuss about, they probably live a rather stressful and unhappy life.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Sept 23, 2021 14:13:49 GMT
What if you bat for the other side?
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Sept 23, 2021 14:20:40 GMT
Why do they call it Cricket and not Wicket?
|
|
|
Post by Orbs on Sept 23, 2021 14:28:49 GMT
Do you think that being gender neutral and/or being transgender is âtrendyâ and/or due the fact âtheyâre learning about things that they shouldnât be exposed to at such a young age?â Do you think that those who are identifying as gender neutral or trans are therefore making it up? Itâs not real? Im not having a go - just genuinely wondering what you think. I think the major issue is that you have young kids in some cases of primary school age being exposed to information in the media around a subject regarding sexual identity that theyâre nowhere near old enough to really understand and in some cases having views put on them that they simply arenât old enough to get without being influenced by others of an adult age who feel they should be the same as what they are. Why else would you have whole classes (a friend in education told me) of 10 year olds where 60/70 percent of the class want to identify as gender neutral. Is that young children identifying in that way because they genuinely believe theyâre not male or female or because all their friends are doing it and because if they think it makes them different from the norm it makes them cool? So in answer to your question maybe trendyâs not the right word but certainly in the case of youngsters Iâm not convinced they want to identify as non binary for necessarily the right reasons but because theyâre having the idea of a new gender being thrust upon them. Maybe Iâm old fashioned but I canât get my head around the fact that after 1000s of years of males and females we now have a new gender which says you donât have to be either. Like most things that are new and different it will appear cool I just donât think a child can make their mind up so early in their life as theyâre not mature enough too. In relation to trans I have absolutely no issue with that because itâs people being born in the wrong body and I know a young lad who was born female whoâs an incredible young person who knew from a young age that he wanted to be a male. Thatâs very different. I think you're right to a certain extent but I think the main cause in the 'rise' of this is that it has just become more acceptable and there is help out there. People are therefore more likely to come forward and articulate how they are feeling. I doubt there are many more cases - a bit like homosexuality a hundred years ago. I doubt too much that homosexuality has 'risen' in the last century - I bet there were millions of men/women who were gay 100 years ago but they just kept it hidden. It just seems more prevalent now as it's become more socially acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Sept 23, 2021 15:23:59 GMT
What if you bat for the other side? Then youâd be the opposition batsman
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Sept 23, 2021 15:28:58 GMT
Why do they call it Cricket and not Wicket? Apparently a bastardisation of Middle Dutch for hockey as early bats resembled hockey sticks Obviously other answers will also be out there
|
|
|
Post by scfc1863 on Sept 23, 2021 20:35:58 GMT
Batter seems logical, being as the person chucking the ball is known as a bowler, not bowlsman.
|
|
|
Post by cheadlepotter on Sept 23, 2021 20:49:45 GMT
Batswoman Heather Knight was decent this evening! Bowling standard terrible but I quite liked her technique.
|
|
|
Post by woodstein on Sept 23, 2021 21:13:39 GMT
Is a veteran in a ladies team called an old batter then? đ
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Sept 23, 2021 21:14:27 GMT
But this thread is about the term "batsmen" being used. You can't lump this in with a different agenda and say it's the same issue as having to accept different gender types or people who identify aa different genders to their biological gender etc. This is simply a case of not calling women "men". I genuinely fail to see why anyone could have any kind of problem with that. They're not men, so why the outrage from a load of blokes who seem to think "Nope, we're calling them men and they should just accept it... or if women don't want to be called men, then they MUST just be woke snowflakes". A bit fucking weird to be honest mate. Especially given that most complaining are the types who spout all the "there are only 2 genders and they should accept they're a man or a woman" stuff but now seem to think that EVERYONE should apparently just be called "men" even if they were born as (and identify as) a woman. As i said, a bit fucking weird really. I donât think the majority me included have a problem with women being called batters if they prefer The whole concept of the original post was the term being used universally Why should a man who self identifies as a man suddenly be referred to as a batter when he is clearly a batsman This.
|
|
|
Post by wrighter on Sept 23, 2021 21:21:04 GMT
Batman will now be known as Batperson Spiderman will be Spiderperson Wonder Woman will be Wonderperson
PC brigade gone bloody stupid
|
|
|
Post by heworksardtho on Sept 24, 2021 4:48:19 GMT
Batty Boy
|
|
|
Post by woodstein on Sept 24, 2021 6:06:35 GMT
Batter seems logical, being as the person chucking the ball is known as a bowler, not bowlsman. You are making a silly point! đ
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Sept 24, 2021 6:09:46 GMT
Batman will now be known as Batperson Spiderman will be Spiderperson Wonder Woman will be Wonderperson PC brigade gone bloody stupid The Person from Del Monte doesnât quite have the same ring to it either
|
|
|
Post by chuffedstokie on Sept 24, 2021 6:19:31 GMT
What if you bat for the other side? There's a girl on our shift at work who plays for them.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Sept 24, 2021 6:20:47 GMT
What if you bat for the other side? There's a girl on our shift at work who plays for them. She bowled a maiden over then?
|
|