LGBT+ Discussion

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, imadirtyurchin said:

I don’t think you mean to say that homophobia is banned in Islam… right? Or are you suggesting that he is a bad Muslim by practicing homophobia. It’s just all so confusing *clutches pearls*

correct, edited 🙂 

[hypochondriac]

14 minutes ago, coalman said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

In what way has he been intolerant? 

[Midfield_General]

6 minutes ago, whelk said:

So people should be forced to go against their religious beliefs? I am assuming Lighthouse will move these posts to the Lounge with an intriguing title.

Hopefully 

@Lighthouse - please can you oblige so we can keep this thread to transfers? 

[Hopper]

On the subject of Aboukhlal and his beliefs, a transfer thread for saints probably not the best forum for it.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Midfield_General said:

Hopefully 

@Lighthouse - please can you oblige so we can keep this thread to transfers? 

It's discussing the character of a potential transfer so is relevant. If we have intolerant types getting on a new signings back due to their religious beliefs then I'd say that's a problem. 

[Hopper]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

It's discussing the character of a potential transfer so is relevant. If we have intolerant types getting on a new signings back due to their religious beliefs then I'd say that's a problem. 

Yeah but it's a loose link to a player, probably doesn't warrent a full on derailment of tranfer discussion to focus on world views.

[trousers]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It's discussing the character of a potential transfer so is relevant. If we have intolerant types getting on a new signings back due to their religious beliefs then I'd say that's a problem. 

And I'm interested in what type of toaster he likes.... Any of these perhaps?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 29 by trousers

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

And I'm interested in what type of toaster he likes.... Any of these perhaps?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He'd hate the effeminate flowery ones. 

[sadoldgit]

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It's discussing the character of a potential transfer so is relevant. If we have intolerant types getting on a new signings back due to their religious beliefs then I'd say that's a problem. 

So you would rule out signing an Islamophobe then?

[pingpong]

Signing a homophobe would be interesting, especially for a club that sold out the rainbow kit in about 5 mins.  I imagine we'd end up with a mini-pride outside the stadium before every game, which could actually be a good thing.

Not sure the club would want the associated pr that comes with him though, and assume a couple of our players would not be very happy.

[Turkish]

25 minutes ago, Turkish said:

 

Why was it homophonic not wearing rainbow laces if it was against his beliefs?

Homosexuality is banned in Islam, perhaps, given he is of Morrocan descent, he is a muslim and he did it for his religious beliefs. Does that make all Muslims "pricks"?

 

7 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

So you would rule out signing an Islamophobe then?

can you answer my question please.

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

So you would rule out signing an Islamophobe then?

If someone was being openly hostile towards someone based on their ethnicity or religion then of course not. That isn't the case here though so not sure it's relevant. 

[Matthew Le God]

@Turkish Would be best done in a lounge thread.

[trousers]

[trousers]

[Turkish]

Just now, trousers said:

I wish they wouldn't use white bread for these adverts. Its incredibly unhealthy processed carbohydrates. I expect they're using margarine as a spread too 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

Has this turned into a COT thread? That looks like a Japanese pattern to me. What nippon striker are we signing? 

[miserableoldgit]

3 minutes ago, pingpong said:

Signing a homophobe would be interesting, especially for a club that sold out the rainbow kit in about 5 mins.  I imagine we'd end up with a mini-pride outside the stadium before every game, which could actually be a good thing.

Not sure the club would want the associated pr that comes with him though, and assume a couple of our players would not be very happy.

The club that I belong to had two gay couples. They were of course treated exactly the same as everyone else, as they should be. Both couples hated all the "Pride" and associated stuff and wouldn't go anywhere near it. They just wanted to live normal lives. Not sure if that makes them "homophobic" although somebody tells me the the Gay Community refers to them as "Pickme's" as they are apparently trying to ingratiate themselves with straight people...

[Ted Bates Statue]

45 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

So you would rule out signing an Islamophobe then?

No no, it's all good. It's important to be diverse and inclusive regarding all kinds of intolerance. Anyway, I for one would be fine with a fully blown fascist if it meant he could score like Di Canio

[coalman]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

In what way has he been intolerant? 

Why are you asking me? I'm just posting a philosophical point about the contradiction inherent in arguing about intolerance 

[pingpong]

2 hours ago, miserableoldgit said:

The club that I belong to had two gay couples. They were of course treated exactly the same as everyone else, as they should be. Both couples hated all the "Pride" and associated stuff and wouldn't go anywhere near it. They just wanted to live normal lives. Not sure if that makes them "homophobic" although somebody tells me the the Gay Community refers to them as "Pickme's" as they are apparently trying to ingratiate themselves with straight people...

To be fair they sound like curmudgeons who don't like other people having a good time.

"The gay community" doesn't have a consensus on pride people being pickmes, I think that is probably just a few people you met. Pride is just a great day out for a lot of people and a celebration of overcoming a lot of oppression.

If my job entails wearing a uniform, and once a year that includes a certain colour of laces, and i refuse it because i don't believe people should be allowed to be gay, I think that is homophobic and not something a club like southampton should support.  Let him go to Burnley, West ham or similar instead.

[miserableoldgit]

13 minutes ago, pingpong said:

To be fair they sound like curmudgeons who don't like other people having a good time.

"The gay community" doesn't have a consensus on pride people being pickmes, I think that is probably just a few people you met. Pride is just a great day out for a lot of people and a celebration of overcoming a lot of oppression.

If my job entails wearing a uniform, and once a year that includes a certain colour of laces, and i refuse it because i don't believe people should be allowed to be gay, I think that is homophobic and not something a club like southampton should support.  Let him go to Burnley, West ham or similar instead.

They felt that they didn't need the faux celebrations to validate their identities. The LGBT community are doing themselves no good by making the whole "Pride" thing virtually compulsory  and lasting all year...Pride Month, plus Pride Parades all year round. We all get that gay people have been marginionalised and victimised over many years, but that stopped long ago. It seems that gay people want to remember that situation and celebrate that. I have absolutely no problem with gay people, but I hate having the whole compulsory "Pride Celebration" shoved down our throats all the time. It is not as though wearing the rainbow laces/badge will make one iota of difference to a gay person's life, but I suppose if it makes you feel better about yourself.

Edited August 29 by miserableoldgit

[saint francis]

If at work tomorrow my boss handed me a badge with "We stand against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia" and said we're all wearing this today I'd think it was pretty odd.  I don't like being told what I should believe in even if I happen to agree with it.  Isn't it strange that an employer would want to do that?  

They are de-facto forcing him to wear the laces if refusal means that he is left out of the team.  If he is Muslim and views homosexuality as sinful I don't see why he can't be allowed to wear normal laces and get on with the game.  

[pingpong]

4 minutes ago, miserableoldgit said:

They felt that they didn't need the faux celebrations to validate their identities. The LGBT community are doing themselves no good by making the whole "Pride" thing virtually compulsory  and lasting all year...Pride Month, plus Pride Parades all year round. We all get that gay people have been marginionalised and victimised over many years, but that stopped long ago. It seems that gay people want to remember that situation and celebrate that. I have absolutely no problem with gay people, but I hate having the whole compulsory "Pride Celebration" shoved down our throats all the time. It is not as though wearing the rainbow laces/badge will make one iota of difference to a gay person's life, but I suppose if it makes you feel better about yourself.

It does make a lot of people feel better about themselves. And if you think that oppression is all in the past, I have a bridge for sale.

Southampton pride is one day a year, and most people don't even realise it has happened. 

 

I don't think anyone should be forced to wear rainbow laces, it's a free country, but the consequence of that decision is also free and up to the club.  I think saints should be a club where the consequence is that that person doesn't play in the team.  

To do a bit of whatabouttery, what if it was a player who refused to wear the pink shirt because it was close to the transgender flag colours? Would you expect the club to change the uniform to match their bigotry, or is it a problem with the player?

[hypochondriac]

31 minutes ago, pingpong said:

To be fair they sound like curmudgeons who don't like other people having a good time.

"The gay community" doesn't have a consensus on pride people being pickmes, I think that is probably just a few people you met. Pride is just a great day out for a lot of people and a celebration of overcoming a lot of oppression.

If my job entails wearing a uniform, and once a year that includes a certain colour of laces, and i refuse it because i don't believe people should be allowed to be gay, I think that is homophobic and not something a club like southampton should support.  Let him go to Burnley, West ham or similar instead.

Hold on so wearing rainbow laces is a requirement then? So he should be forced to do it if its part of his uniform?

[Lighthouse]

There are countries out there where you can face ‘consequences’ if you refuse to publicly broadcast your allegiance to a certain person, group of people or belief system. None of them are good and I don’t want Britain to turn into one. There are no ifs or buts, regardless of whatever I believe personally, nobody has any right to say, “ah but my thing is the correct thing, so everyone has to believe it.”

[Lighthouse]

8 minutes ago, pingpong said:

To do a bit of whatabouttery, what if it was a player who refused to wear the pink shirt because it was close to the transgender flag colours? Would you expect the club to change the uniform to match their bigotry, or is it a problem with the player?

Yeah, that’s nonsense though, the pink shirt is a pink shirt, there’s no message behind it. Any resemblance to a trans pride flag is purely coincidental.

[Turkish]

7 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

There are countries out there where you can face ‘consequences’ if you refuse to publicly broadcast your allegiance to a certain person, group of people or belief system. None of them are good and I don’t want Britain to turn into one. There are no ifs or buts, regardless of whatever I believe personally, nobody has any right to say, “ah but my thing is the correct thing, so everyone has to believe it.”

We are heading down that route though,

Dont wear rainbow laces = homaphonbic prick 

Dont take the knee = Racist prick

if you believe in freeness of speech and equality then surely someone has a right not to do those things as well and it really isn't anyones business as to why

Edited August 29 by Turkish

[whelk]

 

5 minutes ago, Turkish said:

We are heading down that route though,

Dont wear rainbow laces = homaphonbic prick 

Dont take the knee = Racist prick

if you believe in freeness of speech and equality then surely someone has a right not to do those things as well and it really isn't anyones business as to why

Don’t forget condemn a Muslim for his beliefs - Islamophobic prick - see SOG, Pingpong

[Turkish]

13 minutes ago, whelk said:

 

Don’t forget condemn a Muslim for his beliefs - Islamophobic prick - see SOG, Pingpong

but that's where it gets tricky for them.

Dont call our homophobia = homophobic prick

Homosexuality not tolerated by Muslims = Shit, what do we do now? 

Being a professional virtue signaller is a tough gig, no wonder they're so angry all the time,

[pingpong]

On 29/08/2024 at 14:48, Turkish said:

but that's where it gets tricky for them.

Dont call our homophobia = homophobic prick

Homosexuality not tolerated by Muslims = Shit, what do we do now? 

Being a professional virtue signaller is a tough gig, no wonder they're so angry all the time,

Thing is, I've never met a Muslim who did not tolerate homosexuality, but I've met plenty who do.  You may be reading too much daily mail if you think all Muslims are homophobic. 

The same argument applies to Christianity, by the way, which also has homophobic teachings, but doesn't mean every Christian is a homophobe.

In fact, I have house shared with Christians in the past, who all believed I was going to go to hell in the end, just because i am not religious- but we were still able to be friends, and support each other.

[trousers]

Quote

Resignation letter from a John Lewis Partner

 

I’m grateful to Lesley for granting permission to publish her resignation letter. For over 70 years, John Lewis has had a unique ownership structure in which staff members collectively own the business through a trust. However, it now seems that trans activists within the company are compromising the safety of female staff and customers, and many partners are not happy.

 

My name is Lesley Pickup. I am employed as a Selling Partner on the first floor in your Cheadle Branch.

For the past 20 years, I have been involved with female victims from all faiths, cultures, ethnicities, and backgrounds who have been subjected to domestic and sexual violence and psychological abuse by men.

 

They have lived and continue to live terrible lives, in constant fear of violence both physical and emotional. They have no autonomy at home, no voice, no self-worth, accorded no respect, and all too often ignored by a Police Force and CPS who should be there to protect them.

 

For many their only escape from such a life is work. Work offers them physical and emotional safety. It is a place where they are treated with respect, where they are treated as human beings and where their opinions matter. Where people listen to them. Where they can, for a few hours in the day, live a NORMAL life and where they are free from a world where they are expected at all times to be subservient to needs of men or face severe consequences.

 

With a predominantly female work force the law of averages states that there will be such victims employed by John Lewis. John Lewis may never know who they are for many will not want to contaminate their only safe, normal space with the life they live outside. If no such ladies work for John Lewis, then it is probably the only company in the UK.

Work offers the only time in their lives where they should have guaranteed female-only safe spaces free from the demands of men regardless of who those men claim to be.

 

Sadly, I have found this no longer to be the case for the female employees of John Lewis, where without negotiation, unilaterally, arbitrarily and WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT or any say in the matter whatsoever, they are now expected to be completely and without question subservient to the needs of their male colleagues.

 

Married, male colleagues, with full male genitalia, not transitioning to female, who live as husbands at home but choose to dress as women at work, assuming female names, and expecting full access to toilettes and locker rooms which were previously female-only employee safe spaces. This regardless and without one moment of thought or consideration for any negative effects and consequences on their female colleagues.

 

Female colleagues who I know to be triggered, caused anxiety and mental distress by these men’s presence in previously safe female spaces.

 

Female colleagues who live in fear of dismissal if they speak out. So just like home they put up and shut up and acquiesce to the demands of men.

 

Their oppressive home lives being replicated at work.

 

Just like home they don’t matter because JOHN LEWIS has never sought their INPUT or CONSENT for this intrusion into their safe spaces.

 

Nor has JOHN LEWIS ever sought the CONSENT of its female employees whose faith forbids them from being in such close intimate spaces with men who they are not related to or married to. It’s one thing being on the shop floor surrounded by customers and colleagues its quite another to be in a locker room or toilette.

 

Likewise, JOHN LEWIS does not inform nor seek the CONSENT of the parents and carers of young female work experience students below 18 YOA to permit their daughters to be in female-safe spaces with men with full male genitalia. I can find no written available safeguarding policy acknowledging John Lewis’s duty of care to safeguard and promote the welfare of these young female students, or any students for that matter. There is no commitment to ensure safeguarding practises reflect statutory responsibilities, government guidance and are in line with Ofsted requirements. A Policy which should recognise that the welfare of young female students is paramount in all circumstances which includes female safe spaces.

 

Parents, carers, female employees of all faiths and none may have freely give their CONSENT for this.  They may have no problem with men in their safe spaces. But John Lewis doesn’t know because it has never asked. Opting instead to impose an unnegotiated policy, unilaterally and arbitrarily upon its female employees with no knowledge of their back story nor regard or concern for the consequences for their safety and mental health.  At the moment it’s all about the men who identify as women, whether transitioning or NOT.

 

Dismissively, John Lewis state female employees can use the disabled toilette and be provided with a small locker for a purse and car keys away from the female changing rooms. Nowhere to hang their coats up or deposit wet umbrellas etc and only the disabled loo to change in which quite rightly they can only use after their disabled colleagues. Why is it that your female employees have to change their behaviour to concede to the demands of their male colleagues? You instruct them to discuss this matter with their manager. Managers who have no authority and dare not challenge the company line.

 

John Lewis, you just don’t get it. Victims don’t want to tell their manager. They don’t want to contaminate the only space where they once felt normal and safe. They don’t want to draw attention to themselves or have to admit to another and themselves about their awful home lives. They don’t want their colleagues noticing or discussing that they behave differently from everyone else, whilst waiting in the corridor to use the disabled loo. Respectfully your managers are not qualified to discuss such matters with women.

 

We are told it’s in your terms and conditions. It was not in my contract of employment which was the only document I was party to pre-employment.

 

This policy has no benefit to the profitability of John Lewis.

 

I am sure if I get any response to my concerns, it will be dismissive, with name-calling and condemnation from the top table. But I don’t care. I only care about those women less fortunate than myself and that such women are safe at work and treated with respect and understanding.

 

I am grateful to be in a financial position where I no longer have to put up with a situation that causes me distress to witness. I have no mortgage and an excellent final salary pension.

 

Sadly, the majority of your female employees are not in such a fortunate position, instead being forced to put up and shut up to pay the rent. They are not happy about this situation. You can see it on their faces if you care to look.

Therefore, please accept my resignation from John Lewis with effect from Wednesday 07 August 2024. I will not be serving out my two weeks’ notice as I am not prepared to set foot in an establishment, either as an employee or a customer, that chooses to treat its female members of staff with such disregard when it comes to their safe spaces, placing the demands of men above all else.

 

Shopping in JL used to be a great, fun experience. A fabulous distraction from the trials and stresses of everyday life. It was pure theatre. What your female employees didn’t know about the goods you sell wasn’t worth knowing.

 

Not anymore. It’s now full of anxiety, controversy, and abuse of your female staff.

 

Lesley Pickup

 

Edited September 4 by trousers

[pingpong]

34 minutes ago, trousers said:

 

Sounds angry. Good suggestions though, I'm sure john lewis will be looking at their employees facial expressions to evaluate how frightened they are of men.

 

Interesting to note they are not talking about transgender issues here, they are talking about male colleagues who identify as men but wear dresses when they go to work to infiltrate locker rooms. I'm surprised this is such a big and common issue at john lewis as I've never encountered it in my management career and have worked in many places with gender neutral facilities, including our own general hospital.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, trousers said:

 

Quite a powerful letter. Let's hope John Lewis act on her very valid concerns. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

20 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Quite a powerful letter. Let's hope John Lewis act on her very valid concerns. 

Let’s hope so, an independent investigation conducted by an experienced person, somebody who can  get to the truth, but act tactfully, is in order.  IMO

 

 

[Turkish]

[Turkish]