The mancityfans.net football forum

But is he the first?
Can't remember if that fella from Villa, Thomas Hitzlsperger came out when he was still a player or not?

Imho, people can choose any direction they want but do not disrespect what the other one is thinking. Just respect each other as humans no matter the religion, sexual orientation, or race.

PeterParker wrote:But is he the first?
Can't remember if that fella from Villa, Thomas Hitzlsperger came out when he was still a player or not?

Imho, people can choose any direction they want but do not disrespect what the other one is thinking. Just respect each other as humans no matter the religion, sexual orientation, or race.

He retired and then came out. Thing is, I completely understand the need to have your own view and freedom of speech. However, the views of some of the posts on this thread, if the internet was around 100 years ago, would keep women in the kitchen and the bedroom and nowhere else.

Wonderwall wrote:

PeterParker wrote:But is he the first?
Can't remember if that fella from Villa, Thomas Hitzlsperger came out when he was still a player or not?

Imho, people can choose any direction they want but do not disrespect what the other one is thinking. Just respect each other as humans no matter the religion, sexual orientation, or race.

He retired and then came out. Thing is, I completely understand the need to have your own view and freedom of speech. However, the views of some of the posts on this thread, if the internet was around 100 years ago, would keep women in the kitchen and the bedroom and nowhere else.

nonsense

Wonderwall wrote:

PeterParker wrote:But is he the first?
Can't remember if that fella from Villa, Thomas Hitzlsperger came out when he was still a player or not?

Imho, people can choose any direction they want but do not disrespect what the other one is thinking. Just respect each other as humans no matter the religion, sexual orientation, or race.

He retired and then came out. Thing is, I completely understand the need to have your own view and freedom of speech. However, the views of some of the posts on this thread, if the internet was around 100 years ago, would keep women in the kitchen and the bedroom and nowhere else.

Utter drivel

nottsblue wrote:About time a professional footballer came out

I wonder if the lad has done it off his back or whether he has been “advised”

He is very young and has barely played for the first team yet. Has he done this for financial gain? I’m sure he has been inundated with media requests for interviews and the like. And if he has then good luck to him.

Interesting that he remains the only one. You’d have thought at least one or two more would have followed his lead

Hope it doesn’t become a millstone like it was for Fashanu

I'd assumed it was possibly the other way - he's come out publicly to stop others financially gaining from it. He's young and virtually unknown as a footballer, and we don't know whether or not he's been living an openly gay life as a private person (I assume from the way he worded things - i.e. his family, club and team-mates already knew - that he has for at least some time). Would we know (or care) if a 17-year-old on City's books was gay? Probably not. But if they got a few minutes in the first team, I'd bet my bottom dollar that some scrote who knows a bit about their private life would be heading straight to the papers, and it would become major tabloid news. Just a month ago, someone was able to sell a story about Kyle Walker weeing against the back wall of a hotel to (at least) two different newspapers, which shows just how desperate both newspapers and society are for any bit of gossip.

BlueinBosnia wrote:..Would we know (or care) if a 17-year-old on City's books was gay? Probably not. But if they got a few minutes in the first team, I'd bet my bottom dollar that some scrote who knows a bit about their private life would be heading straight to the papers..

That's exactly it, attitudes have moved on, just as they have with skin colour - nobody sees that as relevant to footballers these days either - only those who want to politicise gender or racial injustice, simply bent on manufacturing division to destabilise society.

johnny crossan wrote:

CTID Hants wrote:

johnny crossan wrote:17 yrs old.

17 yrs old has fuck all to do with it JC , I sincerely hope you don't travel to our hallowed ground along Alan Turing Way?

World headlines after 9 minutes on the pitch - already a celebrity football superstar, great career move.

In a nutshell. Queen's New Year's honours list beckons and a future MOTD presenter

When Gareth Thomas Welsh Rugby player came out at the end of his career, he changed from a guy that just happened to be gay to some camp as Christmas pundit, throwing out double entendres left right and centre. Is being a mincing queen all part of coming out

Indianablue wrote:When Gareth Thomas Welsh Rugby player came out at the end of his career, he changed from a guy that just happened to be gay to some camp as Christmas pundit, throwing out double entendres left right and centre. Is being a mincing queen all part of coming out

Have you ever thought that camp as Christmas might be the real him, and the normal guy was just an act?

Bluemoon4610 wrote:

Indianablue wrote:When Gareth Thomas Welsh Rugby player came out at the end of his career, he changed from a guy that just happened to be gay to some camp as Christmas pundit, throwing out double entendres left right and centre. Is being a mincing queen all part of coming out

Have you ever thought that camp as Christmas might be the real him, and the normal guy was just an act?

Nope. No problem with a persons sexuality, just don't want it pushed down my throat

Bluemoon4610 wrote:

Indianablue wrote:When Gareth Thomas Welsh Rugby player came out at the end of his career, he changed from a guy that just happened to be gay to some camp as Christmas pundit, throwing out double entendres left right and centre. Is being a mincing queen all part of coming out

Have you ever thought that camp as Christmas might be the real him, and the normal guy was just an act?

I'm inclined to think that they are both an act - no reason to think he is any different than anyone else in that respect. Aware of it or not, like it or not we are all acting.

carl_feedthegoat wrote:

Wonderwall wrote:

PeterParker wrote:But is he the first?
Can't remember if that fella from Villa, Thomas Hitzlsperger came out when he was still a player or not?

Imho, people can choose any direction they want but do not disrespect what the other one is thinking. Just respect each other as humans no matter the religion, sexual orientation, or race.

He retired and then came out. Thing is, I completely understand the need to have your own view and freedom of speech. However, the views of some of the posts on this thread, if the internet was around 100 years ago, would keep women in the kitchen and the bedroom and nowhere else.

Utter drivel

Only it is not drivel - WW is bang on the money.

You dont understand Dominant Culture and how it works, Carl.

One of the things i dont get is why a dominant culture gets so defensive and mard. Something that is not perceived as normal becomes a threat, wtf is that all about, why are the proponents of normal so fucking scared and insecure?

brite blu sky wrote:

carl_feedthegoat wrote:

Wonderwall wrote:

PeterParker wrote:But is he the first?
Can't remember if that fella from Villa, Thomas Hitzlsperger came out when he was still a player or not?

Imho, people can choose any direction they want but do not disrespect what the other one is thinking. Just respect each other as humans no matter the religion, sexual orientation, or race.

He retired and then came out. Thing is, I completely understand the need to have your own view and freedom of speech. However, the views of some of the posts on this thread, if the internet was around 100 years ago, would keep women in the kitchen and the bedroom and nowhere else.

Utter drivel

Only it is not drivel - WW is bang on the money.

You dont understand Dominant Culture and how it works, Carl.

One of the things i dont get is why a dominant culture gets so defensive and mard. Something that is not perceived as normal becomes a threat, wtf is that all about, why are the proponents of normal so fucking scared and insecure?

You assume a lot don’t you ? Try to relax that mindset of yours ,just a tad , and also take your blinkers off and leave out the fucking patronising attitude will you !! .

WW says he hopes those 3 players, who do not wish to wear the rainbow emblem on their shirts, get abuse from every fan up and down the country due to their beliefs

He then says he has no problem with personal views or freedom of speech !!!

He then assumes that the posters in this thread, that go against his narrative , think women belong in the kitchen and ? PMSL …….

As I said , he’s talking Utter fucking drivel .

Indianablue wrote:When Gareth Thomas Welsh Rugby player came out at the end of his career, he changed from a guy that just happened to be gay to some camp as Christmas pundit, throwing out double entendres left right and centre. Is being a mincing queen all part of coming out

It's quite common to be honest. If you've repressed a part of yourself all of your (adult) life, it is quite natural to want to explore, often through exaggeration, that other side once it no longer has to stay hidden.

A lot of poleople who come out and go camp tones it down after a while and find their "true self". But of course, you also have people who just naturally are camp as fuck.

And just out of curiosity, do you think super feminine women who wear slutty clothes and show off their curves, are showing their sexuality down your throat as well? Or is that aversion just for non-normative sexual proclivities?

carl_feedthegoat wrote:

brite blu sky wrote:

carl_feedthegoat wrote:

Wonderwall wrote:
He retired and then came out. Thing is, I completely understand the need to have your own view and freedom of speech. However, the views of some of the posts on this thread, if the internet was around 100 years ago, would keep women in the kitchen and the bedroom and nowhere else.

Utter drivel

Only it is not drivel - WW is bang on the money.

You dont understand Dominant Culture and how it works, Carl.

One of the things i dont get is why a dominant culture gets so defensive and mard. Something that is not perceived as normal becomes a threat, wtf is that all about, why are the proponents of normal so fucking scared and insecure?

You assume a lot don’t you ? Try to relax that mindset of yours ,just a tad , and also take your blinkers off and leave out the fucking patronising attitude will you !! .

WW says he hopes those 3 players, who do not wish to wear the rainbow emblem on their shirts, get abuse from every fan up and down the country due to their beliefs

He then says he has no problem with personal views or freedom of speech !!!

He then assumes that the posters in this thread, that go against his narrative , think women belong in the kitchen and ? PMSL …….

As I said , he’s talking Utter fucking drivel .

I knew you would ignore the questions i asked and start rabbiting about the detail of WW post.

Personally i dont disagree with your freedom argument - it is a fundamental point and tbh not one that anyone is going to disagree with.
So what is this all about eh? Dominant Culture and Prejudice that's what.

If you want to be taken seriously with your argument about freedoms then you need to show that you understand what that argument is up against.
If anyone is getting cancelled because they wont tow the line, it is because they cannot square their stance in relation to why a movement against prejudice exists in the first place.

Put simply if you cannot explain why the rainbow symbol exists in the first place then you will never get taken seriously with any kind of counter argument.
That is a FACT.
As an ex mili you should know you cannot counter something if you do not understand it first.
If you dont want to be forced to participate in countering prejudice, then you have to be prepared to carefully explain why.
If you want to be prejudiced then you are always going to get people asking what you are so afraid of, as prejudice is not normally rational it is fear driven.

So if you are making an argument against public coercion to fight prejudice then you naturally end up on thin ice, very thin ice.

( For the record i dont think those 3 should get abuse, i do think they deserve it though, but abuse isnt going to help. Why do those 3 take the rainbow symbol so personally ? It is difficult to see other than they dont like gay culture, gay people, gay men. Maybe that is fair enough. In this instance i dont see why the club just doesn't let them wear a standard shirt. The club obviously decided they wanted to support the International Day and didn't want any players not supporting that. That is probably wrong and unfair. However if generally speaking we are fighting prejudice here, then clearly those players do not get it, because it is about showing that they all support the idea that it ok to be gay, that it is acceptable, can be celebrated and that we dont have a problem. Footballers as icons send the message out to those they influence. Not being a part of that shows they do not support the irradication of prejudice - in that you have to ask why
In this case it is clear the club decided to call them out by not quietly letting them wear the usual shirt ).

brite blu sky wrote:I knew you would ignore the questions i asked and start rabbiting about the detail of WW post.
Personally i dont disagree with your freedom argument - it is a fundamental point and tbh not one that anyone is going to disagree with.
So what is this all about eh? Dominant Culture and Prejudice that's what....

and that is simply another description of the human condition. We are social animals and prioritise behaviours that protect the bonds which strengthen the group. Biological differences are real and historically important for group survival hence our species' instinctive hostility to what is now called LGBT. In this overpopulated and polluted planet, with the consequent increasingly violent competition for basic resources, growth of opposition to that gender protection in response to such pressures is understandable. Tolerance is a barometer of civilization - ie the necessary condition for required social change, although sadly not a sufficient one.

mr_nool wrote:

Indianablue wrote:When Gareth Thomas Welsh Rugby player came out at the end of his career, he changed from a guy that just happened to be gay to some camp as Christmas pundit, throwing out double entendres left right and centre. Is being a mincing queen all part of coming out

It's quite common to be honest. If you've repressed a part of yourself all of your (adult) life, it is quite natural to want to explore, often through exaggeration, that other side once it no longer has to stay hidden.

A lot of poleople who come out and go camp tones it down after a while and find their "true self". But of course, you also have people who just naturally are camp as fuck.

And just out of curiosity, do you think super feminine women who wear slutty clothes and show off their curves, are showing their sexuality down your throat as well? Or is that aversion just for non-normative sexual proclivities?

I like all women , feminine graceful or slutty man eater. i can also appreciate a good looking stylish man but people of either sex putting on an overtly false image is unattractive to me

johnny crossan wrote:

brite blu sky wrote:I knew you would ignore the questions i asked and start rabbiting about the detail of WW post.
Personally i dont disagree with your freedom argument - it is a fundamental point and tbh not one that anyone is going to disagree with.
So what is this all about eh? Dominant Culture and Prejudice that's what....

and that is simply another description of the human condition. We are social animals and prioritise behaviours that protect the bonds which strengthen the group. Biological differences are real and historically important for group survival hence our species' instinctive hostility to what is now called LGBT. In this overpopulated and polluted planet, with the consequent increasingly violent competition for basic resources, growth of opposition to that gender protection in response to such pressures is understandable. Tolerance is a barometer of civilization - ie the necessary condition for required social change, although sadly not a sufficient one.

Well i would add that our brains are obviously able to override instinct. Survival strategy has changed from food in a forest to food in a supermarket.
Overall over time social co-operation has bettered self interest - otherwise we would have no civilisation.
Until we had education the only rule book was tradition - which is why religion lasted so long.

The point is that we have changed and are capable of changing. As the planet has too much carbon fumes in the air we are going to have to do more change and pretty quick. In relation to that, as you say JC identity politics is seemingly a lot of froth.

However - and i dont expect that many to agree with this - the root cause of us not solving a lot more problems is the basic split between self interest and collective interest. It is strange that greed is not driven by the desire for more stuff, it is driven by oneupmanship, by the desire to be better than others.
Respect for others is a casualty.
So to bring it full circle, learning to have respect for others sexual orientation may be a small building block in the climb to redress the root cause of greed.

( Identitiy politics is a bitterly fought battleground as we know, and i suspect that it is so because there is an intuitive sense that it is component of a wider battle about human nature - keeping it the same or trying to evolve ).

This is a long process and it is difficult to see. Looking at organised religion and its rise and fall is a good example of how to illustate that slow process.

brite blu sky wrote:

johnny crossan wrote:

brite blu sky wrote:I knew you would ignore the questions i asked and start rabbiting about the detail of WW post.
Personally i dont disagree with your freedom argument - it is a fundamental point and tbh not one that anyone is going to disagree with.
So what is this all about eh? Dominant Culture and Prejudice that's what....

and that is simply another description of the human condition. We are social animals and prioritise behaviours that protect the bonds which strengthen the group. Biological differences are real and historically important for group survival hence our species' instinctive hostility to what is now called LGBT. In this overpopulated and polluted planet, with the consequent increasingly violent competition for basic resources, growth of opposition to that gender protection in response to such pressures is understandable. Tolerance is a barometer of civilization - ie the necessary condition for required social change, although sadly not a sufficient one.

Well i would add that our brains are obviously able to override instinct. Survival strategy has changed from food in a forest to food in a supermarket.
Overall over time social co-operation has bettered self interest - otherwise we would have no civilisation.
Until we had education the only rule book was tradition - which is why religion lasted so long.
The point is that we have changed and are capable of changing. As the planet has too much carbon fumes in the air we are going to have to do more change and pretty quick. In relation to that, as you say JC identity politics is seemingly a lot of froth.
However - and i dont expect that many to agree with this - the root cause of us not solving a lot more problems is the basic split between self interest and collective interest. It is strange that greed is not driven by the desire for more stuff, it is driven by oneupmanship, by the desire to be better than others.
Respect for others is a casualty. So to bring it full circle, learning to have respect for others sexual orientation may be a small building block in the climb to redress the root cause of greed. ( Identitiy politics is a bitterly fought battleground as we know, and i suspect that it is so because there is an intuitive sense that it is component of a wider battle about human nature - keeping it the same or trying to evolve ).This is a long process and it is difficult to see. Looking at organised religion and its rise and fall is a good example of how to illustate that slow process.

I think your last point is important and links to the key issue. Today, some 7 billion people - about 85% of the world population - identify with religious traditions which have been historically hostile to LGBT and overwhelmingly remain so. Recently some major churches have made significant concessions both here and elsewhere in western democracies but such toleration/respect of personal choice is not necessarily acceptance and is almost always with significant opposition from within their ranks. When political activists use LGBT grievances to attack the legitimacy of the instutitions of marriage, the family and their attendant responsibilities, seeking to portray them as outdated or harmful, such rhetoric can quickly lead to dangerous conflict. Even in a predominantly secular society like the UK when fundamental cultural values are perceived to be under threat by a significant segment of the population that fear is further exploited by extremists from left and right. The resulting political polarisation is where we are right now - and that suits our capitalist elite just fine. (As do wars, racial tensions, pandemics, food & drug shortages, climatic catastrophe - all of them just keep the money flowing in and with it control of events.)