Am I sexist...?

[theclaud]

Getting offended is a bit silly, IMO, unless the person getting it wrong has ignored obvious signs. If you're going to be offended if someone mistakes your gender, make it obvious in your avatar/username/whatever!

Linford went for exactly this strategy, by choosing a well-known athlete's genitalia as his original username.

 

[Linford]

Linford went for exactly this strategy, by choosing a well-known athlete's genitalia as his original username.

You must agree that there was no ambiguity with it though.

 

[Silver Fox]

Jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about a persons appearance is, I suppose, judging a book by the cover. Believe me, sometimes you can get it very, very wrong.

So experience has taught me to judge a person on their actions, not how they look.

 

[Hill Wimp]

Im female and i don't for one moment think you are sexist. I did think the flowers gave it away but i can quite appreciate the natural assumption and i'm sure once you realised you would have apologised.

Sexisim to me is when people do things on purpose against one sex or the other.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

She is actually an IT manager with a blue chip company.

I made it up

 

[surgeongirl]

In the thread on marketing cycling to women, Linford posted this pic:
View attachment 29116
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/is-cycling-marketed-for-women-in-the-wrong-way.139469/post-2647589

My first thought was, gosh, a bloke has decorated his bike with flowers! Assuming that anyone racing a motorcycle is bound to be male.

On the other hand would it have been any less sexist to have thought 'must be a woman, there's flowers on it' ?

I suppose the ideal would just be to see everyone as 'a person'...

Discuss....

May be we should use different perspective, How about a scientific equation that change everything(from -MAN IS THE EXTENSION OF WOMAN)But look at the man. He is something more. He is X and Y. That means, he is essentially an ‘X ’plus something extra. What do I mean by that! Man is already a woman that is ‘X’, plus something extra. Does that mean first step towards manhood is womanhood? Now let’s talk in mathematical language. Here is the equation, Man = 22 autosomes + X + Y Woman= 22 autosomes + X + X= 22 autsomes + X (by logic not by mathematics). . . Man= (22 autosomes + X) + Y= Woman + Y (by mathematics, simply) So man is everything that woman is, plus something extra. Now the extra thing is not qualitatively different, but quantitatively. Hence Y here must be somewhat like X + 1, X+2 or X+ 3 or something like that. It would be ultimately proven that woman can potentially grow into man. Similarly man can reduce to woman, if he loses some part of ‘Y’.

 

[Spinney]

The main flaw in your very strange argument is that the Y chromosome is a poor excuse for a thing, with less on it than an X (one reason why things like hemophilia and colour blindness affect men far more than women). So by your argument, a man is less than a woman because he has an X and a feeble Y, rather than two full X's.

But arguing that one sex is less or greater than the other on a chromosome count is a very silly argument.

 

[Linford]

You get people who have a natural aptitude to do well in this or that. You get people who work particularly hard to hone a skill in a given subject. They can be either male of female.
The only real advantage a man has is naturally higher levels of testosterone give more strenght, but that only translates into what you can pick up or move under your own steam.
All the women bikers I know who take it seriously are seriously good...as goes for the men as well...which is an indicator that gender isn't an excuse for being useless at anything which requires a learning process.

 

[Bollo]

I don't wish to be overly dismissive but this looks and reads like a load of bollocks or tuppences.

Tut tut. FTFY to remove implicit sexism.

 

[Linford]

Established during the course of a reasonably famous court case heard in Nottingham in the late 70s to be an old English term for priest and, by extension, nonsense. So not sexist, other than the fact that the order of priesthood has been/is sexist.

In the way which a Convent might not want men in their order ?

 

[Spinney]

Established during the course of a reasonably famous court case heard in Nottingham in the late 70s to be an old English term for priest and, by extension, nonsense. So not sexist, other than the fact that the order of priesthood has been/is sexist.

According to wikipedia (which as we all know is always accurate all of the time ) the term IS referring to male bits, but was also used at one period to refer to priests, and this is where its usage to denote nonsense may have come from. So still maybe a little sexist, but an appropriate term for such a stew of nonsensical science.

 

[Bollo]

I defer of course to Adrian on the matter, although it's also worth pointing out that the '70s was an extremely sexist decade.

..... So still maybe a little sexist, but an appropriate term for such a stew of nonsensical science.

Maybe Adrian should have considered a gender-neutral term, such as "bum gravy".

 

[glasgowcyclist]

As always context is everything.

Bollocks as used to denote nonsense dates back to the 17th century but it was slang even then. It's primary use to denote testicles predates that by a good 400 years.

OED says:
noun British vulgar slang

• 1 the testicles.

• 2 [treated as singular] nonsense; rubbish (used to express contempt or disagreement, or as an exclamation of annoyance).

GC

 

[Spinney]

What I love about some of these cafe threads is the way we can go from discussing flower stickers on a motorbike to the origins of slang terms...

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Still, it's one thread where it can't be denied that we are talking bollocks...


GC