[Football] Aussie Player Comes Out

[Ex-Staffs Gull]

How is it in Austalia for this sort of thing . I imagine they are similar to us and the Yanks with levels of acceptance ?

Only asking as most Ozzies I've met are extremely sexist and non tolerant for certain things.

Making a statement like this mate, wonder how many Aussies you have met recently?

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[albionfan37]

It's been a long time since I was last exposed to this in Aus, but as with any country it depends on where you are both geographically and demographically. Some states are more tolerant than others, and even within states there used to be a big divide between rural and urban, then in the urban areas a definite class divide.

Sydney has one of the longest running and best supported Pride / Mardi Gras festivals in the world, which suggests Sydney at least is reasonably tolerant. But then you have areas within Sydney that would be a no-go after dark if you're out.

So the same anywhere then

 

[vegster]

It's been a long time since I was last exposed to this in Aus, but as with any country it depends on where you are both geographically and demographically. Some states are more tolerant than others, and even within states there used to be a big divide between rural and urban, then in the urban areas a definite class divide.

Sydney has one of the longest running and best supported Pride / Mardi Gras festivals in the world, which suggests Sydney at least is reasonably tolerant. But then you have areas within Sydney that would be a no-go after dark if you're out.

You mean if you are " Out Out " then?

 

[sydney]

You mean if you are " Out Out " then?

have you been to Sydney ...?? ever ..? the whole city is gay as.

 

[dazzer6666]

Shame this is even news really............vast majority I'm sure couldn't care less but a few keyboard warriors will no doubt sadly do their usual thing. Hopefully we're not too far away from a time when it's no longer newsworthy - maybe we'll see the first '********** linked with BHA' thread that has a highlights reel and a picture of a player's male partner rather than a WAG soon....................

 

[Audax]

have you been to Sydney ...?? ever ..? the whole city is gay as.

Unless things have changed a lot, there's some pretty backwards areas of Sydney (as with any city of any significant size). Definitely areas I wouldn't go after dark next time I find myself in the city.

However, your point stands: taken on a whole, the city is pretty tolerant and a lot of it openly encouraging. You don't have to travel far to find somewhere you might not feel welcome though. Some of the western Sydney suburbs were home to some hefty populations of backwards thinkers when I last lived in the area (Richmond [edit for clarity: I lived in Richmond, not saying that was a backwards thinking area!]).

 

[AmexRuislip]

Total respect to the guy

 

[Eeyore]

Unless things have changed a lot, there's some pretty backwards areas of Sydney (as with any city of any significant size). Definitely areas I wouldn't go after dark next time I find myself in the city.

However, your point stands: taken on a whole, the city is pretty tolerant and a lot of it openly encouraging. You don't have to travel far to find somewhere you might not feel welcome though. Some of the western Sydney suburbs were home to some hefty populations of backwards thinkers when I last lived in the area (Richmond [edit for clarity: I lived in Richmond, not saying that was a backwards thinking area!]).

I lived in Dulwich Hill near Sydenham. Never saw a red bus while I was there though.

 

[father_and_son]

You would have thought not but it is what it is. I remember the symbolically empty Paddy Power bus at Brighton Pride a couple of years ago.

https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/life/paddy-power-explains-their-empty-bus-stunt-at-brighton-pride/

I loved the heart-warming documentary on Gareth Thomas when he came out, How scared he was about the reaction of his team mates and the fans. The universal response was "Yeah...........and?". The love and respect he got from within the game was fantastic. There was nothing for him to fear.

Gay footballers shouldn't have to hide away. Yes, dear Justin took a lot of flak and grief that ultimately resulted in his untimely death but that was mainly from his brother and other members of his family. I would like to think the world has moved on and that any player who came out would be treated no differently to any other player. it should make no difference.

No place for discrimination of any kind, in any sport.

While I absolutely agree with the sentiment, the sad reality is, fans will *not* let an openly LGBTQ+ player be treated the same as everyone else. Embedded in "football culture" is a tribal rivalry that means everything know about every player is "fair game". Everything from the fact that Steve Sidwell has ginger hair to John Terry's history with team mate's exes. Nothing can and will be out-of-bounds for the average football chant either in support of our own or winding up opposition players. What this means is that personal details that shouldn't be sung about are and will be regardless of whether its hurtful, unfair or personal. It's niaive to believe that isn't the case and won't also apply to "the" out footballer.

I don't know what the solution is, but i do get why being openly out in most areas of life is, in the most part, not something to even spare much of a thought about anymore because the world has moved on, but it isn't quite so simple for a footballer to deliberately open up a personal aspect of their life for undue scrutiny voluntarily. I personally think it will be a good day when the world genuinely has moved on, but it does seem that football culture habitually lags behind civilised society too much, too often.

 

[Poojah]

I see the word "Tolerated" quite a lot, which to most of you probably seems a reasonable thing to say, Its great that LGBTQ.. people are now "tolerated" a lot more-


can i ask that before saying you are tolerant of us, you actually take a moment to think about what you are implying by using Tolerate.

This isnt me being a snowflake, and getting offended for no reason, its me pointing out one reason why a well known sports person has to think before stopping hiding and living a lie.



tolerate
/ˈtɒləreɪt/
Learn to pronounce
verb
past tense: tolerated; past participle: tolerated
1.
allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.
"a regime unwilling to tolerate dissent"



Personally I don't want to be "tolerated" , because that implies you are just putting up with me and wont make too much of a fuss. You tolerate the occasional student party, you tolerate watching the other halves awful tv program so you can have an easy life, you tolerate a slightly overdone steak in a restaurant because you dont want to make a fuss.

What you shouldn't do is just about put up with LGBTQ people because you dont want to make a fuss, or be seen in a bad light

How about you view us as the same as you, and dont just tolerate us, but fully accept us as equals without any qualification.


Would you say you "tolerate" someone from a different ethnic background, or gender working with you, or using the same shops, or being part of your social circle, I certainly hope you wouldn't even need to think once, let alone twice about that, yet I hear that I am tolerated and thats just great and dandy and I should be pleased.

That’s a great post and you raise some very good points. I do wonder though whether the word ‘tolerant’ as a (clumsy) way for inferring acceptance of LGBTQ people is a an oversimplified reversal of the word “intolerant”. I’ve been to a few countries, including obvious ones like the UAE and less obvious ones like Jamaica where society is described in travel guides as “intolerant” of homosexuality. Intolerant = bad, therefore tolerant = good. It’s an example of a word where the antonym doesn’t really work in certain contexts.

Personally, I’m indifferent towards someone’s sexuality, or which gender they identify as. It’s none of my business, and I genuinely don’t care or think of people any differently based on their sexual preferences or the way they wish to live their life. I used to think that was the right attitude, but more recently I’ve been questioning myself.

Whenever I’ve employed people, I used to say that someone’s race, gender, sexuality etc didn’t come into it - I just wanted the best person to the job. That was well meaning and, I think, logical on the surface. But it fails to recognise that the best person for the job might be so because they happened to be from a wealthy background, white, male and straight (for example). Change any one of those parameters, and I recognise that opportunities may be less easy to come by, and so it’s not really the meritocracy I used to think it to be.

So, genuine question, do you feel that straight people need to do more than simply be supportive and accepting of LGBTQ cause?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I see the word "Tolerated" quite a lot, which to most of you probably seems a reasonable thing to say, Its great that LGBTQ.. people are now "tolerated" a lot more-


can i ask that before saying you are tolerant of us, you actually take a moment to think about what you are implying by using Tolerate.

This isnt me being a snowflake, and getting offended for no reason, its me pointing out one reason why a well known sports person has to think before stopping hiding and living a lie.



tolerate
/ˈtɒləreɪt/
Learn to pronounce
verb
past tense: tolerated; past participle: tolerated
1.
allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.
"a regime unwilling to tolerate dissent"



Personally I don't want to be "tolerated" , because that implies you are just putting up with me and wont make too much of a fuss. You tolerate the occasional student party, you tolerate watching the other halves awful tv program so you can have an easy life, you tolerate a slightly overdone steak in a restaurant because you dont want to make a fuss.

What you shouldn't do is just about put up with LGBTQ people because you dont want to make a fuss, or be seen in a bad light

How about you view us as the same as you, and dont just tolerate us, but fully accept us as equals without any qualification.


Would you say you "tolerate" someone from a different ethnic background, or gender working with you, or using the same shops, or being part of your social circle, I certainly hope you wouldn't even need to think once, let alone twice about that, yet I hear that I am tolerated and thats just great and dandy and I should be pleased.

Well said.

 

[Creaky]

I see the word "Tolerated" quite a lot, which to most of you probably seems a reasonable thing to say, Its great that LGBTQ.. people are now "tolerated" a lot more-


can i ask that before saying you are tolerant of us, you actually take a moment to think about what you are implying by using Tolerate.

This isnt me being a snowflake, and getting offended for no reason, its me pointing out one reason why a well known sports person has to think before stopping hiding and living a lie.



tolerate
/ˈtɒləreɪt/
Learn to pronounce
verb
past tense: tolerated; past participle: tolerated
1.
allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.
"a regime unwilling to tolerate dissent"



Personally I don't want to be "tolerated" , because that implies you are just putting up with me and wont make too much of a fuss. You tolerate the occasional student party, you tolerate watching the other halves awful tv program so you can have an easy life, you tolerate a slightly overdone steak in a restaurant because you dont want to make a fuss.

What you shouldn't do is just about put up with LGBTQ people because you dont want to make a fuss, or be seen in a bad light

How about you view us as the same as you, and dont just tolerate us, but fully accept us as equals without any qualification.


Would you say you "tolerate" someone from a different ethnic background, or gender working with you, or using the same shops, or being part of your social circle, I certainly hope you wouldn't even need to think once, let alone twice about that, yet I hear that I am tolerated and thats just great and dandy and I should be pleased.

We live in a society of millions of people, each one an individual with a myriad of views on a whole range of subjects. The fact that in general our’s is a peaceful society is all down to the level of tolerance shown by the population.

In essence, taking your view that tolerance is not enough would mean that the whole population must approve of you and your sexuality - quite frankly that is unrealistic - I’m sure that very few of us, if any, would have the approval of all for all aspects of our lives.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

That’s a great post and you raise some very good points. I do wonder though whether the word ‘tolerant’ as a (clumsy) way for inferring acceptance of LGBTQ people is a an oversimplified reversal of the word “intolerant”. I’ve been to a few countries, including obvious ones like the UAE and less obvious ones like Jamaica where society is described in travel guides as “intolerant” of homosexuality. Intolerant = bad, therefore tolerant = good. It’s an example of a word where the antonym doesn’t really work in certain contexts.

Personally, I’m indifferent towards someone’s sexuality, or which gender they identify as. It’s none of my business, and I genuinely don’t care or think of people any differently based on their sexual preferences or the way they wish to live their life. I used to think that was the right attitude, but more recently I’ve been questioning myself.

Whenever I’ve employed people, I used to say that someone’s race, gender, sexuality etc didn’t come into it - I just wanted the best person to the job. That was well meaning and, I think, logical on the surface. But it fails to recognise that the best person for the job might be so because they happened to be from a wealthy background, white, male and straight (for example). Change any one of those parameters, and I recognise that opportunities may be less easy to come by, and so it’s not really the meritocracy I used to think it to be.

So, genuine question, do you feel that straight people need to do more than simply be supportive and accepting of LGBTQ cause?

My view is that I would want friends and colleagues to be able to talk about their lives, and engage socially with me, in the same way. My friends and colleagues do seem to interact with me the same way, regardless of their background or mine. Which is nice.

I recall hearing John Barnes making some quite challenging comments about people's attitudes to race, and his annoyance with people who claim to be 'colour blind'. It is OK to ask about things, but as with everything, it has to be well-intentioned and not intrusive or pruriant, and it's like anything. I'm old and have learned to be nice and kind most of the time (ahem) but it may be much more tricky for the young who know less about boundaries.

One thing I struggle with tolerating is the two teenagers who have started to sit behind me at the Amex. The voices are breaking, and they just won't stop shouting, often very critically and hysterically about our play. It gives me ear ache. And they have recently learned to shout '****ing' which the use to describe practically everything. I find I'm spending half the game rolling my eyes at [MENTION=37530]monty uk[/MENTION]. But they are only kids, learning to find their feet, and I'd feel a bit of an old bully having a word with them. I think its the lack of appreciation for Potterball that annoys me the most, though. Brighton no longer 'get into them' at every moment, upending the opposition and picking up cards, FFS. The trouble is if I they screech 'touch-tight' again I am liable to explode into one of my monumental outbursts of intolerance .

 

[nickbrighton]

We live in a society of millions of people, each one an individual with a myriad of views on a whole range of subjects. The fact that in general our’s is a peaceful society is all down to the level of tolerance shown by the population.

In essence, taking your view that tolerance is not enough would mean that the whole population must approve of you and your sexuality - quite frankly that is unrealistic - I’m sure that very few of us, if any, would have the approval of all for all aspects of our lives.

so by that logic, you subscribe to the view that we should not bother? how about we accept that some people will be racist and not bother pointing out that chanting or posting racist views is wrong, or try to change that? For a gay person, casual homophobia - and lets not beat around the bush- saying someone tolerates me IS homophobic is the same as being racist to someone different ethnicity.

WE all know we will never be rid of racism in its entirety- that doesn't stop us trying though, nor should it.

So NO tolerance is not enough when it comes to racism, secxism, so wtf should it be enough when it comes to homophobia- or do you think we arent deserving of acceptance for who we are- you know what path that view takes you down don't you?

 

[Creaky]

so by that logic, you subscribe to the view that we should not bother? how about we accept that some people will be racist and not bother pointing out that chanting or posting racist views is wrong, or try to change that? For a gay person, casual homophobia - and lets not beat around the bush- saying someone tolerates me IS homophobic is the same as being racist to someone different ethnicity.

WE all know we will never be rid of racism in its entirety- that doesn't stop us trying though, nor should it.

So NO tolerance is not enough when it comes to racism, secxism, so wtf should it be enough when it comes to homophobia- or do you think we arent deserving of acceptance for who we are- you know what path that view takes you down don't you?

No - I don’t subscribe to the view that “we should not bother” and that has no correlation to my view that in general we live in a tolerant society.

Do you not see the difference between tolerating someone’s views and not tolerating actions that are harmful and hateful towards others? If so, then that is a blinkered and intolerant view of society and shows a lack of tolerance for others, their lifestyles and their beliefs.

I’m all in favour of an evolving society where tolerance becomes approval but in the meantime don’t show intolerance towards those that are tolerant of you.

 

[nickbrighton]

That’s a great post and you raise some very good points. I do wonder though whether the word ‘tolerant’ as a (clumsy) way for inferring acceptance of LGBTQ people is a an oversimplified reversal of the word “intolerant”. I’ve been to a few countries, including obvious ones like the UAE and less obvious ones like Jamaica where society is described in travel guides as “intolerant” of homosexuality. Intolerant = bad, therefore tolerant = good. It’s an example of a word where the antonym doesn’t really work in certain contexts.

Personally, I’m indifferent towards someone’s sexuality, or which gender they identify as. It’s none of my business, and I genuinely don’t care or think of people any differently based on their sexual preferences or the way they wish to live their life. I used to think that was the right attitude, but more recently I’ve been questioning myself.

Whenever I’ve employed people, I used to say that someone’s race, gender, sexuality etc didn’t come into it - I just wanted the best person to the job. That was well meaning and, I think, logical on the surface. But it fails to recognise that the best person for the job might be so because they happened to be from a wealthy background, white, male and straight (for example). Change any one of those parameters, and I recognise that opportunities may be less easy to come by, and so it’s not really the meritocracy I used to think it to be.

So, genuine question, do you feel that straight people need to do more than simply be supportive and accepting of LGBTQ cause?

Basically you are touching on positive discrimination, and thats a very difficult topic.

My view is NO, we dont want anything other than to be treated just like everybody else. If I apply for a job, I want to get it because I am the best not because I am second or third best but as I am gay I get it in preference to the straight white guy who is better suited than me

The difficulty is though that in saying we want to be treated exactly like everyone else is that all the time we arent then we do want some "special treatment",

I will give you an example, I actually want gay bars to be predominantly frequented by gay people . Recently went to a gay bar, and found it to be mainly straight females (Hern night) and a few straight guys all of whom outnumbered the gay people in there. Now that kind of grated a bit, even though it should be fine not to have segregated bars, clubs etc. I was with a couple of gay friends and we were just having a laugh but we got definite Vibes that made us uncomfortable being gay in a gay bar in St James Street!!!

The reason I was a bit put out, is that I can not go to a straight bar or club and show the normal PDA that my straight compatriots would , therefore I still need a safe, predominantly gay place to be comfortable in. Thats not to say I want exclusively gay bars, but I do want to feel comfortable in a supposed gay bar

So YES we want to be treated like everyone else and get no special treatment, but we want everyone to understand being tolerated is not being treated equally

 

[Questions]

Is Ronaldo gay ?

 

[nickbrighton]

No - I don’t subscribe to the view that “we should not bother” and that has no correlation to my view that in general we live in a tolerant society.

Do you not see the difference between tolerating someone’s views and not tolerating actions that are harmful and hateful towards others? If so, then that is a blinkered and intolerant view of society and shows a lack of tolerance for others, their lifestyles and their beliefs.

I’m all in favour of an evolving society where tolerance becomes approval but in the meantime don’t show intolerance towards those that are tolerant of you.

why should i show tolerance to someone who looks down on me because I am gay? Cant you see what you are writing, just change your perspective, dont think about someone tolerating a gay lifestyle, change it to a black lifestyle, or jewish one, and then say those groups should tolerate racists or anti semites because well they should do

Let me be plain here- if you ONLY tolerate me being gay YOU are a homophobe , and no I will not tolerate that.
If you think being just tolerated by you is not harmful or hateful to me then you are sorely mistaken

 

[Creaky]

why should i show tolerance to someone who looks down on me because I am gay? Cant you see what you are writing, just change your perspective, dont think about someone tolerating a gay lifestyle, change it to a black lifestyle, or jewish one, and then say those groups should tolerate racists or anti semites because well they should do

Let me be plain here- if you ONLY tolerate me being gay YOU are a homophobe , and no I will not tolerate that.
If you think being just tolerated by you is not harmful or hateful to me then you are sorely mistaken

Your definition of homophobe may or may not be correct - depends on which dictionary you read but that is not the point I am trying, obviously ineffectively, to make.

Your expectation that everyone should approve of any particular lifestyle is an unrealistic but admirable aim. There must be millions who disapprove of a homosexual lifestyle on religious or other grounds - they are obviously homophobes by your definition but not necessarily, either by law or by dictionary definition.

Non approval of a person’s lifestyle does not demonstrate dislike or hatred of the individual or a desire to discriminate against them, anymore than non approval of the Islam faith means that you dislike or hate all Muslims. (Substitute any other faith for Islam).

 

[nickbrighton]

Your definition of homophobe may or may not be correct - depends on which dictionary you read but that is not the point I am trying, obviously ineffectively, to make.

Your expectation that everyone should approve of any particular lifestyle is an unrealistic but admirable aim. There must be millions who disapprove of a homosexual lifestyle on religious or other grounds - they are obviously homophobes by your definition but not necessarily, either by law or by dictionary definition.

Non approval of a person’s lifestyle does not demonstrate dislike or hatred of the individual or a desire to discriminate against them, anymore than non approval of the Islam faith means that you dislike or hate all Muslims. (Substitute any other faith for Islam).

my definition of homophobe is simply someone who thinks less of me because I am homosexual- i kind of think that sums it up. In the same way a racist is someone who thinks less of someone because they are a different ethnicity- i dont think that would be different from your definition or would it?

i haven't said everyone should approve of every particular lifestyle, i wouldn't expect anyone to approve a racist, sex offender, criminal lifestyle, as those are a CHOICE , but I would expect everyone to approve of people being Black, Asian, Latino, gay, trans, etc because those are factual and not lifestyle choices

It seems you disagree and think being gay is a lifestyle and therefore a choice- something that others should approve or disapprove of- its not, any more than being a different ethnicity is a choice, and something for you to approve or disapprove of- what do you call someone who disapproves of a person being a different ethnicity than themselves? if you genuinely cant see that then you are part of the problem.