Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...et/3670133.stm

Whilst I'm sure that gays in the force have often been confronted with discimination, anyone think they're overeacting just little bit here?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Sums it up for me. Whoever these anonymous gay officers are, who are 'said to be angry', I think they need to get some perspective on life. Sadly on the fringes of any 'minority' group are people who seem to have little to do but try to find discrimination even where there isn't any.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

It doe's kinda give the idea of chase me lol

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I quite agree with that, this is not discrimination against gay men. However, there is discrimination in general, it is wrong for women to be allowed to wear the studs whilst men cannot.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

It's only 'discrimination' in the strict sense of the word - that a distinction is made, in this case between male and female police officers. Sadly the word as commonly used has attracted a whole lot of baggage that almost implies 'discrimination' is necessarily bad, immoral and/or illegal.

That is not the case here. The Law allows for discrimination in the treatment of male and female police officers where there are good reasons. There are clearly good reasons here. The wearing of an ear-ring by a man may well be fine and dandy by people of my generation and younger (I'm 31), but for a great many older people an ear-ring in a man's ear says a whole lot of things about him that might lessen or destroy their trust in him and his authority.

It is not appropriate to expect these people to change their thinking to accommodate policemen who want to wear ear rings. It is the policeman who is the public servant and it is his duty to be accessible and approachable to all sections of society.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

So your saying its ok to discriminate to accomodate old fashioned (Lets face it biggoted) people?? :rolleyes:
By your reasoning black people also should not be allowed on the force because there are some people who are racist, and as such wouldnt be comfortable with a black officer.

Im really not trying to start an argument here but what you said above makes little sense to me.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

:confused:

Your reasoning is flawed. For a start, I don't see how you see equivalence between age, 'old fashioned' attitudes and bigotry. You can be, or have, any one of those things without being all three. I reject absolutely the notion that someone who believes the way something was done in the past is better than the way it is done now is a 'bigot'. I'm afraid the accusation of bigotry is all too easily thrown around by people who simply can't respect someone for having a different opinion.

Secondly, you try to make the big issue of race equivalent to a relatively trivial issue like the wearing of an ear ring, which is a little bizarre. In an ideal world, all police officers would be of a type of person who is absolutely unable to cause offence to anyone, and who naturally exudes authority and demands respect. Such a person does not exist. So, what we must do instead is look at what we've got and decide how best to make use of it.

Race is an issue for, I hope, a minority of people across all communities and age groups, but it cuts in every direction - blacks may not trust whites, whites may think blacks are inferior, and so on. Given the complexity of the problem, the solution is to ensure the police force is properly representative of races in the UK.

Ear rings - well, this is on a completely different scale. A man can't change the colour of his skin. Nor should he have to. But he can take an ear ring out of his ear for the few hours he is on duty if it makes community relations easier.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Policemen should not wear earings .

Policemen should be approachable by the general public. Policemen wearing studs with short or shaven heads would just looklike thugs.

The police should have certain standards, and this equality B.S. should be nipped in the bud.

It's bad enough that they have scrapped the old entrance requirements for police (Height, weight etc). Short, fat, unfit police are not going to get the respect police deserve.

The police is trying to be all things to all people, and it can't be. The police are there to keep the peace, get physical when required and keep a profile of respectability. Studs in the ears of male officers would not fit into the latter.

Also

I think you're taking that to the extreme, I understood what he was on about - and that wasn't it.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Perhaps all gay police men should grow a moustache instead? :shrug:

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I really dont see how my reasoning is flawed, you basicly said in your first post that a good reason for discriminating against men wearing earings is that some people from older generations may make mental accusations about thier sexuality and as such would find them unapproachable (sounds very biggoted to me)

ala, this sentence...
why should what people think about a mans sexual preference matter to his occupation?

you basicly said in your first post that it is ok to discriminate to satisfy the small minded minority (i.e. those who think that males who wear earings are gay, what a silly concept). so by the same reasoning it is ok to disallow black people on the police force, just to satisfy the racist few, you say this is different because a black man cannot and shouldnt have to change his skin colour, well by the same arguement a man cannot choose what gender he is (and shouldnt have to) just so he can wear an earing. We live in an age of equality and what applies to women should apply to men in equally.
The scale of the issue should not make a difference to the discrimination.

If there is a good enough (practical) arguement for this discrimination then fair enough however, satisying bigotted, small minded individuals is not and should never be a good enough reason.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

How is it any more appropriate for a women to wear an earing to a man?? exept by an outdated and discriminatory standard?
At the same time a butch, skinheaded woman may be percieved as a thug/lesbian (regardless of the earing) should skinheaded women be discriminated against for the same reason as you and towny have stated???

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

:rolleyes:

this issue is not about gay people, its about whether males can wear earings, if female officers can wear them on duty i do NOT see any reason to discriminate against males for wearing them.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

The link is about discrimination against gay people:

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Maybe we should allow them to wear skirts. Some may want to? Are we discriminating if we don't?

The aerodynamics of a skirt may assist them in running after a criminal in providing a similar lift as a hovercraft.

A trivial subject, a waste of everyone's time. We live in a me me me culture. I would say to them "Get a life and stop worrying about petty things."

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I agree, the original issue was not about sexual preferenence, however this was the only reason towny came up with to justify the discrimination. I have been trying to point out how flawed and misguided this is.

I disagree slightly with what you say though, I think niether sex should be allowed to wear them, as said earlier they are impractical and dangerous to the job.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

no its gay men who raised the issue as it being discrimination against them, i fail to see that, its discriminatory against men, it applies to men doesent it ?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Yes, we are discriminating if we dont, however there doesnt seem to be demand for male officers to wear skirts.
Its for this reason that most companies are opting for the unisex uniform, so that someone in this situation wouldnt be able to claim discrimination, as it should be in my opinion.
Where I work we have one main uniform, yet the ladies get a different one (aswel as the standard one) as such the female staff get more uniform than the males, I think that is discrimination however I have no interest in wearing a blouse/skirt so im willing to let it slip for now ;)

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Yes.

So female police officers don't wear skirts?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Sorry, we misunderstand each other I think. The original issue was discrimination against gays, which was the accusation made against the police (see my quote in my previous post). If you feel there is a wider issue here, that's fine, but that is not the 'issue' the original case is about. Not that it matters much really ;)

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Once again people are taking equality to the extreme - we are talking about the police here.

So if I wanted to be silly and take the same stance as you, I suppose it would be alright for male officers to were a skirt as their uniform :rolleyes:

I suppose it it would be fine and dandy for a male officer to wear eye make up and lipstick??????

And yes when it comes to the police it is more acceptble for a female officer to wear a stud earing, and it is unacceptable for a male officer to wear stud earings.

Police are there to protect and serve not worry about fashion items.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

you cannot justify discrimination based on sexual preference, that is wrong, however disallowing males to wear earings because the opposite sex are allowed to is also discrimination.............

we agree to disagree then, there is no harm really in them, apart from people looking at others and judging them by thier looks........

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

yes so the 'article and gay associations claim......

i dismissed that in the post you quoted previously.......

no as i stated 'i fail to see the issue' with regards to the rule being discrimantory against gays, but i think it is to men.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I know, thats what I have been saying ;)

Except in the example that Defiant stated earlier....
Just to add, the earing could also have been pulled on in a scuffle, not just caught on something.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I think I have allready answered this, as have others but what the hell....
It is discriminatory to deny men to wear exactly the same as females if they so choose, I think its only due to the lack of demand due to the stigma attatched to such things that this hasnt become and issue by now.
I actually dont think male officers should wear earings though, even though my stance would indicate I do. I do however think niether sex should and a unisex uniform should be instated.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make. Your personal opinion is that there is a wider issue, and my point was that the original allegations against the police were for discrimination against gays. But, as I said, it's not important.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

yep adding my input on the ludicrousy of the argument to think its only gays being discrminated......

i did read that, but i dont think it would be a major issue

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

the stigma is what is defined as being the norm.......ie women wear earings men dont, that is not the case, and does raise the issue of why exactly men are not allowed to wear them......

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Ah, yes I see now

This is true, it probably wouldnt be a major isssue however there is an issue no matter how minor it is, and the safety of the officers concerned should be a factor no matter how minimal the chance of this happening is (Within a reasonable standard, i.e. if it could only happen if the officer was caught in an aligator pit at an evil genious lair then this could be ignored, however the chances of this happening are far greater than that as you know :) )

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

OK, so we're going to have to compare what I'm actually saying with what you claim I'm saying.

To kick off, I originally said:

but for a great many older people an ear-ring in a man's ear says a whole lot of things about him that might lessen or destroy their trust in him and his authority. - towny

which you interpreted as:

you basicly said in your first post that a good reason for discriminating against men wearing earings is that some people from older generations may make mental accusations about thier sexuality - zrbyte

and I said:

It is not appropriate to expect these people to change their thinking to accommodate policemen who want to wear ear rings. It is the policeman who is the public servant and it is his duty to be accessible and approachable to all sections of society. - towny

which you interpreted as:

you basicly said in your first post that it is ok to discriminate to satisfy the small minded minority (i.e. those who think that males who wear earings are gay, what a silly concept - zrbyte

As you can see when you put our posts side by side, I said nothing at all about sexuality. As a matter of fact, the ruling by thse who have introduced the new dress code said nothing about sexuality either. It is certain un-named gay police officers, who have not even talked directly to the BBC, who are 'said to be' making a sexuality issue out of this. In my original post I complained that some people insist on looking for anti-gay discrimination where there is none. What you are saying really just proves this.

Now, as for bigotry: You have insisted on sprinkling your reading of my opinion with a liberal dose of your own value judgements. This never makes for a clear discussion of issues, unless you have no interest in understanding points of view that differ from yours.

Here is what dictionary.com says of the word 'bigot':

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. - Dictionary.com

So, a person is not a bigot simply for having a strong opinion. It is intolerance of those whose opinions differ that is the deciding factor. Your readiness to dismiss those that have a problem with ear rings as the 'small minded minority' with 'silly ideas' is making you look like a bigot.

Race is absolutely not a comparable issue in this case. The scale of the issue is relevant: there are many races, and it is impossible to find one single race that absolutely everyone from every race will be happy with. The very scale of the problem makes it impossible to deal with by simply banning one thing or another. So, we do the best we can: rather than have no police officers of any race, we strive to have representative numbers of each race.

The scale and nature of the potential ear ring problem is completely different. It is most likely only older people who have a problem, and relatively small numbers of police officers who would wear an ear ring. So, it is a simple matter to deal with the problem quickly and decisively by requiring them to remove their ear rings for the 8 hours they are on shift. If it is a problem because of older people, then time will solve the problem for us. All we need is a little patience.

So, I have given reasons why I think that scale of problem is a relevant factor when deciding what to do about claims of 'discrimination'. (Note I say what to do about, not whether to ignore). Can you give reasons why you think scale of problem is not relevant?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

No, not in the slightest, although frankly this has nothing to do with discriminating against gays, it's plain and simple sex discrimination because women can wear studs but men can't.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Now I could be reading those wrong but even you reiteration seems to prove my point.
You do infact seem to be saying it is ok to discriminate against a group based on what a minority think of them.

This is true, you did not mention sexuality, however it was implied. If this is not what you are implying then I appologise but I dont see how that makes my point any different anyway.
What might people find less approachable about a man with an earing? is it as someone said earlier that he may be considdered a thug? if so wouldnt a skinheaded woman with an earing be percieved the same way? yet there is nothing to stop that.
As I have also said in some of my other posts Im not really hung up on the anti gay side of this, that was just my example. This is discrimination pure and simple.

By the deffinition you just posted, people who are intollerent of someone for beeing different to themselves (Like how an old fashioned person may have a problem with a man wearing an earing) are Bigoted.

Intollerence of ideas that discriminate against minorities may actually be a form of bigotry, however I see it as an acceptable form if it is opposed to a form of bigotry wich actually discriminates against a small group, especially one as small minded as someone thinking (all males who wear earings are gay, or all males who wear earings are thugs), no matter how you look at it this is a misguided and silly concept.

Yes we do, just as officers of all genders shouldnt be allowed to wear earings, not just the men.

So again you say it is ok to discriminate against the minority based on the opinions of the small minded few.
I do agree they should not be allowed to wear them (For different reasons mind you) but in my opinion it should be 'One off, all off' and the female officers should not be allowed to wear them either in the interest of equality.

I never said to ignore the problem in the first place, I have repeatedly stated in this post that I think niether sex should be allowed to wear them.(This to me sounds like affirmative action rather than ignoring something)

I really cant see a good reason in any of your postings, except some people might not like it. I would like to point out that the same people may have a problem with a butch skinheaded female officer yet there is precident of discrimination against them (Lets face it, any government that tried to enforce that would be commiting political suicide due to how one sided the equality balance is at the moment).

And I do agree with the topic title, the gays do seem to be taking this personal, however as other people have pointed out its not just gays that wear them, this is discrimination against men as a gender.

Edit: I may have to repost bits of this later as I rushed it slighly since I need to leave the house in 20seconds :Peaceman:

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

So not a knee-jerk reaction on the part of gays who are convinced this is just a ploy to make their lives difficult?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

in this instance, its just paranoia on thier part.......

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

:eek:

Kronny and the bible basher agreeing???

It could be argued that it's justifiable paranoia as I'm sure they do face direct discrimination in work....but not in this case.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

To take this back to something I said earlier, I'm saying that discrimination per se is not fundamentally wrong. Just discrimination in certain cases. UK Law recognises this, as is demonstrated in this specific instance. Differences in male/female dress are specifically allowed in the Law.

It is not what I was implying. Apology accepted. ;) It makes your point different in the context of my original post, in which I complained that this was being made a sexuality issue even though it clearly is not.

All you are doing here is interpreting the image of a policeman with an ear ring according to your own understanding, norms and assumptions. The question is not controversial to you because your subculture has grown up with men wearing ear rings. The ability to understand and resolve conflict lies in attempting to ask (and answer) these questions from the point of view of those who have the differing opinion, not answering them to your own satisfaction as if that were ample proof that you are right and they are wrong.

I don't see the necessary connection between a skinhead man with an ear ring and a skinhead woman with an ear ring. Again, you are applying your own assumptions to the situation and failing to try to understand why somebody might answer differently to you.

I'm glad you're not making sexuality the core issue. I think you and I agree that it is not. However, on the issue of 'discrimination', you are wrong. The Law says what is discrimination and what is not. In this case, the Law says that differing dress codes for men and women is not discrimination.

You draw a false conclusion here by making 'intolerance' = 'have a problem with'. They are not the same. As a Christian, I 'have a problem with' people whose faith is different to mine, as I believe my faith to have the answers to life's important questions. I wish to try to persuade people of my point of view. That is a whole world away from me being 'intolerant' of people who do not share my point of view. If I were intolerant, then I would be constantly picking religiously-motivated fights with the majority of members of this forum and finding it impossible to form friendships with them. I hope that it is obvious that this is not the case.

Intolerance is bigotry. Having a problem with someone (or with their point of view) is not.

So, you accept that bigotry is in some cases acceptable because it serves a worthwhile purpose in dealing with an issue that you see as a problem (in this case, 'small-minded thinking'). Similarly, I think that discrimination is in some cases acceptable where it serves a worthwhile purpose in dealing with an issue I see as a problem (in my case, people who need to trust the police and, for whatever reason, might not be able to).

Well spotted - that is the reason, although you caricature what I actually said in order to trivialise it. Trivialising a point of view is a useful substitute for countering it with a good argument. :)

This is the second time you have mentioned butch skinhead women. Frankly, I have no idea what the ruling is here. I would not be surprised if there are rules about how both male and female police officers keep their hair. If so, I would support them. As I have said all along, the need for the public to respect the police and also to find them approachable far outweighs the rights of the police officers, as pubilc servants, to express themselves while on duty.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

All the men are banned from wearing them - it has nothing to do with them being gay - no wonder people get sick of the "gay community" whinging about "discrimination" all the time.

I think any police person wearing earrings is just asking for trouble next time someone gets violent with them - ears are rather easily ripped - This is why they are banned by schools during sports.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I may get flamed for this, but I don't think that any police officer (male, female, gay or straight) should be allowed to wear earrings. As Defiant said, it is one more thing that can be used against them by people they are trying to arrest.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

In all honesty, any police officer who's duties are likely to take them into situations such as those will probably be sensible enough to remove anything like earings that could end up being ripped out. However, what about all of the desk officers, forensic officers, detectives etc whose daily duties do not involve said duties?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

:erm: :disturbd:

no there is not, if the superiors initiated a stance of 'gay men cannot wear them but hetrosexuals could' then there would be good enough reason to kick up a fuss........

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Thats the way I see it - Good post m8 :)

There is ( as raised before ) the safety aspect of wearing studs !

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

OK, maybe my original post was a bit strongly phrased, and my reasoning only applies to some Police officers.

However, I don't see how the decision (for whatever reason) is discriminating against gay men, unless the Officers claiming discrimination are claiming that a man would have to be gay to wear earrings & studs. If this is the case, then they are discriminating as there plenty of straight males who wear various kinds of jewellery. If the force is discriminating against anyone (and I don't think they are), then it is against men in general.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

It has probably been said, but i'll just throw my 2 pence in anyway. I actually think its more of an insult to gays to stereotype them and say that they all wear earrings. Furthermore, I believe whatever women can do, men should be able to do as well. One world, one people, we shouldn't keep trying to keep sexes apart with differing rules. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Nice to see the police applying the same standards internally as it does externally, ie double standards.
I agree with most people, earings are a safety issue in general, but if one gender can wear them, then so should the other, regardless of sexuality.
I wonder how they feel about c*ck or nipple rings ;)

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Well seeing as they're not (usually) on show, I'm sure it's not really an issue....

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

If earings are a safety issue, then c*ck and nipples rings are just as much at risk of being pulled out.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

they proberbly have not thought about 'internal' aspects of piercing your 'bits'

should it be any of there business........not really only externally it should be. :erm:

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Anyway I object to the title of this thread.

'Gays over reacting / Looking for trouble' is imflamtory(sp?) at best and homophobia at worst.
If you've had to fight against discriminations and abuse all your life, your bound to be sensitive to any form of discrimination that comes along. If people whose personal identity is defined by their sexuality, wanna group together and fight for a right that other people grouped by gender have, then I see no reason why they shouldnt fight for that right.
After all people who are groupped together by a religious belief (ie sikhism) have fought for the right to wear turbans without fear of being called trouble makers.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

No, I don't accept that for one moment. Notice there's a question mark at the end of the title - I'm asking if you think they are overreacting and/or looking for trouble, you are then invited to give your views. If the title was a statement then what you say may have some foundation - of course I'm not homophobic

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Ahh the old 'it's only a question' excuse!! :)

Just add a question mark and any phobia/ism is instantly removed.

It's easy to see from any of your posts on the subject of homosexuality that your against it. Of course you'll say that isn't the same as being homophobic.
But in the end it's because of their sexuality that you made a difference and not because of anything else.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

To the guy that said it is safer in a fight, etc: If earrings are too dangerous for police officers to wear, how comes WPCs can have them, but PCs can't? I don't think its fair to say that WPCs don't get stuck in. Although they like the backup of a male PC, they still get on with it.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

:rolleyes:

Ok, whatever, if you say so etc.

Show me one of my posts that shows I'm "against" homosexuality. Or maybe you're just assuming that because I'm a Christian?

Any of the forums' resident homosexuals want to agree with zendawn that I'm homophobic?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Well my ghast is flabbered.Not only are the police looking more and more like 12 year olds dressed up in fancy dress,now they want to be like everyone else.I suppose it would be ok to have pierced noses,eyebrows and what ever other part of the anatomy(oooch!) they choose,for the sake of undercover work but to demand it as a right!

I wonder why they become police if they have to cavil over whether they can wear jewellery.Anyway if I remember rightly there was a time when EVEN police women couldn't wear jewellery.The job isn't about looking good(not that I think a nose pierciing is attractive)it's about catching villians and protecting the public.How can you do that if the thugs only have to rip piercings from a police persons body to disable them.
It's becoming a crazy world where 'rights' sometimes take precedence over common sense.

Incog. :shrug:

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

The article was about gays reacting to an earring ban wasn't it ? - Russ was asking they were over reacting - hence the title. You seem to be over reacting to the title. :)

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

The title says 'OVER' reacting and 'trouble' showing the bias of the original poster. Plus the 'word' reaction does not appear in the articles title, and altho it does appear in the body of the article, to use the word react is again bias.
Just as many lesbians fight for feminist isssues so do alot of gay men fight for mens issues.
Your post claiming the 'gay community is whinging' shows the same level of bias too.
If you wanna be homophobic please go ahead and show your true colours, I for one will not be offended its hidden homophobia im against, causes more damage than outright hatred.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Eh?Sorry but that does not quite make sense.If overreacting is in the title it follows that reacting is in the title and I'm not sure what you were trying to say in that sentence because I've got even more confused since I started typing this reply.
How did you come up with with the idea that to use the word react is to show bias?One may react against bias as well as to show bias..

How about calming down and retyping what you were trying to say so this thicko understands?

Incog.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I'm sure people who are not biased will understand my point.
There is no emotion involved in the typing of that sentance so there is no need to 'clam down'. The sentance structure is poor because my grammar is poor.

'Over reacting' is NOT in the tiltle of the ORIGINAL article and nor is it implied anywhere in the article body.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

It is not 'gays' that are taking issue with this rule, but a gay, lesbian and bisexual support association, fighting against discrimination in general.
Apart from the obvious physical differences between men and women, there should be no difference in the way genders are treated, as a principle. So if women can wear jewelry then so should men.
I also think that non sikhs should be able to wear turbans if they so desire.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

So because I didn't understand your syntax I'm biased against gays?That doesn't even make sense.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Young man....

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

The bias is against wearing jewelry not against gays. Bias in general makes it hard to agree with anothers point of view and makes it even harder when that point of view is poorly put.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Your point of view or mine?I wasn't making any comments about gays at any point,just about the wearing of jewellery by police officers.

However I'm still having trouble understanding just what you were getting so annoyed about.Was it about bias against police or against gays,or gay police or women police officers or because you thought that Russ was biased against gays in general?Perhaps if you were a little more succinct and precise in just what you want to say I wouldn't be querying what you were saying.I genuinely DIDN'T understand what you were saying.

Incog.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Exactly.


The rule simply says that women can wear them but men can't....which is sex discrimination, not sexuality discrimination.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I'm not annoyed, thats your biased view of my post. I'm expressing an opposing oppinion.

Also I didnt say you were biased against gays, again thats you reading into my post. I said you were biased against the argument in general that anyone (men or women) should wear jewelry in the police force.

Also I was implying that it would be easier for someone to read my post if they agreed with it. Easier but not easy as I admit it is badly worded.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Seeing as Zendawn hasn't been able to bring up ONE of these supposed posts I've made in the past which 'proves' me to be homophobic, coupled together that none of the openly homosexual users of this site has ever accused me of the same, I think we can put it down to Zen misunderstanding me, and we'll knock that particular notion on the head.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Yes, and thats why the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual association is taking issue with it, in the same way that many lesbian groups stick up for feminist issues.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

The quotes in the article say to me that being gay and wearing an earing is part of their identity of being gay, not that the objection is against the sexual discrimination of allowing women to wear them and not men.
Personally, I too agree that neither gender of patrolling officer should wear jewelry.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I didnt find any openenly opposed posts, but i found a few where your tone wasnt very positive or helpful. The gay tv thread 'Fight fire with fire' post showed a little bias.
Im sure many people who were not homophobic or biased against homosexuality could have come up with better titles for a thread on that article.
Like 'Police force discriminate against men, gay support group fights back'.
But then I'm openly opposed to the police so my bias would show in my choice of title.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

But Eastleigh-based police sergeant Julie Fry, of the Hampshire Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Resource Group, said: "We enjoy a good relationship with the force and are consulted about issues that might affect officers or police staff who are gay. "If we raised this issue with the force, I have every confidence that the matter would be taken seriously and our views would be taken into account."


The quote above shows a sensible and composed approach, notice its a female officer.
The main quote about gay culture and 'angry gays' seems to come from a conservative city councillor, who is probably trying to gain the pink vote

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I merely gave my point of view about the wearing of jewellery in a vigorous and physically demanding job.How is that being biased?It is an opinion,no more than that.What male,female,gay,lesbian police wear OFF DUTY is another matter and purely their own business.After all as a teacher I have to wear suitable and appropriate clothing for work or the head will be having a word in my shell like.Why should the police be any different?

Incog.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

We'll I think its unfair that women teachers can wear dresses, skirts and suits without shirts and ties, while male teachers have to wear suits and ties.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Er, quit while you're behind mate.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Society dictates that a 'business-like' sense of dress is a code practised in many workplaces. It just so happens that society seems consider a man dressing appropriately for 'business' or 'work' involves a suit and tie whereas a woman in that situation is expected to wear a skirt and blouse kind of combo.

Let's not go down the road of "Men should have the right to wear a skirt if they wanted to" or this will turn in to a "Stan/Loretta" kind of scenario from Life of Brian :D

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Don't you oppress me!

(sorry, really sorry, it just slipped out)

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

How long has it been since we had Monty Python on this forum? A week??

Wait Coggy, don't go yet!!!! :D

Back on topic now..... :)

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Eddie Izzard has the right idea.
Personally I think its dicrimination that men have to wear shirts and ties to work.
If I didnt have something more important to protest against I would be fighting for the right to wear less restrictive clothing.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Is that all I get for an answer?

Anyway I'm sure that somewhere in the archives you will find a fairly long thread about the wearing of ties by men being unfair and someone taking such a case to the sex discrimination board.

Yes Found it!!

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...discrimination

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I fear we're talking at cross purposes(sp?) and my grammar is not up to the job of explaining the misunderstanding but I appreciate the links to the other thread, nice to see other people find ties oppressive too.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I don't understand the first bit, but yes - I am biased against people who continually whinge and moan about anyone who disagrees with thier view of the world - and as you have just shown, the gay community are particularly prone to label anyone who disagrees with them as "homophobic".

In my view you are over reacting - pure and simple. You can call me what you like, you won't change my mind.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Oh it wasn't just me being thick then? :confused:

Incog.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Your the one who said you were 'being thick' i said you were being biased, just like Pem.
It may be a hard sentance to comprehend (grammer wise) but i'm sure someone who agreed with the point it made, woulld find it easier to understand than someone who is biased against the argument.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

So people who don't agree with you are just being biased?

Anyone fancy a pint...?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Of course you would think it was over reacting, those 'screaming queens' always over react don't they. Its part of being a poof, queer etc.
Forget the years of abuse gay men have had to suffer, forget getting your head kicked in for walking down the street with a mincing style, being called poof, queer just for speaking softer or having blond hair and blue eyes.
They're making a fuss about nothing, after all its only an earring isn't it?
Yet one earring in the ear means your either a poof or a yob, doesnt matter if your a decent person whatever you look like or wear.
It's always seen as an over reaction when someone who your predudiced against fights for their rights, no matter how big or small an issue.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I just didn't understand the first sentence of your original posting to Russ.I asked you about it and you got on YOUR high horse and accused me of being biased because I didn't understand.You then accused me of bias because I disagreed about all police being allowed to wear whatever jewellery they want in duty.Then you changed the subject after I pointed out that I have to conform to a dress code for my job,to a tirade against the wearing of ties by men and not women.I thought we were having a discussion by the way.
THEN Pem said he didn't understand that sentence either so I spoke up because I was still confused about what your meaning was.

So to sum up I am biased because one of your sentences was gramatically confusing and I'm supposed to telepathically understand what you meant.

I'm just biased against non communication really.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

AHA! Now I see where we are.You are looking to pick a fight about something I'm not really bothered arguing about as I'm not even slightly homophobic as I have a gay member in my family.As someone who championed for homosexual rights since before it became legal I think you need to cool it.Gays actually have rights not to be discriminated against but I really think they need to pick better fights than the right for policemen to wear jewellery whilst on duty.

Incog.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

What's my 'high horse' gotta do with anything? Again thats your perception of my post. No horses getting high here.

No your not biased because my sentance was 'gramatically confusing'. Your biased because your on the opposite side of the argument, just as im biased the other way.
Definition of the word 'biased'
'Favoring one attribute or characteristic more than another'

Its not a judgement just a statement of fact.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

You have done this many times to other people too, I AM NOT LOOKING FOR A FIGHT. nor HAVE I SAID YOU ARE AGAINST GAYS, that reply was for Pem not you.
I have only said your biased against wearing earings in general my last post explained my reasons for using the word biased.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Sorry, you seem to be going completely off the rails now and I am not going to be dragged into an argument with you - so I shall retire from this topic now.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Now I'm biased against wearing earrings????? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And you gave me a red rep for making a cr@p posting at the weekend.

So I've got it in for all right minded earring wearers? Well I'll be sure to give myself a good telling off as I wear earrings myself. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Sorry my fault for using the words 'in general' I meant 'in the police force' . Nice to see you pick up on a false point rather than question my grammar even tho ive already suggested I have trouble with it.

P.s. The above is a good example of how bias can affect how people can miss understand a sentance. Of course, taken on merit that sentance would mean that i thought you were biased against earings no matter where worn, but in the context of my previous posts and given more credence for trying to be constructive, someone else might have been able to comprehend that I meant in relation to the police only

Or to put it another way, someone who agreed with me, or who wasnt trying to be argumentative, would have given me the benefit of the doubt, that I meant 'in the police force'.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Well frankly I wouldn't be surprised if there was some truth in the suggestion that it *is* to make their lives more difficult...!

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Really....you surprise me... :rolleyes:

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Well since I know a probationary police officer who has pierced nipples, it seems they're ok (or, at least, were the last time I spoke to him).

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

If you hadn't disabled repping, I'd green rep you for this! :)

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

:confused:

Ah, of course, I'm simply "over-reacting" and there's actually no truth in it whatsoever because Russ says so...

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Putting words in my mouth again Graham?

As you so often point out, what I'm doing is giving my opinion. I strongly believe you're wrong, you strongly believe you're right. Let's just leave it at that.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

You can still rep someone who's diabled reps. It just the pips that don't show.
Unfortunatly people cant see that the way they phrase things shows an underlaying predudice, be it conscious(sp?) or sub conscious.
If your against something your gonna use negative language, and if your for something your gonna use more positive language.

for example 'gays angered' rather than 'gay rights abused'.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Why? It's a valid question.
Or are we no longer allowed to ask questions about "contraversial" topics?
Do you think that gay policemen are overreacting/looking for trouble or not?
Yes or no?
Simple as that.
A statement is a formulation of an opinion, and as such that opinion can be deemed prejudiced, but a question is a request for an opinion, and therefore although the answers can be prejudice, the question itself cannot.
For instance, the question "are people making the holocaust up?" is not anti semetic, but an answer of "too right, it didn't happen" could be considered an anti semetic answer.

As I've said, no patrolling officers should wear jewelery for their own safety.
This is a matter of gender descrimination, not sexuality descrimination, as homosexual women are able to wear earings still.
Now, if some homosexual men in the force feel that they are being descriminated against because they can't wear their earings, then why claim it's gays being descriminated against when hetrosexual earing wearing male officers are also being denied the ability to wear them too?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

If you're talking about me then wow, seems like you know me better than I know myself......

edit - Wahey, Xaccers is here - the cavalry has arrived!!! :D

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Your not allowed an opinion with him or didn't you know that already lol