I think a lot of this discussion is driven by religious/homophobic idealology.
Inference you.
I have no issues with anything in particular, but I have a couple of problems I am having with the ideology coming from the LBGTI community.
#Bornthisway unless you are trans, in which case, then you are what you feel you are....
Combine that with mental health being far too fledgling, then I have real issues with the realm of gender disphoria, and how we as a society have arrived at the solution being, you can be whatever you feel. It stems from a "i don't fit the male/female stereotype, but I think I would be more comfortable as the other stereotype".
News flash, there is no such thing as normal. Some blokes wear dresses (or kilts) and like girly things. Some women wear pants, and dislike girly things and would rather be one of the boys. This doesnt make them a different gender, it just makes them a bit different, and that needs to be accepted, rather than rejected from one club because they are more like the other.
In a very small minority, (DJC's stats) there is genuine scope for a bit of I broke the mould, but its less than 1/100th of a percent and with a little bit more open mindedness surounding gender identities, we should find that we get more people happily identifying with the appropriate gender if we don't focus on blokes being super blokey as a norm, and women being super girly as a norm (Think Ken and Barbie). These people are an extreme in their own right.
My argument comes from a more inclusive perspective, not based on any religious or homophobic ideology. The problem I have, is that we should focus on people rather than how we group them as that is when we truly become inclusive. Gender is tied to identity, in a way that sexuality isn't, and frankly we don't need to know about people's sexuality to accept them for who or what they are. The liberation movement has gone too far and can be quite distasteful and that applies to heterosexual people as well as this community. I hear some of the chatter from the early teenagers and they are highly inappropriate and I think that's to do with where we have arrived as a society. Its not the way forward. We need to re-establish some decorum.
I've read in a few places that the rule introduced a few years ago to allow players to miss part of the tennis calendar was done at Federer's request. No idea if it's true. Prior to that, players were not permitted to sit out the clay court season, grass season etc.
I seem to recall he started dodging a few tournaments and focussed only on the grand slams a while back.
Thry, one of my former colleagues did a PhD on sex and gender and I must admit that my eyes glazed over when she tried to explain her conclusions.
I have little idea of the relationship between chromosome abnormality and transgender but, from a couple of case studies I have seen/read, there is a biological basis for at least some gender reassignments.
It’s not as clear cut (no pun) as it may seem, regardless of one’s point of view.
I don't doubt it. We know of hermaphrodites as an example.
Where I want to challenge this field is to discourage re-assignment surgery.
Why?
Why do it?
Accept your biology. Accept that you don't fit in a box of one or the other. Don't transition. its impossible and you become neither.
DJC this stuff is largely construct based ideology.
Sure biology will come to the party in a few cases per thousand (to quote your stats), but even so in these individuals we still end up with generally males and females who are simply rejecting that they might be one way in order to explore the other.
I work with a trans guy who calls himself a female lesbian. In his case very similar to Hannah. I'm accepting of the fact that these people want to put on a dress, and will entertain the idea but nothing about these people screams female to me, and by the looks of things I'd be gobsmacked if they were even tenuously female genetically.
Mental health is very much theory based and hasn't progressed as far as people think it has, and I think there is a genuine mental health issue regarding how we arrive at trans being an option. It's not a real option. They wear a gender construct identity based on irrational feelings of what might make them happy in the belief they know what it is to be the opposite gender which involves placing a gender into the definition of a stereotype.
The thought process behind being trans is even more flawed than biology is IMHO because of how we arrive at the "I'm a male born in the wrong body" and vice versa.
Gender is not binary Thry. It’s a continuum with a bunch of folk in the middle who could be biologically male or female regardless of their genitalia.
I don't know about this theory but I've entertained it and personally have rejected it.
My issue isn't the theory it's the practice.
In practice the non binary suffer as much angst and statistics show that suicide rates are just as high as the unhappy binaries.
Moral of the story is that we need to teach people how to accept the unchangeable. Genetics and biology has its shortfalls but this has moved beyond what people call a gender construct and has resulted in a trans construct.
Where I think it falls over is the definition of male and female. Hannah is a male in every way we all are just prefers to think of themselves as a female.
That's a brain issue not a biological one. Teach her to be happy in herself as a male and you increase the chance she will find happiness. Or you can let her be a parody of what she believes is a female even though it's just a bloke wearing a skirt, and you end up annoying everyone.
I worry this Mouncey thing isn't going to end well.
Assuming Mouncey is free of injury, fit and of sound mind she could effectively become unstoppable. If that happens other clubs will start actively searching for and recruiting trans-gender athletes to compete against her. For example with the Mouncey decision, there are transitioned Ex.NBA athletes who are free to pursue an AFLW career, deny them and the AFL will be labeled prejudiced or even worse racist!
The good will of the girls who welcomed Mouncey to AFLW will be tested to the extreme as they or their associates are displaced from the sport they only just won the right to earn a living in!
That's when AFLW fans will start to switch off, the dreams of their daughters shattered!
Sounds extreme doesn't it, but it's not that far over the horizon!
On the other side of this coin, can you imagine the outcry if a transitioned athlete heading in the other direction manages to make it into AFL, and then gets cleaned up by a Mumford or Robinson type player live on air?
What changes to the rules and game will the AFL issue to ensure that doesn't happen?
This decision should have been left in the hands of the genes, that is a natural line of demarcation that cannot be debated!
I welcome it.
Only when things become "unfair" will sanity be restored.
The trans movement is an identity disorder, and should be treated as such and not entertained in the fashion we currently do, and only when people accept that people cannot actually transition gender will we make any real progress on this front.
The other part of it, is that its simply kept out of sports. People can go trans after their sporting career is over, but they can't have it both ways so to speak.
For whatever reason, most coaches seem to be either ex defenders or ex mids. There are, as always, exceptions, but it's generally the case. I think the emphasis on defence starts from there. I also think that as you imply, it's easier to defend than to attack. I would say attacking is a more creative act than defending. Coaches talk a lot about defensive structures and defensive mechanisms, but rarely about attacking structures and attacking mechanisms. I think coaches also feel a little uneasy about high scoring, shoot out footy, because they don't have as much control over the players - it tends to be more instinctive when you play that way.
Many coaches preach the mantra of a strong defence, and regard building from the back as important to a successful attacking game - Malthouse, Leigh Matthews, even Ratten started out trying to shore up our defence in late 07 and 08.
That all depends on what you are talking about.
Defending requires much more discipline. Attacking is all about being an opportunist.
Id argue its hard to remain discipline in your tasks, and much easier to throw caution to the wind.
It's why the focus on defense exists, because if players aren't worried about defensive duties they often sell out their teammates, which builds mistrust, which also makes them play conservatively rather than rolling the dice, which breeds bad morale, and which also leads to players being labelled cowards, and downhill skiers.
Even applying defensive pressure in the forward line is easy. You can make an attempt at 5 tackles and succeed once in holding the ball, and your defensive pressure is lauded, but if you spoil 4 marks out of 5 and then concede 3 goals from 15 entries you lost that battle against your opponent and your forward had a decent day out and the defender had a dirty day.
Modern sports is best summed up by simple statements. Risk vs Reward. If the reward is great, but the risk is great, then you need to have a good handle on what point of the game you are in. Teams that are down by a couple of goals with very small amount of time left in the game can afford to take the high risk high reward route. Teams that are dead in the water, can also play high risk footy. Teams that are infront by a minute margin or have trouble converting their chances, or don't get many chances are better off playing low risk footy.
Sometimes, its all about momentum too. If the momentum is with you, take more risks. They will pay off more frequently and hurt you less. If momentum isn't with you, sometimes you need to hold your ground.
People often get too caught up in the arguments above to realize that every team takes risks, but the major difference is how the game is going when they do. We often threw caution to the wind under Ratten as an example. Made for exciting games, but we often got beaten by teams who had a better appreciation for when to take the game on, and when not to. The great grand final comeback is the best example of this. We were dead and buried, and then played on for the rest of the game. Its all about getting the balance right.
Bolton is unproven as a tactical coach especially in the heat of the game, while I agree there is the issue of development vs winning I think he struggles to pick up the flow of games and has trouble working our matchups and what other teams are doing. We have had some very odd selections v some teams and he seems thrown when another coach pulls a shock move like a midfielder to full forward. I know he has limited resources to work with but when you see key opposition players unmanned and allowed to run around freely you have to wonder what he is doing. I'm waiting for the Brisbane game where there are some obvious players that need manning up tightly, its a game we can win but not if the likes of Zorko and Beams are allowed to run around on their own which is what usually happens....
The Gold Coast game flies in the face of that somewhat.
His tactics can be unusual, but I actually think its a matter of trying something that isn't working, rather than not doing something to counter it, as he does make in game changes which seem to be ineffective because of various factors, which usually have to do with robbing peter to pay paul.
The absence of Docherty and Marchbank i think are weighing heavily on our ability to make bonafide changes to how we play, as is the absence of Matt Kennedy.
The reinvention of Jones as a key defender, and JSOS to the midfield have worked well, and Ive seen Matt Wright pushing into midfield more of late through a lack of other options.
I think his lack of matchup in your instances of Beams and Zorko has more to do with him stating that we want to win rather than not get smashed.
At the moment we are choosing between those two options.
Friday night showed that no Cripps at full flight is no great drama which is a big tick to Bolton.
Agree Micky, obviously frustrating our distinct lack of success and bottoming out. Was saying to a few mates yesterday we just have to keep going a no turning back now.
On Bolton’s lack of game day moves, is it possible he wants a player to learn his role and from time to time that means they will get beaten on the day? I.e his lack of moves on game day are pre meditated
Absolutely.
If you want to teach someone how to do something the best way is via repetition.
Do it again and again and again until they know it and learn it.
Thought we dominated most of the 3rd quarter and they just punished us for our mistakes.
X2
Don't forget bad kicking is bad football.
Kerr, Wright and Charlie Curnow stuffed some of the more gettable shots for goal and at times I thought we could have scored but spent too long looking for Men in space.
Jarrod Garlett Stats: 18 disposals, 4 clearances From the coach: Jarrod played mainly on the wing but also up forward, where he used his speed on the outside a couple of times really well and had a good combination of contested and uncontested possessions. We’ll keep giving him exposure on the wing and also as a pressure forward.
It took Jack 3 weeks with these sorts of numbers to come back.
You would be wondering what Mullet might be thinking, with respect to why he isn't getting a game particularly after being the non playing emergency last week.
