Lighthouse

Or ‘Cease’.

We didn’t control the midfield because the options around JWP and Lavia were crap, not because those two were too young, weak and naive. We looked far worse when Lavia wasn’t available. If you offered me Charles and Lavia as a midfield pairing this season, I’d snap your hand off. We got promoted last time with Cork, Hammond and Morgan in CM, none of them were big, gritty bruisers, just good players.

We weren’t bullied last season, we were just crap. If we’d replaced experienced Mois and Amstrongs with young Lavias and ABKs, we’d have stayed up.

No. I support environmental causes but this scheme is f**king stupid.

Well good luck to him, I can't say he never tried and as far as I'm aware he's always been likeable and professional, he was just hopelessly ill equiped for this league. As an aside, I eagerly await his first Champions League goal this season and the inevitable, "good enough for the Champions League but not good enough for Saints according to the Saints Web experts," posts.

You know, the more I see of this sports washing, the more I like it.

Fair play I respect that. No, you’re thinking of garlic bread.

I’ll tell you what, you can have genders. I completely surrender the word gender, you can have it to mean whatever you want it to mean, I will simply say that I don’t believe in genders, the same as I don’t believe in gods, religions, the supernatural, astrology or homeopathy.

I think all fan bases, or any significant group of people at all for that matter, contain a moderate number of absolute weapons, Saints included.

I don’t know whether this discussion is amusing or tedious now, but I’m just going to leave it. I’ve literally asked you many times to tell me what it is you expect people to believe, what a woman is and give me, let’s say three examples, of what constitutes female behaviour in society. You both either can’t or won’t, you just repeatedly tell me what it’s not and what it’s obviously different from and that there’s, ‘plenty of information out there to go and find out for yourself’. I’m not conflating sexuality with anything, just pointing out that if you believe a person can choose their gender, all sexuality is null and void. If a person you are attracted to can choose to identify as any gender, you do not have a sexuality. That’s the point.

Give Warner the ball against Broad, just for a giggle. This is a dead rubber anyway.

TBH this debate always just ends up the same. Somebody argues that gender is different to sex, it’s how you chose to identify socially, but then refuses to give a definition of a woman or any of the criteria which define them in society. Nobody will commit to explaining in any detail what it is they mean, because they know if they did the feminists would go absolutely bananas about your opinions on how a woman should behave in society. The other major problem with this line of thinking is that you’ve completely denied the existence of LGB people. Under these rules of social gender, the vast majority of the population - LGB or straight - is a non-binary pansexual.

Christ, if the Aussies could catch it’d be about 70-6.

Take out Gubbins and we’ve scored 181 over two innings. Pathetic.

When I last went I parked on the street about 20 mins walk away. That was in League 1 though, Adkins first win as I recall, so crowds probably a bit smaller than they’ll be next Friday.

Another post goes by with any definition of anything, this is the only thing anyone can come up with, "its, obviously different to biological sex." Fantastic, I’m bored with hearing what it’s not and what it’s different too, what is it? Give me a clear definition of gender, women and the non-biological social behaviours which apparently define them. Okay, so you agree with me then that there’s no need whatsoever for biological men to compete in women’s sports and use women’s changing rooms? Excellent. Unfortunately most people advocating for ‘trans rights’ don’t seem to share your view.

That argument holds no water at all. Firstly, gender is based on Latin, it’s existed as a word meaning the difference between men and women for centuries, long before anyone started identifying as things. I keep reading this argument about ‘behaviours and societal norms’ but everyone then chickens out of explaining what exactly these ‘woman behaviours’ are which constitute gender. Perhaps you can list some of them for me. The other, more sinister aspect of that argument is that the people saying it don’t believe it at all and have no intention of acknowledging the supposed difference between ‘biological sex’ and ‘social gender’. If they did genuinely believe that then none of these issues would exist. Trans woman can just compete in men’s sports and use women’s changing rooms, because they’re separated based on biological sex. So there’s no issue, right? People identify as a different gender to their birth sex and what do they do: attempt to change their biology using surgery and hormones, then ask for access to things designed for biological women. Finally, it’s not a diatribe. I’ve not said anything, unfair, irrational or hateful which I can’t back up with sound facts and logic. If you don’t like that, fine, but you’re going to need to answer a few basic questions first, like ‘what is a woman’ and what are these society behaviours you need to exhibit to define yourself as such?

I reckon we'll be about 5th. Start poorly with a side still lacking confidence from last year and come on stronger second half of the season.

Oh right, and how do women look, speak and act?

The physical process is nothing more than cosmetic surgery. A person who has developed from an embryo to have testicles and produce sperm cannot become a person who has developed as an embryo to have ovaries and produce eggs. That’s the literal, physical, factual definition of gender, a necessary truth you cannot change no matter how much you might want to. If you physically remove the genitalia of a man, you have not created a woman. I don’t know how to say any more plainly that that isn’t true. The person in this example has cut off some body parts and in their own mind is now identifying as their own personal idea of something. Their physical gender has not changed. All of this is like someone saying they’re trans-astrological, because they’re a Pisces but they choose to identify as Libra. Carry on, I don’t care, but if you need me to accept that you’ve physically changed your birth month from August to February as a truth, I can’t do that. That’s the big problem here, known truths are being willingly conflated with subjective personal identities, deliberately, to make it seem like the truths are up for debate. They aren’t.

You cannot transition physically, you can only ‘transition’ your own personal paradigm of gender in your mind. To that extent you can identify as whatever you want, but it’s of no relevance to the rest of society. If you want to identify as a non-binary woman, fine but you’re making up your own definitions for those words, to everyone else they are essentially meaningless.

Individually, no, but we’ve just collected far too many players. We’ve only managed to lose four so far and even that’s offset by our two signings. For example, realistically we’re going to have to shift three CBs before bringing one in. We’ve also got seven AMs and six FBs, when really we need four of each.

I’ve got a day off tomorrow, I was going to head over and watch for a few hours, weather permitting. I guess that’s not happening now.

We’ll ask JWP if he’s still got Poch’s number, ask him to stick in a cheeky £55m bid just to put the willies up the Scousers.

Good grief, there’s some sh*te on that list.