woulffe, here's s tip for future discussion: disingenuousness is not making a point, it is just making yourself look silly and petulant.

I've gone a bit further into that report you posted and it mentions several participants (5% or thereabouts) play in "queer-identified" teams, presumably selecting members based on their identification as gay, lesbian or transgendered as appropriate. Perhaps the AFL should investigate this idea, as I suggested way back in this thread? Clubs with a high proportion of players who feel roughly like Akermanis does could become "straight-identified", clubs that didn't care either way could remain as they are in the knowledge that some gay players may be selected and if there were any that were interested, they could become "queer-identified". Sound good to you? The report's authors seemed to regard it pretty highly.

A quote from the report: "The most inclusive sports environments for non-heterosexuals and trans people are those created by and for LGBT communities. Hargreaves (2000) makes this observation in her research on the growth and development of gay and lesbian sport over the past twenty-five years:
The gay sports phenomena is a symbol of the growing demand for homosexual cultural activities, the need to experience greater visibility and solidarity and the quest for an ‘imagined community’. Gay sport create spaces to be an ‘insider’ (rather than an ‘outsider’ in mainstream sport), to enjoy sport in a friendly and inclusive atmosphere and escape from the heterosexism and homophobia of mainstream sport (p. 153)"

So you finally accept that it is homophobia, Antiseptic, as you quote - seemingly approvingly...

"Gay sport create spaces to be an ‘insider’ (rather than an ‘outsider’ in mainstream sport), to enjoy sport in a friendly and inclusive atmosphere and escape from the heterosexism and homophobia of mainstream sport (p. 153)"

Or did you select that paragraph for a different reason?

Pericles:"So you finally accept that it is homophobia, Antiseptic"

No, I was quoting the report, which was quoting gay sportspeople. It is the perception of some within the gay community that mainstream sport is homophobic, which is hardly news.

Nice of you to read along though, even if you're finding the going a bit tough.

The report also points out that most gay sports people, especially gay men, are not "out" within their club. As I said earlier, that is because they feel more included if they don't make an issue of their sexual preference. Presumably activists like woulfe would feel that a "queer-identified" environment would be more welcoming and people such as Akermanis would prefer a "straight-identified" one.

The Akermanis story continues. It seems that due to poor form he's being dropped to the feeder competition, which is reasonable and normal. However, the club has also censored him from making any public comments for 3 weeks, which is something of a backdown from their rather hysterical homophilic position initially.

Would any of the homophilics here like to comment?

Has the time come for the AFL to start thinking about a "queer-identified" team to go with the current ones, which seem to be coming out as straight?

As you say, Antiseptic, I'm finding the going here a little tough.

But I'm still trying to keep up, so perhaps you'll explain this a little more clearly for me.

>> the club has also censored him from making any public comments for 3 weeks, which is something of a backdown from their rather hysterical homophilic position initially.<<

I must have missed the earlier outbreak of hysterical homophilia - could you fill in the details of both the homophilia itelf, and the hysteria that accompanied it?

Incidentally, I don't think it actually means what you want it to mean.

>>Would any of the homophilics here like to comment?<<

"homophilic /ho·mo·phil·ic/ (ho'mo-fil´ik) reacting only with a specific antigen."

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homophilic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophily

Actually, the fact that you are careless with terminology is possibly one of the reasons it is hard to follow your arguments. Try saying what you mean, for a change, without the unnecessary circumlocution.

If you hate gays, why not come right out and say it?

Pericles:"I must have missed the earlier outbreak of hysterical homophilia - could you fill in the details of both the homophilia itelf, and the hysteria that accompanied it?"

I suggest you read thio thread, it has been discussed extensively. I'm not surprised you missed it, though. It's hard to see much past your nose with a blindfold on.

Pericles:"I don't think it actually means what you want it to mean."

It is at least as sound in its provenance as "homophobia". Still begging the question as usual.

Pericles:"If you hate gays, why not come right out and say it?"

If I did, I would, but I don't, so I see no reason to say so. All through this discussion you and the rest of the homophiles have tried to pretend that my comments are homophobic rather than answering the rather simple questions I pose. Perhaps you might investgate a short course in logical reasoning to go along with your remedial reading and English expression courses?

If you love gays why not come out and say so?

It's quite sad that you and the rest of the homophiles can't actually argue your case, but rely on waspish efforts to paint your opponents as intolerant. It's intellectually dishonest and ethically bereft, but you know all that - don't you?

Tell me, in simple terms, why you think Akermanis is incorrect and deserved all the nastiness heaped on his head. Go on, I dare you.