nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Second Captains

ballsymchugh

Thought I'd update the OP with links and stuff for anyone who stumbles across this.

The former Off the Ball hosts have partnered with The Irish Times to do a series of weekly podcasts. They go online each Tuesday and cover a variety of sports, with a number of contributors including Sid Lowe, Richie Sadlier, Gerry Thornley and Shane Horgan.

They can be found:
On The Irish Times' site: http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/second-captains
On Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/secondcaptains-it-com
On iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/ie/podcast/second-captains-irish-times/id647893016?mt=2

Or if you prefer not to use iTunes for your podcasts, use this link in whatever app you use (Thanks to youcancallmeal): http://feeds.feedburner.com/secondcaptainsitcom

And here are their Twitter and Facebook accounts.

Cheers,
wnolan1992

so they're almost finished their gardening leave...

where will they end up?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Arghus

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

Ken was especially rambling on Monday. As much as we enjoy Ken I think it's generally a bad idea to just let him talk and talk and talk and that's what Monday felt like.

There was a point where he was kind of stretching to make a point about Lukaku and Murph showed it up to be a nonsense argument and he had nothing other than a "well, yeah."

Utopia Parkway

Arghus wrote: »

There was a point where he was kind of stretching to make a point about Lukaku and Murph showed it up to be a nonsense argument and he had nothing other than a "well, yeah."

I think he's best when he has a guest to bounce off but on Monday it felt like one very long Ken monologue at times.

D.Q

Andrew Trimble is a very likeable guy. Enjoyed today's podcast

Cienciano

D.Q wrote: »

Andrew Trimble is a very likeable guy. Enjoyed today's podcast

Definitely, I'd like to hear a bit more from him, he was very good

kippy

D.Q wrote: »

Andrew Trimble is a very likeable guy. Enjoyed today's podcast

Agree with this.
I am not a big fan of rugby talk in general - but this had a different spin on it and he seemed like an interesting enough fella. Would like to hear more of his views alright.

Cienciano

The big sam bit was hilarious, think I pretty much agreed with everything ken said about him

jackal

Another very "right-on" episode today, on the subject of male to female transgender athletes entering the women's divisions of sport.

The attitude the lads seemed to be adopting is "no transgender athlete is winning Olympic medals yet so there is no story". This demotes all sport outside of the very elite levels to "just a bit of fun, anything goes" and therefore they seem to see no problem with average biological males self declaring as female and dominating their division - such as is the case in junior athletics in Connecticut at state level with the two lads beating all around them after declaring as transgender.

This is going to be a whole lot harder to sort out when the inevitable happens and they have to take Olympic medals off someone who should never have been there in the first place.

The concept of balance seems to be lost on them with Sinead O' Carroll, who is painfully woke, and their other guest, chair of Transgender Equality Network Ireland.

I wonder would the lads be so flippant if it was men's sport.

dominatinMC

jackal wrote: »

Another very "right-on" episode today, on the subject of male to female transgender athletes entering the women's divisions of sport.

The attitude the lads seemed to be adopting is "no transgender athlete is winning Olympic medals yet so there is no story". This demotes all sport outside of the very elite levels to "just a bit of fun, anything goes" and therefore they seem to see no problem with average biological males self declaring as female and dominating their division - such as is the case in junior athletics in Connecticut at state level with the two lads beating all around them after declaring as transgender.

This is going to be a whole lot harder to sort out when the inevitable happens and they have to take Olympic medals off someone who should never have been there in the first place.

The concept of balance seems to be lost on them with Sinead O' Carroll, who is painfully woke, and their other guest, chair of Transgender Equality Network Ireland.

I wonder would the lads be so flippant if it was men's sport.

I let my subscription lapse a while back and have no desire to renew yet, especially based on what you described above! Sounds like something OTB would rejoice in covering, but I would expect a bit more nuance from the lads. Glad I missed out on that pod. In my opinion, Sinead O'Carroll is their worst contributor by a country mile, and an unmerciful pain in the arse to listen to!

Icemancometh

I enjoyed it. They deliberately went the non-debate way which made it a bit one sided. I think Eoin's hesitation when offering the counterpoint proves people's fears about being outspoken on the topic though.

Also, a rare editing failure with the Skype call! Think they've updated it now.

jackal

dominatinMC wrote: »

In my opinion, Sinead O'Carroll is their worst contributor by a country mile, and an unmerciful pain in the arse to listen to!

I cannot stand her contributions either. They get her on when there is a touchy subject knowing she will say the PC things.

Raoul Duke

I also had some issues with their discussion today. For instance, they started with Martina Navratilova's comments that some man could self identify and win all around him for a while and then switch back. She had a quite right (in my opinion) attitude that this would be cheating.

However, I don't think they ever addressed this question during the actual discussion. Firstly, is it currently possible for this to happen and secondly what would they think if this did happen.

The fact that no transgender athlete is currently dominating kept coming up. Totally irrelevant.

Arghus

jackal wrote: »

I cannot stand her contributions either. They get her on when there is a touchy subject knowing she will say the PC things.

I don't know about that. I think there's a cohort who just can't wait to give out about her no matter what she has to say anytime she's on the show, which is pretty rare. When was she on it last? Christmas to review books? Even then there were posts here from a few people about how much the volume of her voice in that segment annoyed them, which was pathetic nit-picking about nothing: there was no issue with her levels that day, none. But yet some people were adamant that it was excruciating to listen to her. Finding fault at its finest.

jackal

Arghus wrote: »

I don't know about that. I think there's a cohort who just can't wait to give out about her no matter what she has to say anytime she's on the show, which is pretty rare. When was she on it last? Christmas to review books? Even then there were posts here from a few people about how much the volume of her voice in that segment annoyed them, which was pathetic nit-picking about nothing: there was no issue with her levels that day, none. But yet some people were adamant that it was excruciating to listen to her. Finding fault at its finest.

I wasnt aware of that happening before, and was not referring to that (and that does sound like nit picking indeed). I was referring to her contributions around the belfast rugby rape trial.

I guess I am disappointed they could not find a single female athlete whose primary concern is not the feelings of the biological males who compete as females.

The inherent unfairness in expecting the average biological females, who are at a 10% disadvantage against an average biological male to "get over it", in sports where differences can be fractions of a second was not discussed. That is what Martina Narvatalova wanted to discuss, but of course the discussion immediately labelled anyone that did not agree as anti-trans or trans-phobic.

Bit of an echo chamber in second captains towers is what I am getting at.

Utopia Parkway

dominatinMC wrote: »

I let my subscription lapse a while back and have no desire to renew yet, especially based on what you described above! Sounds like something OTB would rejoice in covering, but I would expect a bit more nuance from the lads. Glad I missed out on that pod. In my opinion, Sinead O'Carroll is their worst contributor by a country mile, and an unmerciful pain in the arse to listen to!

OTB did a segment on it last week.

I mean to me it's inherently unfair to have biological men competing against women in sports. And in physical contact sports you could probably also make a case that it's actually dangerous.

jones

I think this whole situation is a case of PC gone mad. Like others have said a male body competing against a female body in sports of strength and speed is a no brainer. Of course you'll get the random result when the female will win but vast majority of head to heads the man will win hands down. It's so open to abuse its beyond belief.

These days everyone seems terrified of offending any minority group. Either you form a third category or you go with whatever biological gender you were born this no mans land isn't helping anyone. (pun not intended :-) )

CatFromHue

The physiological structure before the person transitions is important but seems to be left out of the conversation

Men in general are taller with body more designed/suited to athletic ability when compared to females.

This doesn't mean male to female trans people are cheating, far from it, but there is an advantage over the general female population.

How you account for this advantage in sport is something I haven't a clue about!

Hotblack Desiato

Bizarre that sex testing was brought in 50 years ago to stop exactly this sort of thing, and now it's just going to be allowed?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Men compete with men.
Women with women.

Everything else in a different category.

Otherwise it’s chaos.

Arghus

I don't think it's that simple.

As usual, it's a more complicated issue than a lot of people make it out to be.

On one hand there are legitimate issues with transgender females competing in female sports - all the caveats to do with size, strength, athleticism etc, etc are all uncomfortable facts. So I can understand why people have an issue with all of that, absolutely. To argue that it is unfair on female from birth athletes in some circumstances and some respects isn't unreasonable. It is unfair.

But to look at it from the other side: transgender people have fought for a long time for visibility, recognition and then acceptance from society in order to live their lives and to affirm their identity. Should sport say, "no, not for us". That in every other avenue of life it's increasingly accepted that transgender people have a right to self-identify - and not just that, people have life altering surgery and take hormones and god only knows what else can be involved, and that's just the physical side of things - but yet that's not good enough for sport? That as far as many are concerned you still should be viewed as a bloke or even just another third category altogether? When you may have fought and gone through hell for people to finally accept you as a female, particularly as a female athlete? I don't think that lends itself to easy answers or hot-takes. They're pretty fundamental and knotty questions of identity. I can understand how a transgender athlete just blithely dismissed into a former gender category or told to go race in a third category could feel discriminated against - they'd have a point.

It's just a lot of grey. Grey, grey, grey. And people - on both sides - coming out and saying it's easy-peasy to sort all this out should think about it, really think about for, like, longer than a split-second. Once they do that they might see how an easy solution isn't readily available - but that's another uncomfortable fact I guess.

Hotblack Desiato

If you're a man and your testosterone is 10% higher than normal, you get banned for doping.

If you're Semenya and your testosterone is a lot more than 10% higher than normal, it's grand.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

I found every single argument to be weak sauce. I know they are in a bind when discussing issues like these but there was nothing really convincing put forward other than it is unfair on transpeople. Well the flip side of that is that it is unfair on biological women. Some group is going to get unfairly treated in this debate.

There are perfectly clear reasons why we will never see a female to male trans playing in the 6 Nations. And anybody with a bit of cop on knows exactly why.

kippy

It's not rocket science and the logic has already been outlined already.
If you're born a male, you compete with males, if you are born a female you compete with females.
If you are born a male but later go through a process and identify as a female, you compete with people in the same boat.
If you are born a female but later go through a process and identify as a male you compete with people in the same boat.
It's possible to scientificly define all of the above categories.

There's absolutely no other "fair to everyone" way to do it.
All this walking on eggshells around issues such as this needs to stop.

Life is unfair in lots of ways and sometimes there's little you can do about it but it's more unfair on all these born at birth women competing with born at birth men who later identify as female.

dog_pig

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I know they are in a bind when discussing issues like these

How come they're in a bind? I thought they were funded directly by subscribers on Patreon, who are they afraid of upsetting?

GeordieRebel

I have to say I was a small bit disappointed with the discussion. They talked around the issue rather than get to the actual arguments, I felt. It’s unlike them. They’ve done stuff with Epstein and Tucker on other issues that I thought struck a more rounded tone. I don’t think there’s a problem having people on just one side of the debate on the show if the relevant arguments are put forward and points of view are challenged, but I don’t think they managed it this time. Still, I think they’re the best out there generally.

Aidric

lawred2 wrote: »

Eoin Reddan is without any craic whatsoever

Knowledgeable though

He definitely knows his stuff but his delivery is brisk as fùck. He comes across as a man who has taken the soft skills 'how to be assertive' course one too many times.

Singer

Arghus wrote: »

It's just a lot of grey. Grey, grey, grey. And people - on both sides - coming out and saying it's easy-peasy to sort all this out should think about it, really think about for, like, longer than a split-second. Once they do that they might see how an easy solution isn't readily available - but that's another uncomfortable fact I guess.

This is an excellent post. Gender is, in reality, really difficult. Gender issues and sports attracts an awful lot of uninformed opinions. The Second Captains piece didn't really suggest many solutions, but did illuminate a lot of the problems. Given that transgender involvement in sport hasn't materially affected many elite level sports, it seems miserable to deny the individuals involved the opportunity to compete. The debate is hard though - even on this thread, Semenya was brought up, despite being not a trans athlete.

kippy

Singer wrote: »

This is an excellent post. Gender is, in reality, really difficult. Gender issues and sports attracts an awful lot of uninformed opinions. The Second Captains piece didn't really suggest many solutions, but did illuminate a lot of the problems. Given that transgender involvement in sport hasn't materially affected many elite level sports, it seems miserable to deny the individuals involved the opportunity to compete. The debate is hard though - even on this thread, Semenya was brought up, despite being not a trans athlete.

Gender is as straight forward as it gets. Scientific and measurable. The issues arise with all the social constructs around it and the fear of offence to a minority.
Leglislate as I have outlined above. Job done. There's absolutely no other way.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

dog_pig wrote: »

How come they're in a bind? I thought they were funded directly by subscribers on Patreon, who are they afraid of upsetting?

Why was that the only part of my post that you quoted and responded to?

Being 'public' figures means that they can't be seen as going against anyone. They don't really have an alternative with these politically charged questions.

Dots1982

kippy wrote: »

Gender is as straight forward as it gets. Scientific and measurable. The issues arise with all the social constructs around it and the fear of offence to a minority.
Leglislate as I have outlined above. Job done. There's absolutely no other way.

So where does that leave Caster Semenya?

kippy

Dots1982 wrote: »

So where does that leave Caster Semenya?

The scientific and measurable piece should cover any and all eventualities.