Should They Of Printed The Letter?

[mccfluff]

bit of a debate going on here, should the paper of printed this (ex) reader's letter?

I think it should of been binned as that's were this sort of garbage thinking should reside, others think it should of been printed if only to show what sort of idiots walk our streets

http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2013/news/reader-cancels-paper-over-perverted-daley-coverage/

[jomifl]

Sp, ta for the link but in order to substantiate your claim you need to know what percentage of sportspersons are gay, how many are 'out' and how thes figures compare with the rest of society. Plainly these figures are not available or so uncertain as to be meaningless, ergo you cannot substantiate your claim.
Just thought we ought to be clear about this as most of the 'facts' stated relating to gay/les. issues appear to be plucked out of the air.

[sp1814]

jomifl

No.

You're wrong.

There are very few out sports starts.

Simple as that.

Anyone with even a passing knowledge of thr subject knows that.

[sp1814]

jomifl

Anyway - it's beside the point.

There are only a handful of professional out LGBT sports stars. It's a fact that needs no substantiation because it's common knowledge.

[jomifl]

So, you don't really know sp, anybody can make up 'facts' to support their arguments, it is either self delusion or dishonesty.

[jim360]

I think it's pretty obvious that as long as there is a stigma about being gay, and as long as "coming out" is a big deal, then there will be people who are in fact gay or bisexual but keep their mouths shut about it. Sports stars are likely to be one such group, because they are in the public eye and so "coming out" is an even bigger deal than usual.

[jomifl]

So Jim following that reasoning it could be argued that everybody is gay but is afraid to admit it, or of course the converse might apply. How about a bit of scientific rigour and treating facts as facts and suppositions as suppositions.

[jim360]

The fact, surely, is that not everyone who is gay says so. It's a pretty reasonable deduction that therefore there are at least some sports starts who are also gay and who haven't come out. I wouldn't care to estimate how many, but it's almost certainly not zero.

[sp1814]

jomifl

I said that there are very few out sports stars.

I sent you a link that proves it.

Whether the percentage of out sports stars is exactly the same as the percentage of gay people in the general population is irrelevant.

The overall number of out sports stars can be described as 'a few', because all those who are across the world can be easily listed by name on one Wikipedia page.

You may think you've made a point, but you haven't.

There are few out sports stars.

That's it.

What point are you actually trying to make?

[sp1814]

jomifl

As you wanted figures.

I've done a quick count of the names listed on the Wikipedia page.

There are about 160 names listed.

The estimates for the number of LGBT people in the the UK currently stands at about 1.5% (if you believe the figures from the ONS).

Let's take that figure as being roughly the same worldwide - that gives us a basis for one part of the calculation.

Now, it's very difficult to establish the number of professional sportspeople across the whole world, but if there are 160 out sportspeople, then the total number of professional sports people across the whole world, can't be more than 8,000.

Now, if you agree with that calculation, then that proves that there are 'very few' out sports stars in comparison to the general population...because there are way more than 8,000 sports me and women in the world.

In fact, I've just looked up the number of professional footballer in the UK alone - there are around 4,500 of them.

Now, as you may be aware - there are no out footballers, so that means the number of out sports stars is minuscule in comparison to the general public.

But as I said before...everyone knows this.

You don't need to research figures to back up something that's common knowledge. For instance, if someone told me that five members of the British royal family were giraffes, I would not have to prove it by listing the genealogy of the Windsors.

[jomifl]

so, 160/800 (your figures)= 2%. That is more than the average for gays outside sport, the opposite of what you have been claiming. How do you account for that? have some straights outed themselves out of solidarity with their gay colleagues or are all these figure just so much nonsense?

[jim360]

Look at the figures again -- assuming 160 people is the norm then there can be only 8,000 sportspeople, which is of course nonsense. There are far more than 8,000 "top" sportspeople in the world -- over 10,000 competed at the last Olympics.

[jomifl]

I used sp's figures which are in fact nonsense and prove nothing other than that he is not a statistician. You should know better than compare unlike sets of data. Using stats like that anyone could prove that the Earth is flat and 6000 years old.

[jim360]

I think you are missing the point. Probably wilfully -- I don't see how you can possibly think that the total number of "out" gay sportsmen and sportswomen is also exactly equal to the total number of gay sports players. There are certain to be many who are afraid to come out, and as long as that's the case we have a problem, because people feel they cannot be themselves.

There is a huge stigma surrounding homosexuality in sport, that's been established.

[jomifl]

I am not missing any point and if you read the thread you will see that I haven't made any assumptions about the numbers of gay sportspersons, outed or not. I just challenged sp to back his statement with some stats. and so far he has failed. This means that his statement is based on unfounded opinion, nothing more. 'Everybody knows' is not an argument.

[sp1814]

jomifl

No, no, no, no...

Let's me re-explain.

The summary of gay sports stars on Wikipedia is 160.

If 1.5% of the population across all countries' then the total number of sports stars should be 8,000.

Where did you get 800 from?

What is your point?

Actually - no worries. It's perfectly understandable that you believe one thing and I believe something else. I think you're conclusions are wrong (actually I know they are), but you've had decades to come up with what you believe in, and I'm sure my powers of persuasion, limited as they are, will not alter your view.

And strangely the past few posts on this thread have centred around the fact that I believe that there are few out sports stars.

It's suddenly occurred to me that it's not worth arguing about. You've picked up on one phrase I made in a previous post and I honestly don't think it deserves your time or my time arguing over it.

[jomifl]

sp, the 800 was a typo as you well know since I attributed the figure to you. As you now appear to understand that you cannot justify your statement re. the proportion of 'out' sportsmen even with the figures that you supplied I can see why you would like to end this discussion.
As far as I am concerned this discussion was only about highlighting your presentation of opinions as facts.

[sp1814]

jomifl

Please read my original post and describe exactly where I mentioned the proportion of out sports stars.

Do you see where you went wrong.

I wrote:

"Also because there are so few LGBT sports stars who are open, the first few to confirm, will cause a media flurry."

160 is a low number compared to the number of sports stars, proportionally given the number of sports stars in the world - but that is not what I wrote.

I was talking about the total number.

You misread me.

You are wrong.

[jomifl]

"Also because there are so few LGBT sports stars who are open''
That is where, so few compared with what? you don't have any figures so the statement is meaningless. Can I put it any plainer?

[sp1814]

I've already sent you the link which backs up my statement.

There are not that many out gay sports stars.

There are 160.

I really don't understand what it is that you don't understand.

[sp1814]

Let me explain 'so few'.

The term does not need to be compared to anything.

"Because there were so few family members coming for Christmas Day, we didn't have to bring extra chairs down from the dining room"

'So few' is an absolute number, not a percentile.

I really don't know if I can be any clearer than that.

I've done my best.