Great article, Jake. In these political times, standing up against intolerance is crucial. However, I don't think someone should wear the Captain's armband supporting lgbtq rights if they in fact oppose those rights. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have to do something with which they disagree. I'm saying that they are not welcome to have the privilege of wearing that arm band.
I actually really appreciate this take Stephen. I think what’s missing is the accountability from the clubs and league. The manager would have to change the captain. Remember when Kurt Zouma kicked a cat and was in the lineup next week?
You are right on the corporate virtue signaling. I don’t agree on the rainbow armband. If they want to signal soccer is for everyone they could just make an arm band that says everyone welcome. The rainbow is specifically promoting a certain group. Now ask Muslim players to put a cross on their arm or Christians to put on Buddha or a crescent. That doesn’t seem so tolerant does it. Tolerance and approval are not the same thing. Forcing approval is just a cynical purity test that says everyone is welcome except people we disagree with. Society and soccer can maintain pluralism. People can coexist with each other at work and play and require no approval of their personal beliefs. They don’t ask your orientation at the ticket office or in HR and that should be enough.
Side note: The lack of openly queer players is not an indication of exclusion. Pro athletes are a very small fraction of people, as are queer people a small percentage of people. There probably aren’t many that are both and they may just be private. Their coaches and team mates may know and it is just none of our business.
Thank you for that comment Brett. I think we disagree on a fundamental fact - that being LGBTQ+ is a choice or not.
My stance remains this: Religious symbols like crosses or crescents reflect personal beliefs, which are chosen and I would not want someone that doesn’t believe in those things to feel forced to wear those symbols. Being queer is not a choice—it’s an inherent part of who someone is. The rainbow armband isn’t about forcing approval; it’s about saying that LGBTQ+ people, who have historically faced exclusion, deserve the same safety and acceptance in football as everyone else.
I think you would agree that all those groups are worthy of acceptance when it comes to football. I actually think homosexuality very well could be genetic. Not everyone believes that. Some people believe it is a choice. Some a bit of nature and nurture. Some people believe the attraction is immutable but the action is harmful. It is just not relevant to football if the stance is everyone is welcome as long as they tolerate differences. One is a neutral stance and the other requires advocacy. Requiring advocacy is just an arbitrary gate keeper. Advocacy implies (whether it is race or sexual orientation) that those are values. If they are immutable they are no better or worse than another innate quality. They just are. Equality means having the same rights and access not special promotion. We are seeing a backlash against LGBTQ+ people because people associate it with illiberal dogma. No one will be convinced if they are forced to bow. I think it is bad form for sports teams to become the thought police.
Great article, Jake. In these political times, standing up against intolerance is crucial. However, I don't think someone should wear the Captain's armband supporting lgbtq rights if they in fact oppose those rights. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have to do something with which they disagree. I'm saying that they are not welcome to have the privilege of wearing that arm band.
I actually really appreciate this take Stephen. I think what’s missing is the accountability from the clubs and league. The manager would have to change the captain. Remember when Kurt Zouma kicked a cat and was in the lineup next week?
You are right on the corporate virtue signaling. I don’t agree on the rainbow armband. If they want to signal soccer is for everyone they could just make an arm band that says everyone welcome. The rainbow is specifically promoting a certain group. Now ask Muslim players to put a cross on their arm or Christians to put on Buddha or a crescent. That doesn’t seem so tolerant does it. Tolerance and approval are not the same thing. Forcing approval is just a cynical purity test that says everyone is welcome except people we disagree with. Society and soccer can maintain pluralism. People can coexist with each other at work and play and require no approval of their personal beliefs. They don’t ask your orientation at the ticket office or in HR and that should be enough.
Side note: The lack of openly queer players is not an indication of exclusion. Pro athletes are a very small fraction of people, as are queer people a small percentage of people. There probably aren’t many that are both and they may just be private. Their coaches and team mates may know and it is just none of our business.
Thank you for that comment Brett. I think we disagree on a fundamental fact - that being LGBTQ+ is a choice or not.
My stance remains this: Religious symbols like crosses or crescents reflect personal beliefs, which are chosen and I would not want someone that doesn’t believe in those things to feel forced to wear those symbols. Being queer is not a choice—it’s an inherent part of who someone is. The rainbow armband isn’t about forcing approval; it’s about saying that LGBTQ+ people, who have historically faced exclusion, deserve the same safety and acceptance in football as everyone else.
I think you would agree that all those groups are worthy of acceptance when it comes to football. I actually think homosexuality very well could be genetic. Not everyone believes that. Some people believe it is a choice. Some a bit of nature and nurture. Some people believe the attraction is immutable but the action is harmful. It is just not relevant to football if the stance is everyone is welcome as long as they tolerate differences. One is a neutral stance and the other requires advocacy. Requiring advocacy is just an arbitrary gate keeper. Advocacy implies (whether it is race or sexual orientation) that those are values. If they are immutable they are no better or worse than another innate quality. They just are. Equality means having the same rights and access not special promotion. We are seeing a backlash against LGBTQ+ people because people associate it with illiberal dogma. No one will be convinced if they are forced to bow. I think it is bad form for sports teams to become the thought police.
Another fantastic article, Jake.
Thanks so much!