LGBT issues in Football

Was wondering what specific chant it would have been. It was the Chelsea Rent boy chant I assume?

A spokesperson should just respond ‘they tell me I’m homophobic, but my bitch is gay’
 
P-Ro said:
I think in the future he should just condemn it and leave it at that instead of comparing it to booing an injured player coming off. Poor from him.
Click to expand...

The immediate instinct to defend your fans is understandable. I get that.

Sadly most people don't give a shit. It's jokes, whataboutism or flat out ignoring it.
 
hasanejaz88 said:
I'm one, my wife is another. No f*ck off, you cnut.
Click to expand...
This is what you stated last year in this thread, has anything changed about it?
hasanejaz88 said:
I'm all for gay people having all the rights of other people, but if someone who is religious thinks to himself or herself that what they do is wrong, but won't do anything to deny them their rights, then they aren't discriminatory or evil in any sense.

People need to realize there will be different opinions and you need to respect others holding that opinion, if it doesn't treat you any differently.
Click to expand...
If not, your stance seems exactly the same as Kokcu's.

From the same post:
hasanejaz88 said:
But then, as I asked, can I, as a Muslim, legitimately say that I'm being discriminated against because Christians think I'll go to hell? Even if none have done anything against me or acted differently with me.
Click to expand...
Of course you could. Maintaining someone is a sinner and will go to hell for harmless things is textbook religious discrimination.

(Although your own argument here seems to be you couldn't, to support the point that seeing LGBT people as sinners isn't bigotry.)
 
Andy_Cole said:
Was wondering what specific chant it would have been. It was the Chelsea Rent boy chant I assume?

A spokesperson should just respond ‘they tell me I’m homophobic, but my bitch is gay’
Click to expand...
I'm sure this post sounded better in your head..
 
Synco said:
This is what you stated last year in this thread, has anything changed about it?

If not, your stance seems exactly the same as Kokcu's.

From the same post:

Of course you could. Maintaining someone is a sinner and will go to hell for harmless things is textbook religious discrimination.

(Although your own argument here seems to be you couldn't, to support the point that seeing LGBT people as sinners isn't bigotry.)
Click to expand...

First I would like to specify that all those situations I talked about were hypothetical. Since going to university and being able to think more independently, I've believed gay people should have the same rights as all humans, nor would I have any issue is my child would come out as gay.

Now that is out of the way, the situations I'm speaking are taking into respect that people will disagree with you, for whatever reason it may be. If that person is actively being abusive or acting against you then there should be actions.

I don't have an issue with Kokcu's stance, though I wouldn't do the same myself.

If a Christian only thinks I'm going to hell, I don't see that as discrimination unless they're are actively restricting me in some way through actions. Using abusive language, restricting opportunities etc, but that's regardless of whether they think I'm going to heaven or hell.

Being a Muslim I shouldn't believe in their religious text so why should I care if they think I'm going to hell?
 
P-Ro said:
I'm sure this post sounded better in your head..
Click to expand...

I was quoting that terrible song which is big in England at the moment.

Anyway this gif is appropriate.

the-simpsons-homer-simpson.gif
 
hasanejaz88 said:
First I would like to specify that all those situations I talked about were hypothetical.
Click to expand...
I would answer that situations like this are very real; these are stances real people take up, and the discrimination involved affects real people.
hasanejaz88 said:
I'm speaking are taking into respect that people will disagree with you, for whatever reason it may be. If that person is actively being abusive or acting against you then there should be actions.
Click to expand...
The problem is that people who "disagree" with acceptance towards homosexual people are simply homophobes. Putting these prejudices into action is worse of course, but just holding these prejudices doesn't make them harmless. There's an inseparable link between widely held bigoted views "in private" and active discrimination and violence in society, even if it doesn't always involve the same individuals.
hasanejaz88 said:
I don't have an issue with Kokcu's stance, though I wouldn't do the same myself.
Click to expand...
The best illustration is still to translate this stance from homophobia to racism: "I have nothing against black people having the same rights as everyone, but I have no problem if someone dislikes them for ideological reasons. It's their freedom." This sounds bad, because it is. The same stance towards LGBT people (or women, or foreigners...) is no different.

I see a misuse of the concepts of tolerance, freedom, respect in these discussions. Tolerance of intolerance isn't tolerance in its true meaning, it's aiding intolerance. Claiming the freedom to discriminate is an attack on actual freedom (which always requires the mutual acceptance of needs and interests). And why should anyone respect a stance that denies others the most basic respect by regarding their sexuality as a bad thing?
hasanejaz88 said:
Being a Muslim I shouldn't believe in their religious text so why should I care if they think I'm going to hell?
Click to expand...
If you care is your choice, but there's ample historical evidence that such beliefs can be put into practice.
 
Last edited:
P-Ro said:
Ten Hag's response to hearing that United fans were chanting homophobic songs (clipped at the 6min mark for the question):



I think in the future he should just condemn it and leave it at that instead of comparing it to booing an injured player coming off. Poor from him.
Click to expand...


Bit weird that. He says it was the same when Varane got injured and the Chelsea fans boo-ed but as you say the two things aren't comparable at all. Are we sure he actually understood the question?
 
Synco said:
The best illustration is still to translate this stance from homophobia to racism: "I have nothing against black people having the same rights as everyone, but I have no problem if someone dislikes them for ideological reasons. It's their freedom." This sounds bad, because it is. The same stance towards LGBT people (or women, or foreigners...) is no different.
Click to expand...

It actually doesn't... sound bad?

If someone had an innate dislike for black people but didn't discriminate against them in their actions, it would be weird, but otherwise I can't imagine too many people getting wound up by an impotent thought.
 
adexkola said:
It actually doesn't... sound bad?

If someone had an innate dislike for black people but didn't discriminate against them in their actions, it would be weird, but otherwise I can't imagine too many people getting wound up by an impotent thought.
Click to expand...
The part you quoted was a reply to the poster saying "I don't have an issue with Kokcu's stance". So the point was: what if he had said the same about black people. I think it's clear he had considerable reach with his message, and I guess we can agree this would be bad.

But as for your example of someone with racist ideas but zero social influence, yes, (s)he'd be a de facto harmless weirdo. But this is normally not the case, so it makes more sense to talk about the norm. So neither a social hermit, nor a public figure.

People raise children, they have families, friends, workplace colleagues, they go to group events of all sorts, they share and comment things online, they can vote for political parties, they have spontaneous conversations every now and then. Ideology is very much a collective thing: people don't come up with it on their own, and it gets passed on. When we talk about xenophobia/racism and homophobia, they are very present in society, so they'll be voiced and promoted in everyday interactions all the time.

I already referred to this in other parts of my post:
Synco said:
Putting these prejudices into action is worse of course, but just holding these prejudices doesn't make them harmless. There's an inseparable link between widely held bigoted views "in private" and active discrimination and violence in society, even if it doesn't always involve the same individuals.
Click to expand...
Synco said:
there's ample historical evidence that such beliefs can be put into practice.
Click to expand...
 


Samiran Mishra
An introverted cynic bordering on misanthropy. Stay away.Author has 72 answers and 709.1K answer views7y
I will have to take you through history before answering your question. So bear with me.

Firstly a "rent boy" is a popular colloquialism for a male prostitute. Rumour has it that sometime in the 1980s, a police raid at the dawn of the morning revealed a Chelsea hooligan lying in bed with a male prostitute or a "rent boy".

At that time the notorious Chelsea hooligan firm called the Chelsea Headhunters had a popular chant named 'Chelsea Aggro". After the incident was read in the tabloids, rival fans, mainly the supporters of clubs from Manchester & Liverpool replaced the word 'Aggro' with 'rent boys'. Ergo, the chant 'Chelsea rent boys'.

Another reason why the chant was popularised by rival fans was because the Earl's Court area in London, near Stamford Bridge, was a spot to pick up male prostitutes, apparently.

And since Roman Abramovich took over the club in 2003, the club has had a massive influx of money and they have been heavily investing in world-class players since then. Chelsea FC as a whole, do not have the same glorious past of clubs like Manchester United or Liverpool. So rival fans hypothesize that the money is the only motivation for a player who wants to join Chelsea. Therefore any player who could have opted for a more traditional club but instead joins Chelsea, is branded a 'rent boy'.
 
krazyrobus said:
I never understood how that rent boy thing came to be, but my understanding is that the insult is that they are prostitutes not that they are gay right?
Click to expand...
Doesn't quite have the same intended effect if you divorce those two words. It is definitely partly homophobic.
 
krazyrobus said:
A rent boy is a male prostitute right? Why is that homophobic?
Click to expand...

A male prostitute is a gigolo. A young, gay male prostitute is a rent boy.

The "Chelsea rentboys" chant comes from a newspaper headline back in the early 80s where a gay MP was paying for sex with a young man in Chelsea. The healine was something like "MP found with Chelsea Rentboy".

The CPS says it's homophobic, Kick It Out says it's homophobic, Stonewall says it's homophobic and the official LGBT Man United Supporters group says it's homophobic.

It's got nothing to do with money or selling our soul, I've been called it since I started regularly going to games in the early 90s.
 
krazyrobus said:
I never understood how that rent boy thing came to be, but my understanding is that the insult is that they are prostitutes not that they are gay right?
Click to expand...

If you wanted to insult someone for being a prostitute there would be no need to add the gay element. They do so as they believe it is more insulting and thus it's homophobic.
 
This term has been levelled at Chelsea fans for as long as I can remember.

Seems that in January a ruling by the CPS defined it as a homophobic slur. Guess that settles it then - the goalposts have officially moved.
 
Last edited:
sullydnl said:
His religious beliefs are a choice. People's sexuality isn't. And if his religious beliefs frame LGBT people in a negative light then they're inherently malignant. Being gay isn't.

Not affording X the same level of respect as Y is only hypocricy if X deserves the same level of respect as Y. And in this case it doesn't.

People need to be tolerant of his religious beliefs, as long as they don't actively impinge on other people. But being tolerant doesn't mean you can't criticise him, criticise his beliefs, criticise his religion, think his club should disassociate themselves from his position or think his club should reconsider whether he's the man to represent them as captain.
Click to expand...
Just to play devil's advocate (I agree with your post btw) but if his beliefs are that strong and he believes homosexuality is a sin in Islam, then he probably believes apostasy/denouncing Islam is also a mortal sin punishable by death, so he technically might not have a choice in his mind.

But your point stands.
 
Yeah I'm also confused at this rent boy thing. For as long as I can remember the term has been used toward Chelsea fans and never did I hear it had any homophobic connotation, now all of a sudden it is?
 
Santoryo said:
Yeah I'm also confused at this rent boy thing. For as long as I can remember the term has been used toward Chelsea fans and never did I hear it had any homophobic connotation, now all of a sudden it is?
Click to expand...

I've been banging on about it on this website for years but I appreciate nobody really gives a shit what I say (A quick search shows my first mention of it was in 2005).

Hopefully Man United fans listen to other Man United fans though.
 
MUFC OK said:
This term has been levelled at Chelsea fans for as long as I can remember.

Seems that in January a ruling by the CPS defined it as a homophobic slur. Guess that settles it then - the goalposts have officially moved.
Click to expand...

Where have the goalposts moved from? It was always homophobic.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Where have the goalposts moved from? It was always homophobic.
Click to expand...
Really? I've never been a fan of the chant but certainly did not consider it to have an element of sexuality to it.

If it's always been homophobic, why is it only now that fans are being chastised for using it.
 
Genuine question. Are there people really offended at this chant? It's hardly targeting and most people don't even understand the origin.

I feel you could end up cancelling half the football chants if you head down this route (we've already lost a few) and stifle the creativity of new ones. We'll end up with chants like the MLS.

Of course, if there are men genuinely upset that thier sexuality or profession has been targeted by this chant - thats different. I sort of get the vibe that we are told to be offended, rather than actually being offended.
 
If you’re calling a bunch of people - most of whom won’t be gay - rent boys, it’s for a reason. It’s because you think it’s putting them down in some way. It’s no different really to just calling someone a bender.
 
Lynty said:
Genuine question. Are there people really offended at this chant? It's hardly targeting and most people don't even understand the origin.

I feel you could end up cancelling half the football chants if you head down this route (we've already lost a few) and stifle the creativity of new ones. We'll end up with chants like the MLS.

Of course, if there are men genuinely upset that thier sexuality or profession has been targeted by this chant - thats different. I sort of get the vibe that we are told to be offended, rather than actually being offended.
Click to expand...

If people aren't creative enough to make up chants that aren't racist, sexist, homophobic etc. then perhaps they deserve MLS style chants.
 
Lynty said:
Genuine question. Are there people really offended at this chant? It's hardly targeting and most people don't even understand the origin.

I feel you could end up cancelling half the football chants if you head down this route (we've already lost a few) and stifle the creativity of new ones. We'll end up with chants like the MLS.

Of course, if there are men genuinely upset that thier sexuality or profession has been targeted by this chant - thats different. I sort of get the vibe that we are told to be offended, rather than actually being offended.
Click to expand...
Probably not the majority of the people it was aimed at, but gay fans will be saddened to hear it in 2022 I’d expect.
 
SilentWitness said:
If people aren't creative enough to make up chants that aren't racist, sexist, homophobic etc. then perhaps they deserve MLS style chants.
Click to expand...
That's where we're heading.

How long before the Park chant is officially classed as a racist hate crime and our fanbase is sanctioned by the FA accordingly? I reckon within 2 years.
 
MUFC OK said:
That's where we're heading.

How long before the Park chant is officially classed as a racist hate crime and our fanbase is sanctioned by the FA accordingly? I reckon within 2 years.
Click to expand...
It already is classed as racist isn’t it? Didn’t park himself ask us not to sing it?
 
MUFC OK said:
That's where we're heading.

How long before the Park chant is officially classed as a racist hate crime and our fanbase is sanctioned by the FA accordingly? I reckon within 2 years.
Click to expand...

It is racist. I'm surprised so many people want to die on the hill of "boo hoo we can't have racist and homophobic chants".
 
MUFC OK said:
That's where we're heading.

How long before the Park chant is officially classed as a racist hate crime and our fanbase is sanctioned by the FA accordingly? I reckon within 2 years.
Click to expand...

That’s a terrible chant too. I’m not sure that example is helping your point here.
 
Lynty said:
Genuine question. Are there people really offended at this chant? It's hardly targeting and most people don't even understand the origin.
Click to expand...

Offended? Personally it's been something slung at me for decades now so not really. "You're gay haha" isn't much of an insult to a middle aged straight man.

There's many people who do get hurt by it though, I posted what the Man United LGBT group think of it.
 
2 man midfield said:
Probably not the majority of the people it was aimed at, but gay fans will be saddened to hear it in 2022 I’d expect.
Click to expand...

I attend games with a gay freind. I admit I didn't attend this game, but they don't find it an overly offensive chant.

I've expereinced this first hand as a black fan, when some chants are considered offensive to black people (some Toure ones, the Lukaku one etc.) me and my freinds are left feeling a little weird as it's as if people are telling us we should have been offended at such chants - when in reality, we really didn't care.
 
MUFC OK said:
Really? I've never been a fan of the chant but certainly did not consider it to have an element of sexuality to it.

If it's always been homophobic, why is it only now that fans are being chastised for using it.
Click to expand...

Yes, really. I doubt that last question is serious.
 
Lynty said:
I attend games with a gay freind. I admit I didn't attend this game, but they don't find it an overly offensive chant.

I've expereinced this first hand as a black fan, when some chants are considered offensive to black people (some Toure ones, the Lukaku one etc.) me and my freinds are left feeling a little weird as it's as if people are telling us we should have been offended at such chants - when in reality, we really didn't care.
Click to expand...

But you do know that some people get hurt by racist chanting though, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.