#i'm not going to go into american bullies bc i think a majority of them are a sin against christ

[darkwood-sleddog]

Thank you for your answer! It was very informative and got me thinking. I think the issue some people have with Pitbulls being a very active, often intense dog, is that other people try and use it as an excuse to have the Pitbull and other bully breeds all banned or disappear.

I feel the myth of the nanny dog has hurt the breed as a whole, tho so has people who see their dog as just a object with no training. You mentioned that they are dog aggressive, but are there any breeds that a Pitbull can work well with? Or a most effective way of having them not be aggressive towards other dogs?

And regarding the Bully breeds as a whole, how do you feel about each or specific ones? As some are known to naturally be more intense than others, and do you feel there should be more classes for them, rather than calling all a Bully breed?

Something we must remember is that pit bull type dogs are only the most recent dog breed to go through this. They are absolutely not alone (before current day it was German Shepherds and Rottweilers that held this stigma) and most breed ban lists for apartments include huskies, malamutes and other primitives. I think breed bans are ridiculous frankly and I think the fear the pit bull will disappear is unfounded. Yes, they might not be as prominent or popular, but in my opinion that is a good thing, because then they might be owned in majority by people that can properly manage them.

Pit Bulls are by design dog aggressive. They are bred to see other dogs as prey as this is the drive that causes them to fight. Which is what they were bred for. There are many other dog breeds that are also genetically dog aggressive for various reasons be it guardian work or just in general primitive dog things (primitive dog breeds tend to be same sex aggressive). Dog aggression can be on a sliding scale of very to none at all and can also be indiscriminate between other dogs or gender specific. Most adult dogs of a majority of dog breeds are dog selective to a degree (meaning they don't adore all other dogs indiscriminately and only have a few close dog friends they mesh well with). The most affective way to have a pit bull not be aggressive towards other dogs is to manage them so they do not get the opportunity to be aggressive towards other dogs. This means no dog parks, muzzle training, reactivity training, probably not letting them off leash etc. The best type of dog to pair with a pit bull is a human being (the pit bull is supposed to be very soft with people).

I think "bully breed" is simply an overarching term for a bunch of related dog breeds, much how we use "spitz breed" to describe various types of northern dogs with different purposes that have a double coat, pointy ears, and a curling tail. The various breeds that fall under the bully category (and which breeds fall under this category changes depending on who you ask) are classified in breed registries depending on their original purpose. I don't think they need new classifications because this is how many related breeds that aren't the bully type dogs are broken down. (For example, both Greyhounds, English Foxhounds and Norwegian Elkhounds are in the hound group, but look distinctly different. They are however classified all as hounds due to their purpose, which is being used for hunting. A Norwegian Elkhound, Alaskan Malamute, and German Spitz are all spitz type dogs, but also serve very different purposes and are thus classified differently. The American Pit Bull Terrier and the French Bulldog are both commonly classified as "bully dogs" due to their history, but we can all agree they always have and still do serve different purposes).

The American Pit Bull Terrier is a recognized breed (UKC) with a breed club, breed events etc. and is in the Terrier group. I'm linking the standard HERE so everybody can get a good sense for what the breed should be.

[sophieinwonderland]

hi yeah lmao, im ⌛🌟 and im not whatever random ass person you accused me of being 💀💀???? nice try lmao

also you know that. trans people. can be transphobic right. just like how disabled people can be ableist.

but im not gonna be responding to anymore of ur dumbass shit sophie, the majority of what youve done is spout some transphobic shit and told me the history i alr know because i am trnas and lived through it!! crazy. hope you have fun harming random ass people on the internet!!! cant wait until youre left empty inside and broken bc of constantly harrassing people and constantly giving out hate where its not justified <3

-⌛🌟

Wait! Who did I accuse you of being?

Do you think this post commenting on a timing coincidence was meant to imply that you were the anti-endo who posted about the word "sysmed" at the exact same time as me? 🤣

also you know that. trans people. can be transphobic right. just like how disabled people can be ableist.

Of course. Transmeds themselves being an example of that. And system medicalism is similarly rooted in ableism and sanism. Especially when it comes to mixed origin systems, who sysmeds will straight-up deny a right to religious beliefs based on their disability.

My issue with this isn't that "trans people can't be transphobic."

It's that trans people can't be transphobic for comparing the pain they've suffered from transmeds to what they've suffered from sysmeds.

And also that transgender people can't "STEAL" their own terms.

Accusing trans people of stealing their own terms is implying that they're an outgroup that is coming in to steal the words. Frankly, it's trans erasure. You have to actually erase their transness to make this argument work. Which, IMO, is actually transphobic of you.

Once we get past the absurdity of "trans people are transphobic for stealing trans terms" the only thing your argument is left with is... what? "Transphobic people are transphobic for comparing transness to a mental disorder?"

But this point, you know, is a lie. If you've spent any bit of time in syscourse, you should know that the pro-endo position, along with the position of every psychiatrist and psychologist who has weighed in on the debate, is that you don't need a disorder to be plural.

See again, Eric Yarbrough's Transgender Mental Health, which was reviewed and published by the American Psychiatric Association.

So the whole "this is transphobic for comparing being transgender to a mental disorder" point is null. Being plural and being a system are not inherently mental disorders.

But I'm sure you're going to make some excuse about why this book, published by the American Psychiatric Association, is totally not valid. You know, just like how transmeds have historically dismissed all the doctors and research saying that you didn't need dysphoria to be trans.

Are you going to try to call me transphobic again for pointing out how your arguments and tactics are exactly like those of transmeds?

constantly harrassing people

This is beside the point, but I feel like this would be a bit more effective had sysmeds not watered down "harassment" to the point of being meaningless.

Like, I just saw a post from a sysmed who was asked why they were putting "doctors" in scare quotes to imply the authors of articles cited by pro-endos aren't real doctors, and the sysmed accused the anon of harassment just for asking the question.

Like to me, harassment means namecalling. Threats of violence. Bullying. Fakeclaiming. Personal attacks.

But it seems to most sysmeds, harassment means questioning them. It means having a different opinion and stating it where they can hear. It means linking sources or saying that they're wrong.

I've seen sysmeds, always desperate to play the part of the victim, complain about being asked "loaded questions" (the question was what punk values meant to them) and beg for death threats in the same post.

It's just so hard anymore to take sysmeds complaining about harassment seriously when it's clear they're just calling everything harassment so they can win victim points.

[tartt9]

for a large majority of jamie's life, his managers fell under two categories: bad and pep.

in this blog's canon, he got his call up to city's senior side under pelligrini, who i'll be the first to admit i don't know a TON about personally, but he's a manager who moves clubs every 2-3 years so that tells me enough about his coaching style to say that jamie never felt secure or comfortable under him especially coming in as a junior. jamie as a rookie was bullied by the older men in the club for his talent according to phil so i'm running with that and saying that that was all happening under pelligrini (or whatever lassoverse person was at city before pep, there's no mention of city before pep so i'm assuming it adheres to real life staff).

then pep comes in and switches up the wholeeee atmosphere at the club. he's not a manager who would allow bullying of any sort in his dressing room, which is part of the reason that im convinced jamie got his senior call up before pep came. anyways pep is known for being this very affectionate, very loving, very emotional coach - he's everything james denigrated in a man and everything jamie was taught he wasn't allowed to be, but here's a shining example of the fact that he can be emotional and affectionate and still be successful in football so he started to really grow into the premier league under pep's management!

pep constantly rotates his starting xi, he cares deeply for his young players and wants to make sure they shine, will constantly lather praise upon them when he's asked, will wrap his players in hugs after matches. pep has no room for an ego in his dressing room and he will sit players who think they're better than the environment he creates. having pep to support him while he's coming up and growing into these massive, premier league sized boots is something so important for who jamie is as a player and a man.

not to mention he's also a tactical genius and has now won the treble twice (the only manager to ever do that in european football). plus. this is him as a player (that has nothing to do with jamie's experience with him but i think jamie learned a lot from him both about football and as a player, plus as a man. i think a lot of his personality comes from pep). and when jamie was sent on loan it was with a promise from pep that if jamie could develop a little bit more he'd earn his spot in the XI more frequently, he could start for city instead of just being a second teamer. so he goes. (i also think pep knew about jamie's whole thing about roy but that's not the point rn)

pep does not like george cartrick. sending jamie on loan to richmond was probably something he didn't exactly want to do but he knew it was best for jamie as a player. the handshake between cartrick and pep after richmond lost to city 9-0 at the etihad while jamie sat in the vip section bc he couldn't play against his parent club was probably SOOOO passive aggressive. like. this level of passive aggression

and cartrick's a shit manager who cares more about slinging slurs and proving his own masculinity than about managing a successful team, richmond's canonically mediocre pre-s1 and i think that has to do with cartrick not caring if not using the James Tartt Method of "you're failing so you're xyz a little bitch zyx". so from jamie to go from pep to that was probably just. awful for his mental health. he was being driven to the point of insanity due to incompetent coaching, and not to mention he had mannion whispering into his ear about the fact that he could become a star at richmond akin to messi and ronaldo and all those people

and then ted comes and jamie's under his fourth manager in five years and he now knows it's a coin toss but he starts off skeptical bc he's an american. we see jamie lifting weights pre-press conference but as soon as ted starts talking and it cuts back to the gym jamie's actually listening to ted and giving him a chance. but ted keeps proving his own incompetence as a manager and jamie trusts him less and less as he comes up with these mediocre plays and doesn't seem to care when they lose and they fall more and more towards the bottom of the table and jamie knows relegation is a real fear and he wants to do everything in his power to keep richmond from that not just to impress his dad but to impress pep so he keeps fighting and we find out that he's scored 11 goals during his loan (which is in the top 20 of most goals scored all SEASON in 2019-20, not even counting the goals jamie may have scored upon his return to city) so like. obviously jamie cares about richmond, he cares about the club, he wants to see them succeed. and ted's just fucking them all up. that drives jamie more and more towards a full fledged breakdown because no matter how hard he tries he's not the manager, he's not a captain, he feels like he's the only one actually trying for the sake of this team bc at that point roy definitely isn't (even if jamie's being a prick about it the whole time)

and jamie doesn't like ted when he first shows up, but he STILL goes to the sacrifice show and tell, he still TRIES (like sure it's with a nudge from keeley but he still could've just... not gone) and he gets sent back to city anyway. and that starts to solidify ted with the cartrick class of managers he's had. and then ted sees james literally abusing him, jamie looks to him with a look in his eyes that's like. please help me. and ted walks away. and that's that. jamie's firmly of the belief that he's had pep, and then he's had shit managers.

and he wants to thrive at city because pep is a Good Manager and a Good Man. but. james gets to him too much and he has to leave the one Man In A Position Of Authority he's ever trusted just to keep himself safe from a full fledged breakdown bc of his dad (even if going on lust was his full fledged breakdown, his cry for help that no one seemed to hear)

so he goes back to ted bc ted's the only manager who'd agree to have him after lust, and he tries so hard, but it's pretty obvious that beard/nate/roy are the reasons the club's even running a little bit successfully, and it takes jamie (with peace and love) to elevate the club back to the prem

he likes ted as a man, but he's not entirely sure he's a good manager, even after s3. ted's obviously good with the players, with the environment he brings to the club, but he barely knows the offside rule in the finale which.... with peace and love.... it is not that hard to learn

we don't canonically know what roy's like as a manager, but seeing him interact with isaac, seeing him coach... i'd like to think he falls more under the 'pep' category than the 'bad' category but... we don't know ! we don't know <3