News Article: Chris Kunitz is our new LGBTQ ambassador

[Honour Over Glory]

Andrew Shaw is on this list? The same Andrew Shaw that was suspended for using gay slurs on the ice? That Andrew Shaw?

What a joke, such a good idea to have ambassador's of the LGBTQ community on every team who aren't LGBTQ.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for the NHL taking steps for all inclusion, but IMO this is not the way to do it.

Players are still afraid to come out. Look at the NBA and NFL. All the guys that come out are on their way out of the game or not in yet and then don't make it and it's not a coincidence. Until a legit star comes out of the closet or whatever you aren't going to openly have a member of that community be sponsored and how do you cover a team that wouldn't have someone gay? They don't get a rep then?

 

[ColePens]

With the Shaw thing... the only issue I have is if a guy needs to feel comfortable going to a person in the locker room, would you honestly go to Shaw? I do see Kunitz as a very approachable vet who I think players would feel comfortable going to.

Everyone saw Shaw's video and what he said. Would you go to him?

 

[Shockmaster]

I think the Habs really needed to pick someone else as their ambassador.

 

[Mattpilf]

With the Shaw thing... the only issue I have is if a guy needs to feel comfortable going to a person in the locker room, would you honestly go to Shaw? I do see Kunitz as a very approachable vet who I think players would feel comfortable going to.

Everyone saw Shaw's video and what he said. Would you go to him?

Is this really about other NHL players? If you're in the NHL and closeted, I think you can get in contact with the You Can Play Project yourself and go from there. What I think this is really about is part of the "Hockey Is For Everyone" month. Probably some outreach with the LGBT community, something during the You Can Play game days, and maybe meet with college and high school players, possibly openly LGBT players in the area. Maybe get some thing similar in lower level where players can have support in their communities, lockeroom and what not. I assumed the players were more for outreach, not for teamates.

I would assume this is actually more about changing the culutre, particularly at the lower and younger levels of the game, more so than getting whatever NHL player who is gay to come out to his teammate. Plus we honestly don't know Shaw. Maybe he really did have a change of heart. He's not the first person to use it flippantly and even excessivley. You be suprised how thick skulled people are, or how many try to justify it to no ends because "they're being oppressed. OMG stop being the word police. Freedom of speech. It's not REALLY offensive. Look at the dictionary. Bundle of sticks.", when all you did was ask them nicely to not say a word where you have personally been consistently harrased and assaulted with for you life.

Some people finally realize "ohh ****, I didn't realize people are still dealing with that openly violence and hate still." Sometimes actually listening to people's story sinks in. Maybe it's a lame PR move by him, maybe not, but were skepticizing IF it's a lame PR, the maybe someone affected might have a bumbpy road. Honestly IDK how much the criticism of Shaw are actually from people concerned about his teamates, and how many are just trying to harp on it to delegitamize the whole thing?

 

[ColePens]

Is this really about other NHL players? If you're in the NHL and closeted, I think you can get in contact with the You Can Play Project yourself and go from there. What I think this is really about is part of the "Hockey Is For Everyone" month. Probably some outreach with the LGBT community, something during the You Can Play game days, and maybe meet with college and high school players, possibly openly LGBT players in the area. Maybe get some thing similar in lower level where players can have support in their communities, lockeroom and what not. I assumed the players were more for outreach, not for teamates.

I would assume this is actually more about changing the culutre, particularly at the lower and younger levels of the game, more so than getting whatever NHL player who is gay to come out to his teammate. Plus we honestly don't know Shaw. Maybe he really did have a change of heart. He's not the first person to use it flippantly and even excessivley. You be suprised how thick skulled people are, or how many try to justify it to no ends because "they're being oppressed. OMG stop being the word police. Freedom of speech. It's not REALLY offensive. Look at the dictionary. Bundle of sticks.", when all you did was ask them nicely to not say a word where you have personally been consistently harrased and assaulted with for you life.

Some people finally realize "ohh ****, I didn't realize people are still dealing with that openly violence and hate still." Sometimes actually listening to people's story sinks in. Maybe it's a lame PR move by him, maybe not, but were skepticizing IF it's a lame PR, the maybe someone affected might have a bumbpy road. Honestly IDK how much the criticism of Shaw are actually from people concerned about his teamates, and how many are just trying to harp on it to delegitamize the whole thing?

A little bit of both, I'm sure. For me, I'd love to live in a world where we don't even have to put the spotlight on race, sexual preference, religion, etc., yet we just accept it. But let's just face reality. We are nowhere close to that. And yes - we don't know who the guys are in the locker room that are most approachable. We get the media portrayed view.

And while you post is right about the younger levels of hockey, you probably didn't end up reading the article. That's what I'm discussing. From reading the article, this designates a locker room go-to guy that you can confide in, if needed. That's awesome because anyone who played the game, you realize just how often you are at the rink, in the gym, in meetings, watching film, etc. It's more than an 8 hour day. It's an entire lifestyle. So if you are really struggling with it, I feel Kunitz is a terrific choice from what we've seen.

So ultimately I ask you again - if this is something a player needs, does he feel comfortable going to Shaw after seeing what he did? My guess is no. They just continue to stay quiet.

 

[Ogrezilla]

yeah, that's a good question about Shaw. That said, we aren't there to know how he handled that situation with the team either. But it was hopefully a concern that the team considered before appointing him, and hopefully they had good reasons to choose him.

 

[Terrapin]

Players are still afraid to come out. Look at the NBA and NFL. All the guys that come out are on their way out of the game or not in yet and then don't make it and it's not a coincidence. Until a legit star comes out of the closet or whatever you aren't going to openly have a member of that community be sponsored and how do you cover a team that wouldn't have someone gay? They don't get a rep then?

Or maybe there just aren't many gay professional NHL, NFL, NBA players? Since the LBGT only make up about 4% of the general population, and professional athletes make up less than 1% of the population, it's not statistically improbable for there to be next to no gay men in these sports.

 

[Ogrezilla]

Or maybe there just aren't many gay professional NHL, NFL, NBA players? Since the LBGT only make up about 4% of the general population, and professional athletes make up less than 1% of the population, it's not statistically improbable for there to be next to no gay men in these sports.

But you would assume the 4% are spread evenly among all people. There are about 3400 pro athletes between the NHL, NFL, NBA, and MLB just counting the regulars on each team's roster. 4% of that would be 136 people. Statistically, its far more likely that this number is correct than that there are next to no gay men in that group of 3400. In the NHL, statistics say there should be about 24 gay men in the league. I'm sure that's not an exact number, but it's very unlikely that the number is 0.

 

[TorstenFrings]

Or maybe there just aren't many gay professional NHL, NFL, NBA players? Since the LBGT only make up about 4% of the general population, and professional athletes make up less than 1% of the population, it's not statistically improbable for there to be next to no gay men in these sports.

If there are 4% in the overall population, but 0% in a specific subset that is not statistically insignificant. Even of you are saying that homophobic locker room culture throughout the system somehow managed to keep the highest levels completely free of gay players, is that the goal that you wanted to achieve here? Or do you figure there could be some changes for the better?

 

[Terrapin]

But you would assume the 4% are spread evenly among all people. There are about 3400 pro athletes between the NHL, NFL, NBA, and MLB just counting the regulars on each team's roster. 4% of that would be 136 people. Statistically, its far more likely that this number is correct than that there are next to no gay men in that group of 3400. In the NHL, statistics say there should be about 24 gay men in the league. I'm sure that's not an exact number, but it's very unlikely that the number is 0.

Valid. But I'd lay money that number is a lot closer to 0 than 136. Even if it was only 1, a program like this is cool.

 

[Terrapin]

If there are 4% in the overall population, but 0% in a specific subset that is not statistically insignificant. Even of you are saying that homophobic locker room culture throughout the system somehow managed to keep the highest levels completely free of gay players, is that the goal that you wanted to achieve here? Or do you figure there could be some changes for the better?

Since I'm not a pro athlete that hangs in locker rooms, I could really care less.

3.4% identify as LBGT. We can obviously eliminate lesbians and transgenders from the discussion, so that lowers it even more. Also eliminate gay men under the age of 20, and over the age of 40. I just think people greatly overestimate the amount of gay pro athletes there 'should be'.

 

[Ogrezilla]

Since I'm not a pro athlete that hangs in locker rooms, I could really care less.

3.4% identify as LBGT. We can obviously eliminate lesbians and transgenders from the discussion, so that lowers it even more. Also eliminate gay men under the age of 20, and over the age of 40. I just think people greatly overestimate the amount of gay pro athletes there 'should be'.

that 4% spreads across everyone though. So roughly 4% of men between 20 and 40 would be bi, gay, or trans. The age doesn't matter. Almost any large group will end up at roughly that same percentage without outside influences skewing who joins the group. If we say the trans group skews that down, let's just take out that 1/3 and say its 2.5% are bi or gay. If the number of gay pro athletes is significantly less than that, its probably because they are pushed out before making it that far. I'm not an athlete in these locker rooms either, but people thinking they can't do what they want because they are gay is sad. I hope that's not the case, though now that I think about it, it almost certainly is.

Valid. But I'd lay money that number is a lot closer to 0 than 136. Even if it was only 1, a program like this is cool.

Yep, you're likely right. But not because of the statistics, but because of the general culture of sports teams.

 

[orby]

Since I'm not a pro athlete that hangs in locker rooms, I could really care less.

3.4% identify as LBGT. We can obviously eliminate lesbians and transgenders from the discussion, so that lowers it even more. Also eliminate gay men under the age of 20, and over the age of 40. I just think people greatly overestimate the amount of gay pro athletes there 'should be'.

Why would age factor into the calculation at all when everyone in the league is in that age range? That's not how percentages work.

It's also very likely that the 3.4% number you're using is very low because of people not accurately reporting their sexuality. Someone in the closet is not gonna come out to a pollster.

 

[RR1107]

Why would age factor into the calculation at all when everyone in the league is in that age range? That's not how percentages work.

It's also very likely that the 3.4% number you're using is very low because of people not accurately reporting their sexuality. Someone in the closet is not gonna come out to a pollster.

People could lie to pollsters about all sorts of things...The stats are the stats, and they are the only useful data available. If the question is open to various speculations, it would be equally possible to argue that the number is higher due to untruthful answers as to argue that the number is lower due to untruthful answers.

 

[Crosbyfan]

Since I'm not a pro athlete that hangs in locker rooms, I could really care less.

3.4% identify as LBGT. We can obviously eliminate lesbians and transgenders from the discussion, so that lowers it even more. Also eliminate gay men under the age of 20, and over the age of 40. I just think people greatly overestimate the amount of gay pro athletes there 'should be'.

Just a guess...but I think we can eliminate all females in any case...so this might not lower the percentage at all.

My guess in all seriousness is that it would still be closer to 3.4% than 0, so above 1.7%, but I could very well be wrong.

On topic, good on Kunitz for taking this on. Shaw is a bit of a wait and see, but I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't think he would take it on if not serious, and sometimes people learn when they are put in position to be more aware.

 

[Terrapin]

that 4% spreads across everyone though. So roughly 4% of men between 20 and 40 would be bi, gay, or trans. The age doesn't matter. Almost any large group will end up at roughly that same percentage without outside influences skewing who joins the group. If we say the trans group skews that down, let's just take out that 1/3 and say its 2.5% are bi or gay. If the number of gay pro athletes is significantly less than that, its probably because they are pushed out before making it that far. I'm not an athlete in these locker rooms either, but people thinking they can't do what they want because they are gay is sad. I hope that's not the case, though now that I think about it, it almost certainly is.



Yep, you're likely right. But not because of the statistics, but because of the general culture of sports teams.

That 4% includes lesbians though. So maybe 1 or 2% of men are gay or bi. So you're looking at roughly 40-50, maybe. That's obviously a lot more than have came out, which is a shame, but it's not like there's hundreds or thousands.

I disagree on them not being able to do what they want though. What aren't they allowed to do?

 

[Ogrezilla]

Just a guess...but I think we can eliminate all females in any case...so this might not lower the percentage at all.

this is also accurate, I missed that bit

Statistics are pretty simple really. If you're in a room with 100 people, there's a decent chance 3-5 of them are gay regardless of what demographic the 100 people belong to.

 

[Terrapin]

Just a guess...but I think we can eliminate all females in any case...so this might not lower the percentage at all.

If 3.4% of the population are LBGT, that obviously includes women/lesbians. If we remove their numbers, why wouldn't it change the overall percentage?

 

[Terrapin]

this is also accurate, I missed that bit

Statistics are pretty simple really. If you're in a room with 100 people, there's a decent chance 3-5 of them are gay regardless of what demographic the 100 people belong to.

Right. But if you're in a room with 100 men (no women and no transgenders), why do you think there would still be 3-5 when the variable has changed?

 

[Ogrezilla]

If 3.4% of the population are LBGT, that obviously includes women/lesbians. If we remove their numbers, why wouldn't it change the overall percentage?

If you remove lesbians, you also have to remove women from your max total. That leaves you with the same percentage for men.

 

[Ogrezilla]

Right. But if you're in a room with 100 men (no women and no transgenders), why do you think there would still be 3-5 when the variable has changed?

because that's how math works. 3.4% of all people are gay. It doesn't matter which people. And if you remove trans men, you'd then have to include trans women. Otherwise, why did you remove the trans men?

But yeah, the reason is because that's how statistics work.

 

[Terrapin]

because that's how math works. 3.4% of all people are gay. It doesn't matter which people. And if you remove trans men, you'd then have to include trans women. Otherwise, why did you remove the trans men?

But yeah, the reason is because that's how statistics work.

Maybe you're right. I'm no math major.

 

[Ogrezilla]

Maybe you're right. I'm no math major.

I'm only a math minor to be fair. But statistics are a part of that. The key is that if you remove lesbians, you have to remove all women. Otherwise, why did you remove lesbians? So your max number changes, your number of gay people changes, but the percentage stays the same. 100 people, 50 women, 50 men. that probably means 2 LBGTQ men, 2 LBGTQ women. Obviously that breakdown will change in subsets that small, but over the full population, its going to be a pretty even breakdown.

A room of 100 men likely have 4 LGBTQ people in it, statistically speaking. Same with a room of 100 women. Or 100 hockey players. Or 100 farmers. Or 100 scientists. As long as the subset doesn't have a direct correlation with being LBGTQ, the statistic should roughly hold true. Obviously, a room with 100 trans people doesn't follow the 4% rule. And in theory, a room full of 100 anti-gay protesters likely has less than 4%, though I would bet that one is actually still close.

 

[Terrapin]

I'm only a math minor to be fair. But statistics are a part of that.

lol. So what you're saying then is.... if there's 100 people in a room, 3-4 of them are going to be gay, lesbian, bi, or trans? Yet if those 100 people are only men, there's still the same exact 3-4 probability that they're gay, lesbian, bi, or trans? And since we know they're not lesbian (or most likely trans), there's still the same amount (3-4) that will be gay or bi?

 

[Ogrezilla]

lol. So what you're saying then is.... if there's 100 people in a room, 3-4 of them are going to be gay, lesbian, bi, or trans? Yet if those 100 people are only men, there's still the same exact 3-4 probability that they're gay, lesbian, bi, or trans? And since we know they're not lesbian (or most likely trans), there's still the same amount (3-4) that will be gay or bi?

yes. That statistic assumes its all people. So with 100 people, you have 50 men and 50 women, so probably 2 LGBTQ men and 2 LGBTQ women. But if you have a room of 100 men, you've double the number of men, so you probably have 4 LGBTQ men.