Paddy Power Transphobic Ad,

Shakti

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XZ5MOB3nww

Captain Graphite

What a bizarre ad! I'd love to know who in the Paddy Power marketing department sat down and thought that was a good idea, and that it wouldn't offend anyone.

Don't suppose it's any consolation that the TG ladies were described as being beautiful?

deirdre_dub

Captain Graphite wrote: »

Don't suppose it's any consolation that the TG ladies were described as being beautiful?

Um - not all of them were. And, no, it isn't a consolation to be considered a beautiful target of such a sick game.

OP - I'd consider that not only is the ad frightfully transphobic, it is also misogynistic, as it reduces femininity to a (sick) beauty contest.

actuallylike

deirdre_dub wrote: »

as it reduces femininity to a (sick) beauty contest.

emm, welcome to advertising. Hunky Dory's anyone?

Shakti

Captain Graphite wrote: »

What a bizarre ad! I'd love to know who in the Paddy Power marketing department sat down and thought that was a good idea, and that it wouldn't offend anyone?

I think its pretty obvious that they set out to offend, they have a rep for it and probably why they give millions of euro to these people to offend on their behalf.....

Crispin,Porter,Bogusky

Shakti

deirdre_dub wrote: »

OP - I'd consider that not only is the ad frightfully transphobic, it is also misogynistic, as it reduces femininity to a (sick) beauty contest.

Sure is and does Deirdre,
We both know whats going on here we've seen it often enough if its not west of Ireland politicians trying to make a name for themselves its some sadvertising type using our bodies and lives as vehicles for their agendas, its a deeply sickening cynical process.

Azure_sky

Wow props to Paddy Power. Lets use the must vulnerable, misunderstood, and down trodden group in society to make money. Of course so many men will being laughing at that ad with their mates....and when they're alone they jack off to trans porn....

Shakti

Making sure its offensive

L.Jenkins

I am hoping this advertisement will be long buried before it even gets a chance to air and is used as an example of the down right ignorance that's still present.

Fenian Army

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Um - not all of them were. And, no, it isn't a consolation to be considered a beautiful target of such a sick game.

OP - I'd consider that not only is the ad frightfully transphobic, it is also misogynistic, as it reduces femininity to a (sick) beauty contest.

Just on this point, it's about ladies day at cheltinham, women dress up and win prizes for best dressed etc, it essentially is a beauty contest. So I don't see how the ad itself is misogynstic.

Transphobic it may be.

Shakti

ItsThatManAgain wrote: »

I am hoping this advertisement will be long buried before it even gets a chance to air and is used as an example of the down right ignorance that's still present.

Aired three times yesterday on Sky soccer saturday, how many million have seen it do you think?, which was the whole point including the controversy IMO.

L.Jenkins

Well by that fact, then alot of people have seen it. I'm only hoping the video comments on the PP blog is an mirror image of the majorities sentiment towards it.

It's absolutely shameful, that such BS is allowed on TV anyway.

Shakti

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Didn't transgender/transvestite people agree to participate in this advertisement?

Where do you think they stand?

What exactly is transphobia?

Looking at the word, it would appear to be a blatant fear and/or hate of people who are transgender/transvestite.

How exactly does this advertisement display such phobia?

This debacle reminds of the the controversy involve Ryanair's "suggestive" advertising, which apparently was a debasement to women. I mean these people (say women, transgender/transvestite people, gay people, etc..) choose to get involve in these advertisements - if they thought that what they were doing would offend others, why did they get involved?

Next you'll be saying that Monty Python or Little Britain sketches involving men who dress up in women's clothing are transphobic (would you regard the "I'm a lady", sketch from Little Britain as transphobic?).

Oh right this is the part were we get involved in a long drawn out protracted debate with you, to detract from the OP, sorry not buying it

Shakti

ItsThatManAgain wrote: »

Well by that fact, then alot of people have seen it. I'm only hoping the video comments on the PP blog is an mirror image of the majorities sentiment towards it.

It's absolutely shameful, that such BS is allowed on TV anyway.

Quite,
Pity the Levinson Enquiry didn't extend to advertisers.

Azure_sky

Here's the youtube video if anyone wants to flag it. I flagged it as abusive/hateful against vulnerable people.

Oh and how do we use the ignore function on here again?

Shakti

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Well really, I'm just asking questions, so...

I know what your doing, so please.......

L.Jenkins

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Ignore me, please. Because clearly every single post I've ever posted against transgender people is inherently transphobic, both on this account and on my former account (Killer Pigeon). Because I'm just out to get transgender people. I'm an ignominious troll...

Please...

Well, what if they were told their appearence in such an advertisement was based entirely on a different premise altogether. With contractual agreements, their hands maybe tied so to prevent them taking any action.

It almost seems we trans people should be guilty by association.

L.Jenkins

Lets just stick to the topic at hand please.

TheMilkyPirate

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Didn't transgender/transvestite people agree to participate in this advertisement?

Where do you think they stand?

What exactly is transphobia?

Looking at the word, it would appear to be a blatant fear and/or hate of people who are transgender/transvestite.

How exactly does this advertisement display such phobia?

This debacle is sort of like the controversy involve Ryanair's "suggestive" advertising, which apparently was a debasement of women. I mean these people (say women, transgender/transvestite people, gay people, etc..) choose to get involve in these advertisements - if they thought that what they were doing would offend others, why did they get involved?

Would you regard the Monty Python or Little Britain sketches involving men who dress up in women's clothing are transphobic (would you regard the "I'm a lady", sketch from Little Britain as transphobic?).

Note: I haven't really expressed an opinion on this thread yet, just remember that before you reply to my post. Really, I'm just asking questions here. Attack the post, not the poster and all that jazz...

+1, I doubt anyone here will respond to your post though PP.

Don't see anything wrong with the ad tbh, Transphobic?? lol.

Shakti

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Or what you think I'm doing...

I've chatted to you before on this (through my former account - Killer Pigeon). You seem very ready to brand people before you realised what they were actually trying to get across (I think it was the thread regard Sweden and sex-change). Read back on those post, then you'll understand my standpoint (i.e., I'm not transphobic).

Now, back to the topic at hand...

Okay 'its all about you', there I've said it happy now,

L.Jenkins

Ladies and Gentlemen, quit the snipping please.

L.Jenkins

Well if you want a little more indepth analysis of the video, then here it goes. First the commentator describes Transwomen and Ciswomen as Stallions and Mares. That's more of an undue poke at the entire female spectrum.

Secondly at 0:20, referring to a Ciswoman as a dog and at 0:23 referring to a Transwoman as 'well you figure it out'. Doesn't necessarily paint women in any positive way at all. As for Ladies, while some women may enjoy it, I don't see how voting on the best dressed actually does anything for a womans self-esteem as a whole.

L.Jenkins

ItsThatManAgain wrote: »

...It almost seems we trans people should be guilty by association.

.

L.Jenkins

One more post from me on this thread outlining one or two things. This is why a few trans members have left. Constantly defending ourselves when such transphobic shíte is brought up and aired on TV, then having to dissect why and how it's derrogitory and transphobic.

Being a trans mod, it kind of backs me into a corner somewhat too. This kind of debate gives or has given some past trans members the feeling that we no longer have anywhere safe to discuss topical issues that affect us and on the other hand, if I go passing out infractions and closing threads, then that gives the impression that Transsexuality isn't up for debate and one should get on with it.

The whole point of this thread is Paddy Powers píss poor advertising campaign and not some Transphobic slight of hand. Neither does the appearence of Trans People in the ad make it okay to dismiss any idea of transphobia.

So, I'm giving one last warning from this post onwards, discuss the video or I'm closing the thread for now.

Shakti

baraca wrote: »

+1, I doubt anyone here will respond to your post though PP.

Don't see anything wrong with the ad tbh, Transphobic?? lol.

Joined Boards 12 years ago and your first posting in the LGBT forum welcome,
Why do you think the ad isn't transphobic?

wonderfulname

Not only is that very clearly transphobic and misogynistic, it's so ridiculously out there on so many levels I get the sneaking suspicion they're baiting for complaints - i.e. free publicity. That ad has to be intentionally designed to offend, it wouldn't make it on air were it not.

It doesn't even clearly advertise them, I've watched it twice now and all I can remember is Cheltenham and Facebook, obviously the branding isn't meant to be in the ad itself...

Seriously, do people just like claiming others are overly sensitive for the sake of it? If it was just "stallions and mares", in-out jokes and long sausages before the watershed (seriously, they fit all that in in about 2 seconds), with no minority trodden on in it's path, you'd probably accept it as fair that the ASA should look into it, but as soon as it's about people someone has to insist they're wrong.

Even the tagline at the end is "let's hear it" with their Facebook details, I mean what is that if not "come at me brah!".

jaffacakesyum

Bit of a strange ad! I don't mind offensive ads cos I don't get offended easily but this one wasn't even clever or funny

Like others have said, it just seems set out to intentionally offend and provoke a response. I wouldn't get too caught up in it to be honest

baby and crumble

Okay, mod number two stepping in here folks. This thread has settled in the last few posts but let's just get a few reminders from the charter in.

6. No trolling or flaming. This means posting something that you feel will incite anger and/or abusive posting. This is usually thinly veiled insults. Starting up threads for the singular purpose of inviting such flames is also discouraged. It is the moderators discretion to decide whether a poster is trolling or flaming.

7. Abusive language that is homophobic/transphobic will not be tolerated and the persons posting it will be banned from the forum. Saying that transgender is a choice, saying that trans surgeries are cosmetic, or calling trans people "a man/woman who thinks they are a woman/man ", will result in an immediate infraction and/or ban, as these things aren't "opinions", they are falsehoods rooted in transphobia.

8. Keep things civil. No name calling, personal abuse, unneccessary aggression, snide comments, or backseat moderating.

13. This forum is welcome to everyone regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity to discuss LGBT issues. We do however insist that people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender have the right to be treated with dignity and respect and that the forum be treated as a safe space for LGBT people. If you contribute to a thread you are expected to be willing to learn about the issues involved, and listen to what is said by members of the community/ies involved.

This means no bitching, no name calling, no sniping at each other, no insults, and no-one gets to tell the trans members of the board that they are wrong or whatever for being offended by the ad. If they are, they are. By all means debate the points, but anyone dismissing the feelings or opinions of trans posters WILL get infracted.

Shakti

Ironic thing is to be Trans in this world you have to be the least sensitive, thick skinned type of person just to make it through the day or a television program or a newspaper or a magazine or a job interview or puberty or intimacy etc. etc. etc.
Easily Offended? most people have no idea how uneasily offended trans people have to be,

Azure_sky

Leaving out the transphobia and sexism for a moment, I'm offended because it's such a crap ad in general. It's an insult to the intelligence of the viewing public.

L.Jenkins

Azure_sky wrote: »

Leaving out the transphobia and sexism for a moment, I'm offended because it's such a crap ad in general. It's an insult to the intelligence of the viewing public.

TV requires very little interaction on the viewers part and giving media free reign to do as they please doesn't help things.

wonderfulname

Azure_sky wrote: »

Leaving out the transphobia and sexism for a moment, I'm offended because it's such a crap ad in general. It's an insult to the intelligence of the viewing public.

I'm inclined to agree, I don't think this will work. The Hunky Dory ads were actually quite intelligently designed, they, however crudely, spawned genuine debate with regard the nature and outcome of feminism; whether it meant being able to do what you please dressed how you please, or the removal of objectification from society. Models from the ads appeared on television, well spoken, well endowed, and well versed, to argue the former, it was a marvellous campaign.

This on the other hand, kind of missed the point with this kind of advertising, they went to far, it isn't about offending everybody, it's about getting people talking, and there isn't really a discussion to be had here, there is no "pro" side that you can actually point to and say that's a worthwhile and fair argument.

Shakti

'Crispin Porter + Bogusky' have been ditched by 'Groupon' for this effort during the superbowl, I think PP will be doing the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFT2yjk0A

wonderfulname

I wouldn't focus too hard on the poor performances of Crispin Porter + Bogusky, they're seriously outnumbered by by brilliant campaigns, when you're trying to do more than just stand-alone advertisements it's pretty much guaranteed that some will fail to deliver, it's not an exact science, the fact that so few have bombed is actually a testament to them.

Having said that I still don't know what they were thinking here.

Slang_Tang

baraca wrote: »

Don't see anything wrong with the ad tbh, Transphobic?? lol.

If you see transphobia as such a laughable concept, then of course you're not going to be able to see it when it's right in front of your face.

Aurongroove

While the main subject of the ad is transgendered ladies I believe this ad is not an example of transphobia.

the ad has no positive or negative transgendered social commentary, it has no anti transgender motifs, it treats the transgendered ladies no differently then the other ladies who appear in the ad and it employs transgendered ladies to actually appear in it....


The only actual issue I have with the ad is how lame the humour is.

Imagining I were TG I would be rolling my eyes at the ad-makers for having the idea of TG as a 'guessing game symbolic of gambling' and pulling it off so poorly. The confused narrator shouting 'dog' after a delay was tasteless (not offensive: crap comedy), The hot dog in the background was almost so bad, that if the commercial was better I would've applauded them for the great use of anti-humour.

IMO the ad shows a poor talent/competence for humour but not xenophobia or transphobia in the slightest.

Annasopra

Aurongroove wrote: »

While the main subject of the ad is transgendered ladies I believe this ad is not an example of transphobia.

the ad has no positive or negative transgendered social commentary, it has no anti transgender motifs, it treats the transgendered ladies no differently then the other ladies who appear in the ad and it employs transgendered ladies to actually appear in it....


The only actual issue I have with the ad is how lame the humour is.

Imagining I were TG I would be rolling my eyes at the ad-makers for having the idea of TG as a 'guessing game symbolic of gambling' and pulling it off so poorly. The confused narrator shouting 'dog' after a delay was tasteless (not offensive: crap comedy), The hot dog in the background was almost so bad, that if the commercial was better I would've applauded them for the great use of anti-humour.

IMO the ad shows a poor talent/competence for humour but not xenophobia or transphobia in the slightest.

Were you watching the same ad as me?

Comparing trans women to horses and dogs is not transphobic or offensive?

Aurongroove

the stallion and mare comparison was a metaphor. for example other animal metaphors used in every day life might include "fox" "bear" "tiger" "dragon" and "kitten".
It also wasn't an offensive metaphor since
A: it was a horse racing venue, thus that's why the narrator chose 'that animal' for the metaphor
B: there are no negative connotations associated with metaphors involving male or female horses collectively. The subject matter being the targets sex was clearly implied.

i.e. 'are you a raw or a ewe?'

As for the dog, yes I believe that was just **** humour. as was the hot dog in the background for TG lady no.1.
If any section of the ad was offensive it was that. but again, it was more just an example of crap humour.
If for example 'dog' was a derogatory or slang term for transgendered ladies, then yes it would be offensive, but as it currently is it's just a not funny none entity at an attempt at being funny.

Annasopra

Aurongroove wrote: »

the stallion and mare comparison was a metaphor. for example other animal metaphors used in every day life might include "fox" "bear" "tiger" "dragon" and "kitten".
It also wasn't an offensive metaphor since
A: it was a horse racing venue, thus that's why the narrator chose 'that animal' for the metaphor
B: there are no negative connotations associated with metaphors involving male or female horses collectively. The subject matter being the targets sex was clearly implied.

i.e. 'are you a raw or a ewe?'

As for the dog, yes I believe that was just **** humour. as was the hot dog in the background for TG lady no.1.
If any section of the ad was offensive it was that. but again, it was more just an example of crap humour.
If for example 'dog' was a derogatory or slang term for transgendered ladies, then yes it would be offensive, but as it currently is it's just a not funny none entity at an attempt at being funny.

Just to point out that it's very much your opinion that it is not offensive. It is not a 'fact' that it is not offensive. I find it very offensive. Many many trans, lgb, heterosexual and cisgendered people find it offensive. There have been numerous discussions on YouTube, Facebook, the cheltenham site and twitter. The reaction has been hugely negative. While you are not personally offended please note that many others are.

Azure_sky

This is why I don't post here anymore...

Shakti

wonderfulname wrote: »

I wouldn't focus too hard on the poor performances of Crispin Porter + Bogusky, they're seriously outnumbered by by brilliant campaigns, when you're trying to do more than just stand-alone advertisements it's pretty much guaranteed that some will fail to deliver, it's not an exact science, the fact that so few have bombed is actually a testament to them.

Having said that I still don't know what they were thinking here.

I'm onboard with your other posts,
But with respect who should we blame? They've made an exact science out of humiliating people, comparing people to animals and getting away with it, the people who created this have examined transgender community issues in the minutia with a manipulative cynicism bordering on criminal IMO. I lay the blame for this squarely at the people who created it and the people they created it for.

Aurongroove

mango salsa wrote: »

Just to point out that it's very much your opinion that it is not offensive. It is not a 'fact' that it is not offensive. I find it very offensive. Many many trans, lgb, heterosexual and cisgendered people find it offensive. There have been numerous discussions on YouTube, Facebook, the cheltenham site and twitter. The reaction has been hugely negative. While you are not personally offended please note that many others are.

you don't need to tell me that my opinion is my opinion. I know my opinion is my opinion. I've already taken note that other people are offended by the ad in OP because I've read the other posts in the thread, seen the ad, and looked at some of the steam it had built up.

What you havn't done is try to counter my opinion.
Responding as you did with "your opinion is your opinion" can either be read as:
An admittance that you cannot counter my opinion, and hit the emergency exit "well that's what you think"
or

you were not aware that the reason I posted my opinion was because maybe I was hoping for a well reasoned rebuttal of my opinion, by someone with another opinion so that my opinion can change, grow or prove itself to be sound.
If you would like to provide me with an actual reply then please do but responding to an opinion by saying "that's an opinion" is offering no new information.

wonderfulname

Azure_sky wrote: »

This is why I don't post here anymore...

^This is the biggest disappointment of this form, trans discussion had just started to liven up here again and all...

Shakti wrote: »

I'm onboard with your other posts,
But with respect who should we blame? They've made an exact science out of humiliating people, comparing people to animals and getting away with it, the people who created this have examined transgender community issues in the minutia with a manipulative cynicism bordering on criminal IMO. I lay the blame for this squarely at the people who created it and the people they created it for.

In all fairness they don't compare people to animals in the way you're implying, Italian stallion, fine filly, these are normal turns of phrase, the problem here is more that the wrong animal comparison is being made, and I do agree that some thought went into making that comparison, and other elements of the advert.

I never said the companies should not take blame, just that it doesn't make sense to make Crispin Porter + Bogusky out to be bad at what they do over this, given that they're quite the opposite, doing so has a bit of a witch hunt air about it...

Who should we blame? Crispin Porter + Bogusky for making it, Paddy Power for running with it, the ASA for not setting clear precedent when previous transphobic ads cropped up, the government for not legislating for equality, allowing transphobic sentiment to appear acceptable, society for being generally crap... I could continue, my point is, there's two camps of blame for this kind of thing, those immediately responsible and wider society for having very fuzzy morals. Crispin Porter + Bogusky overstepped a line that is very hard to see when you're anyway removed from it, not excusing it in any way, but surely it's evident even from this thread that the ad is part of a bigger problem.

Slang_Tang

Guys, if you wanna complain, the email address for Paddy Power's PR & Media Manager is krobertson@paddypower.com.

I sent an email already. I have an account with them, so we'll see if they respond.

I personally wouldn't contact the ASAI, because I think the intention was to garner as much attention as possible, and I don't want to help them do that (but that's just me). It's a joke that backfired badly, though. The reaction on their blog was disastrous for them.

*Mods, if I'm not allowed give out emails, feel free to remove it. The link is here.

Shakti

wonderfulname wrote: »

^This is the biggest disappointment of this form, trans discussion had just started to liven up here again and all...

Quite,

In all fairness they don't compare people to animals in the way you're implying, Italian stallion, fine filly, these are normal turns of phrase, the problem here is more that the wrong animal comparison is being made, and I do agree that some thought went into making that comparison, and other elements of the advert.

Comparing women to horses in whatever vernacular, and treating Ladies Day at Cheltenham like a breeders fair is unacceptable no matter what the context full stop that is my position to be clear.

I never said the companies should not take blame, just that it doesn't make sense to make Crispin Porter + Bogusky out to be bad at what they do over this, given that they're quite the opposite, doing so has a bit of a witch hunt air about it...

I dont think its a witch hunt there are three clearly responsible CPB, PP and Sky.

Who should we blame? Crispin Porter + Bogusky for making it, Paddy Power for running with it,

Yes

the ASA for not setting clear precedent when previous transphobic ads cropped up,

Lets hope they set one now, this is also about bringing pressure on them to do so.

the government for not legislating for equality, allowing transphobic sentiment to appear acceptable,

U.K. policy.

society for being generally crap...

No now that would be a witch hunt.

I could continue, my point is, there's two camps of blame for this kind of thing, those immediately responsible and wider society for having very fuzzy morals. Crispin Porter + Bogusky overstepped a line that is very hard to see when you're anyway removed from it, not excusing it in any way, but surely it's evident even from this thread that the ad is part of a bigger problem.

I do get your point and this is the main reason I even intoduced the topic to this forum, why is acceptable to treat people like this? we no longer consider it acceptable to treat other minorities in this way, and lets not forget the elephant in the room that is the systemic acceptability of the abuse of women and their rights and the almost pathological fear of the feminine.

foggy_lad

I don't get so angry and upset when I see worse gay joke adverts on the television, is this reaction not just a bit OTT from some trans people? after all the more this is discussed and thrashed about the more publicity the company are getting which makes the advert well worth the money in their eyes.

I say if you find the advert offensive then don't watch it and let the ASAI know you think it is offensive and why, you could also write to Sky and let them know what you think of their decision to use this advertisement.

Aurongroove

Shakti wrote: »

Comparing women to horses in whatever vernacular...(ed) ...is unacceptable no matter what the context

this in my opinion is nonsense and is strong evidence of over sensitivity.

there are plenty of 'vernacular's where comparing people to animals is completely acceptable, and metaphors happen all the time.

if I called you a 'tiger' would you be offended? If I called you a 'fox' would you be offended?

If you're offended by metaphors then you don't understand metaphors. There are other things in the ad one could possibly be offended by, but this is complete nonsense.

baby and crumble

People need to STOP dismissing the opinions of trans posters on this thread. Seriously guys. If someone says they are offended, then they are offended. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else gets to tell them they are wrong, ok? I've already started infracting people, I will keep going. Take a debate on the semantics of metaphors, descriptions and the nature of offense over to humanties, or I will lock this thread.

foggy_lad

baby and crumble wrote: »

People need to STOP dismissing the opinions of trans posters on this thread. Seriously guys. If someone says they are offended, then they are offended. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else gets to tell them they are wrong, ok? I've already started infracting people, I will keep going. Take a debate on the semantics of metaphors, descriptions and the nature of offense over to humanties, or I will lock this thread.

What about the opinions of non-trans posters? do our opinions not count for anything?

baby and crumble

foggy_lad wrote: »

What about the opinions of non-trans posters? do our opinions not count for anything?

Yes, of course. However, since the subjects of the ad are trans females, then as cis-gendered posters we can have opinions about the add, and even disagree with other posters, but NOBODY gets to tell someone that they shouldn't be offended. That's the issue I am having on thread at the moment.

If I as a lesbian am offended at someone calling me a rug-muncher, if a straight woman tells me not to be offended, then that's not ok, because they don't know what it's like to be a lesbian. Same applies here.

foggy_lad

baby and crumble wrote: »

Yes, of course. However, since the subjects of the ad are trans females, then as cis-gendered posters we can have opinions about the add, and even disagree with other posters, but NOBODY gets to tell someone that they shouldn't be offended. That's the issue I am having on thread at the moment.

If I as a lesbian am offended at someone calling me a rug-muncher, if a straight woman tells me not to be offended, then that's not ok, because they don't know what it's like to be a lesbian. Same applies here.

Fair enough, I will just steer* clear of any trans related threads then as they always seems to end up in a fight and I prefer to make love not war. As other posters have done I think it is time to un-subscribe from LGB&T threads here for the sake of my sanity.


* My use of the word steer is not an attempt to compare any trans person to a cow