Paddy Power Transphobic Ad,

L.Jenkins

mango salsa wrote: »

It doesn't directly

It does certainly bring out hatred and vile bigotry in spades. And that is just after hours

diddlybit wrote: »

I don't check AH often and I'm glad I haven't recently. Those comments are disgusting.

“Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.”


- Oscar Wilde

bodice ripper wrote: »

I understand that. I personally think it is a bit of a stretch for that particular ad.

The point being made. If Paddy Powers say it's ok to talk about or treat someone like me in this way, then where does it stop....

--> http://www.queerty.com/2-trans-murders-rock-brazil-priscila-val-executed-in-the-streets-20110316/

L.Jenkins

So why does the Paddy Powers and many AH reponses píss me off? Because it makes intolerance acceptable and brings us back to square one again.

bodice ripper

ItsThatManAgain wrote: »

The point being made. If Paddy Powers say it's ok to talk about or treat someone like me in this way, then where does it stop....

--> http://www.queerty.com/2-trans-murders-rock-brazil-priscila-val-executed-in-the-streets-20110316/

and if we start telling people you can't make fun of men dressed as women (are the people in the ad actually trangender?) or indeed transgender people because doing so leads to murder in the streets, then where does that stop? I don't see anyone in here going mental that the objectification of women in every other damn ad on tv inevitably leads to violence against women. or that 300 (the film...) is clearly a piece of xenophobic pro-war propaganda, also steeped in homo and transphobia, not to mention racism.

the standards you seek to apply to this particular minority group, were they applied to every group, would do away with a huge chunk of the artistic output of mankind. I don't agree.

I expect to treated like everyone else in society, and society treats everyone pretty poorly when it comes to humour. Surely no one should know this better than the Irish: getting slagged off is an important sign that someone or something is becoming the norm. This ad would never have run a few short years ago because it was offensive. Not to transgender people, but to everyone else for even bringing the idea of transgender people into public light.

diddlybit

bodice ripper wrote: »

I understand that. I personally think it is a bit of a stretch for that particular ad.

You don't have to draw your fist back or pull a trigger to commit violence, it can be committed indirectly. The well-publicised LGBT youth suicides of last year are indictative of the intolerability of living in a society that tolerates bigotry and abuse that forces someone to commit the ultimate act of violence against themselves.

This may just one ad, but if we dismiss it as a publicity stunt or ignore it, there will be another, and then another. It becomes a relentless attack on the idenity of trans people.

deirdre_dub

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Can I ask you a question?

No.

Suffice it to say that you've completely misinterpreted what I wrote. And I'm not going to spend time clarifying - I've more important things to do right now.

bodice ripper

diddlybit wrote: »

You don't have to draw your fist back or pull a trigger to commit violence

This may just one ad, but if we dismiss it as a publicity stunt or ignore it, there will be another, and then another. It becomes a relentless attack on the idenity of trans people.

if we are going with platitudes:

you don't have to put on a black sash to attack free speech.

This may be one objection, but if we say "this subject is taboo" or ban it, there will be another, and then another. It becomes a relentless attack on free speech.

it is a childish, unfunny ad. that is how ads are.

Annasopra

bodice ripper wrote: »

I understand that. I personally think it is a bit of a stretch for that particular ad.

As I said - that is just the response in After Hours - I could probably create a huge book of hate that has been generated as a response to this ad.

Annasopra

bodice ripper wrote: »

This may be one objection, but if we say "this subject is taboo" or ban it, there will be another, and then another. It becomes a relentless attack on free speech.

I don't have a problem with that where so called free speech attacks minorities or different groups.

eaglach

I must be completely missing the point. What exactly is offensive about this ad?

What I see is a type of betting scenario where you have to guess if someone was/is a man. Its a bit of a laugh and no one is being targeted negatively here.

If a similar ad where you had to bet if a man was gay or a woman was a lesbian and had stereotypical camp men or butch women, I don't think there would be much of a fuss, or any mention of the ad at all.

G.K.

Because trans women aren't men - WE ARE WOMEN! Implying that we aren't women or are lesser than other women is what is causing us offense.

It's not a laugh when it reinforces an outdated, bigoted sterotype.

Annasopra

eaglach wrote: »

I must be completely missing the point. What exactly is offensive about this ad?

1. Calling transgender women; men, horses, dogs. This is a refusal to acknowledge their gender identity and comparing them to animals.

2. Having some "spot the tranny" as game and thereby ridiculing trans women and dehumanising them as something to be laughed at.

3. The visual cues include cross dressers, the words mare and stallion, male toilets and some bloke waving a sausage around. With these visual clues they seem to be comparing trans people to horses, alluding to the penis or lack of (waving around a sausage) and also suggesting a problem around toilets.

Shakti

mango salsa wrote: »

I could probably create a huge book of hate that has been generated as a response to this ad.

I was actually thinking of doing that,

bodice ripper

mango salsa wrote: »

As I said - that is just the response in After Hours - I could probably create a huge book of hate that has been generated as a response to this ad.

don't be silly, it is not in response to the ad. you honestly think people are blank canvases for advertising to mold into bigots? Advertising is for selling things to people. It will AWLAYS do that first, before any other nefarious intents. It panders to what people think.

Do you think people are honestly seeing this ad and thinking "i hadn't thought about it before, but now this ad shows me that I should fear/hate transgender people. noted". These people were already in some way uncomfortable with something they did understand and or where raised to think it was wrong. The advertising is in response to them, not the other way around.

And that is sad. And that ad is ****ing vile. It's offensive to women in general/transgender people/women with self image issues/tall women/people involved in horse racing and anyone who appreciates well crafted jokes. Let's not forget the huge number of straight middle aged men who enjoy a few scoops and the bookies, who know well they are the target audience for this, who are sitting there thinking "**** me, don't drag me into this crap". I know I would be offended if I were them.

But you can't have groups who have a veto on what can be said. Especially if it is going down to the level of bad jokes in ads. Thin end of a goddawful wedge.

TL;DR
I disagree but completely empathise, and am sorry to have hijacked the thread. I am all for continuing in a new thread if anyone is arsed, its a subject that I think is very relevant to all branches of LGBT.

floggg

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

wonderfulname wrote: »

But I didn't say that did I? You should try actually reading what I posted instead of just lambasting an opinion we both disagree with.

Or how about you try actually reading what I wrote and see that I'm not lambasting an opinion you disagree with; I was simply asking you a question which you have sort of answered so thank you for that.

wonderfulname wrote: »

Take the piss out of anyone and everyone, as I've already said, just not for things they can't control, it's not at all a big oul PC mad position, it's just respectful.

bodice ripper - And what tone did you attribute to my post?

Although maybe I wasn't clear enough in my post.

Gays, lesbians and bisexuals can't control their sexuality
Tall and short people can't control their height
Ginger people can't control their hair colour (they can dye it, but they were still born with ginger hair)
Bald people can't control their baldness, short of getting a hair transplant or whatever
Whites, blacks, asians etc. can't control what race they are

You see what I mean? All of these categories of people are made fun of for things they can't control. I just want to know why transgendered people are different and shouldn't be made fun of.

I think there is a difference between laughing at gay cliches versus laughing at sexuality.

Ads about gay men loving glitter and madonna would irritate me but not be offensive. It would be a "humorous" reflection on certain characteristics. Modern Family relies on a lot of lazy cliches but it's one of the best shows of all time in my book.

If however there was an ad that mocked me just for being gay, then I'd be offended. If there was an ad where people laughed at a guy just for being gay - nothing more, nothing less, I'd be offended. It would imply it was an okay thing to do.

Or how about an ad inplying gay men werent real men, e.g. if Yorkie had a new ad with a tag line of "Not for girls or gays".
Or "Yorkie - for men and dykes only".

I think people would be offended, and rightly so.

Annasopra

bodice ripper wrote: »

don't be silly, it is not in response to the ad. you honestly think people are blank canvases for advertising to mold into bigots? Advertising is for selling things to people. It will AWLAYS do that first, before any other nefarious intents. It panders to what people think.

Yes I do believe that media in general can frame peoples perceptions of minority groups yes and that this can be done in a way that leads to bigotry and marginalisation.

This ad is basically making it ok to treat trans people as nonhuman objects to be mocked and laughed at.

I do believe that this ad has bought out quite a lot of hatred and bigotry.

I don't actually believe in so called free speech and I believe there does need to be restrictions.

And that is sad. And that ad is ****ing vile. It's offensive to women in general/transgender people/women with self image issues/tall women/people involved in horse racing and anyone who appreciates well crafted jokes. Let's not forget the huge number of straight middle aged men who enjoy a few scoops and the bookies, who know well they are the target audience for this, who are sitting there thinking "**** me, don't drag me into this crap". I know I would be offended if I were them.

But you can't have groups who have a veto on what can be said. Especially if it is going down to the level of bad jokes in ads. Thin end of a goddawful wedge.

On the one hand you are admitting it is vile and offensive - on the other you are saying free speech must be protected so that we can attack minorities. I have a huge huge problem with that. I don't actually believe in so called free speech and I believe there does need to be restrictions.

floggg

There are restrictions. Free speech is never absolute.

deirdre_dub

And the fun and the humour continues - trans media watch have received reports of incidents of violence associated with this ad

http://twitter.com/#!/TransMediaWatch/status/172626676709208064

Completely predictable, of course. And fun - such fun - such great hilarity.

:mad:

deirdre_dub

Let me be crystal clear where I stand on the "issue" of censorship and free speech.

I absolutely, unequivocaly and unapologetically stand on the side of censorship when it comes to child pornography. Why? Because child pornography is an act of violence, and encourages violence, against a vulnerable group.

For the same reason, I unapologetically stand on the side of censoring this ad. An ad that encourages the hunting down of members of a maligned group is INEVITABLY going to lead to violence against members of that group. And that is what has happened.

If you stand on the side of speech that is itself an act of violence, or that inevitably leads to violence, let us know. And if you are so dumb that you couldn't see this coming, let us know.

deirdre_dub

The ad has been suspended!

The fscking killjoys at the British Advertising Regulator have forced it off air.

http://www.teni.ie/news-post.aspx?contentid=398

This is a terrible day for free speech. The trans community should have just shut up and put up - put up with the humiliation and indeed the violence.

thelizardqueen

I never usually post in this forum but can't contain myself on this occasion - how the hell can it be a matter of opinion whether or not this ad is offensive? parading women around the place and asking men to pass judgement on whether they're 'stallions', 'mares' or 'dogs'?! ! Shockingly offensive to women and particularly transwomen.

Shakti

Paddy Power

apache

And thats one of the battles that i was talking about that needed to be fought. So thats good news.

Freiheit

As someone alluded to earlier I actually find society's sexualisation of women really offensive,a preoccupation with breasts and bikini's,really revolting. Attitudes towards women need to change although I'm amazed how many are happy to take it.

bodice ripper

Sorry, I am with free speech, and I don't believe that advertising should be the vehicle for social engineering.

and child porn is not the same because the participants aren't able to give consent.

jaffacakesyum

deirdre_dub wrote: »

No.

Suffice it to say that you've completely misinterpreted what I wrote. And I'm not going to spend time clarifying - I've more important things to do right now.

Good for you :rolleyes:

Nice to confirm that discussion on any trans-related thread isn't tolerated here. Needless to say I won't bother next time. I'm out

deirdre_dub

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Needless to say I won't bother next time. I'm out

I think that is a very very good idea. You took what I wrote about attitudes to suffering, and you somehow managed to see in what I wrote a censorship of people's opinions.

You painted me as someone who calls people inhuman for disagreeing with me FFS! I mean, COME ON!

deirdre_dub

bodice ripper wrote: »

I don't believe that advertising should be the vehicle for social engineering.

Um, advertising is nothing more than a vehicle for social engineering. Usually it engineers us into buying stuff, but it is also used to influence attitudes on social issues.

Just to be clear - you think marriage equality should stop advertising.

and child porn is not the same because the participants aren't able to give consent.

The trans person who may have been attacked as a result of this didn't give their consent either. But, of course, they are just a trans person, so their suffering doesn't matter. Indeed, their suffering is what the joke is all about.

Ha ha ha.

baby and crumble

Guys, keep it civil.

Pacifist Pigeon

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Um, advertising is nothing more than a vehicle for social engineering. Usually it engineers us into buying stuff, but it is also used to influence attitudes on social issues.

But this is the beauty of free speech. If LGBT people feel that there is homophobic/transphobic content in the media, then there's really nothing stopping them from making their own advertisements to make people aware of these issues to balance out the cards.

Personally I'd think this would have fair better way of attacking homophobia/transphobia than just taking people to court. Fight fire with fire, I say. I'm sure there's plenty of LGBT organisation who'd be willing to fund such advertisements. Heck, I'm sure there'd be people who'd be willing to do them for free.

Shakti

“The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house”
Audre Lorde