Is Mrs Doubtfire problematic?

Stevieluvsye · 22-08-2019 02:14PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You've been shouted down? That's a bit... precious, isn't it?

Ps have I just been shouted down by you too? Maybe could we both be a little less precious and not assume we've been shouted down when someone doesn't just agree with you and end the conversation?

No, i'm in no way precious, i provided you with an accurate statement of my OH and what the consequenses would be of swinging balls in ladies CR and you said "ah sure the same was said about the gays"

Stevieluvsye · 22-08-2019 02:14PM

jimgoose wrote: »

The difficulties that present with Mrs. Doubtfire have less to do with transgender matters and more to do with the notion of a recently-divorced man disguising himself as an elderly Scottish nanny and duping his ex-wife into hiring him so he can have access to the children despite a court order.

How dare you come here and post something sensible

jimgoose · 22-08-2019 02:16PM

Deleted User wrote: »

...This re-enforces the gender normative stereotype that women don't have a penis!

There you have it, the eagle has landed, folks - the notion that women don't have penises (penii??) is now an offensive stereotype. :pac::pac::pac:

Plumbthedepths · 22-08-2019 02:17PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah I think it makes sense to use a new term to discuss a new issue. Otherwise when you repurpose a word you bring baggage with it. If you're upset by the term Cis then I'd like to hear your reasons.

The term is in usage anyway whether you and the morons you chat with, like it or not.

Not upset at all, but if some gob****e calls me a cis male I correct the clown and tell them I'm male end of. I fully accept the term is in usage by a small minority for a pathetic reason, absolutely no requirement on me to accept said term. Likewise I don't accept some lad with a hairy set has the right to use female facilities because he identifies as a 'trans woman' . You can see the result of that accomodating bull**** in Canada at the moment.

Will I Am Not · 22-08-2019 02:19PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It will be an interesting question if it ever happens. I imagine women's changing rooms have more cubicles than men's but that's probably beside the point.

It's probably a big pearl clutching moment until it actually happens. Ask men 50 years ago how they felt about having gays in the changing room with them and you can imagine the outrage at the idea. Then it happens and absolutely nothing bad occurs and everyone forgets they ever had a big problem with it.

Rinse and repeat with repeat with other issues.

That’s a bit of a dumb comparison. Even 50 years ago there were gays in changing rooms, it’s not like they flounce in swinging their mickey around saying “ooooh hello sailor” :rolleyes:

El_Duderino 09 · 22-08-2019 02:20PM

HorrorScope wrote: »

Yeah sure what could go wrong allowing biological males access to a space with naked females? It's not like any of them at all would have sinister motives and lie about being "female" just to get in, no way...

They could rape them. So could a gay man rape you or look at your balls next time you're in the changing room. So could a gay woman look at your Mrs genitals in the gym. Oh my God, a straight woman could look at your Mrs genitals in the changing room.

The swimming pool I use has a communal changing area for adults and children with individual changing cubicles. Not a big problem as far as I can see. Maybe you wouldn't be happy with your wife and daughter in a similar changing area. But as far as I can see its absolutely grand.

I'd probably just advocate for more changing cubicles and not worry about it again.

What would you do?

Will I Am Not · 22-08-2019 02:23PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

They could rape them. So could a gay man rape you or look at your balls next time you're in the changing room. So could a gay woman look at your Mrs genitals in the gym. Oh my God, a straight woman could look at your Mrs genitals in the changing room.

The swimming pool I use has a communal changing area for adults and children with individual changing cubicles. Not a big problem as far as I can see. Maybe you wouldn't be happy with your wife and daughter in a similar changing area. But as far as I can see its absolutely grand.

I'd probably just advocate for more changing cubicles and not worry about it again.

What would you do?

Is it just communal or does it have an option?

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 22-08-2019 02:24PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

They could rape them. So could a gay man rape you or look at your balls next time you're in the changing room. So could a gay woman look at your Mrs genitals in the gym. Oh my God, a straight woman could look at your Mrs genitals in the changing room.

The swimming pool I use has a communal changing area for adults and children with individual changing cubicles. Not a big problem as far as I can see. Maybe you wouldn't be happy with your wife and daughter in a similar changing area. But as far as I can see its absolutely grand.

I'd probably just advocate for more changing cubicles and not worry about it again.

What would you do?

Actually mixed changing rooms are considerably more dangerous for women.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

HorrorScope · 22-08-2019 02:26PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

They could rape them. So could a gay man rape you or look at your balls next time you're in the changing room. So could a gay woman look at your Mrs genitals in the gym. Oh my God, a straight woman could look at your Mrs genitals in the changing room.

Bit of a stupid comparison don't you think - a fella even trying something like that in a mens changing room is going to get himself profoundly kicked up and down the room. What happens when the same guy is in a womens changing room and tries that? Not exactly going to get the same level of resistance is he? There is also a difference between same sex seeing each other naked, and allowing both sexes to share the same space (under the guise of one of them pretending not to be the sex they are).

El_Duderino 09 · 22-08-2019 02:26PM

Will I Am Not wrote: »

That’s a bit of a dumb comparison. Even 50 years ago there were gays in changing rooms, it’s not like they flounce in swinging their mickey around saying “ooooh hello sailor” :rolleyes:

Of course there were gays in changing rooms. What's dumb is that people would have gotten their knickers in a twist if they KNEW there were gays in the changing room with them.

Remember all the "backs to the wall" jokes - implication being that gay men might rape you at any moments. I think it do strayed how people forget that there were ever afraid of the "new" thing happening when it becomes normal and nothing bad happens.

Stevieluvsye · 22-08-2019 02:28PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

They could rape them. So could a gay man rape you or look at your balls next time you're in the changing room. So could a gay woman look at your Mrs genitals in the gym. Oh my God, a straight woman could look at your Mrs genitals in the changing room.

The swimming pool I use has a communal changing area for adults and children with individual changing cubicles. Not a big problem as far as I can see. Maybe you wouldn't be happy with your wife and daughter in a similar changing area. But as far as I can see its absolutely grand.

I'd probably just advocate for more changing cubicles and not worry about it again.

What would you do?

That just seems wrong on so many levels

CroatoanCat · 22-08-2019 02:28PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It will be an interesting question if it ever happens. I imagine women's changing rooms have more cubicles than men's but that's probably beside the point.

It's probably a big pearl clutching moment until it actually happens. Ask men 50 years ago how they felt about having gays in the changing room with them and you can imagine the outrage at the idea. Then it happens and absolutely nothing bad occurs and everyone forgets they ever had a big problem with it.

Rinse and repeat with repeat with other issues.

Duderino, can you not see the vast difference between the validity of men (or, indeed, women) feeling uncomfortable at having to share intimate spaces with a subcategory of their own sex, and women's (or, indeed, men's) discomfort at having to share intimate spaces with persons of the opposite sex (biological sex being immutable and unalterable notwithstanding any ideological/political/religious beliefs in such indefinable and ephemeral concepts as a gendered soul/identity)?

It is not pearl-clutching for women to wish to retain some spaces that are accessible only to persons without penises. And vice versa, of course, although all reasonable people will acknowledge that female humans are more vulnerable in such scenarios because of certain biological realities.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 22-08-2019 02:29PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Of course there were gays in changing rooms. What's dumb is that people would have gotten their knickers in a twist if they KNEW there were gays in the changing room with them.

Remember all the "backs to the wall" jokes - implication being that gay men might rape you at any moments. I think it do strayed how people forget that there were ever afraid of the "new" thing happening when it becomes normal and nothing bad happens.

Sometimes the new thing isn’t the same as the old thing even though there are superficial similarities.

Will I Am Not · 22-08-2019 02:30PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Of course there were gays in changing rooms. What's dumb is that people would have gotten their knickers in a twist if they KNEW there were gays in the changing room with them.

Remember all the "backs to the wall" jokes - implication being that gay men might rape you at any moments. I think it do strayed how people forget that there were ever afraid of the "new" thing happening when it becomes normal and nothing bad happens.

They were jokes. In a time where people joked like that.

El_Duderino 09 · 22-08-2019 02:34PM

HorrorScope wrote: »

Bit of a stupid comparison don't you think - a fella even trying something like that in a mens changing room is going to get himself profoundly kicked up and down the room. What happens when the same guy is in a womens changing room and tries that? Not exactly going to get the same level of resistance is he? There is also a difference between same sex seeing each other naked, and allowing both sexes to share the same space (under the guise of one of them pretending not to be the sex they are).

You think any straight man can overpower any gay man one on one and profoundly kick them up and down the room? I'm sure lots of gay men could overpower lots of straight man. But it doesn't tend to arise so we don't tend to worry about it.

More to the point though is that a violent rapist doesn't need to be gay or straight it transgender. They just need to be a violent rapist.

Transgender isn't exactly an inconspicuous disguise for committing an opportunistic sexual assault in a public place. Gyms have CCTV and people are likely to notice a transgender person.

Bonniedog · 22-08-2019 02:35PM

CrankyHaus wrote: »

The obvious answer is that if you control the language used you can control the debate. There's nothing new about this either, George Orwell would have recognised the dynamic, in fact its a large part of what he wrote about.

Indeed.

And the subtext to what Orwell was talking about was the failure of totalitarians to change the actual world, so they just changed the way of describing it.

Modern totalitarians have given up believing in socialism and master races and such like, but still like the idea of controlling the way other people behave and think.

HorrorScope · 22-08-2019 02:42PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

More to the point though is that a violent rapist doesn't need to be gay or straight it transgender. They just need to be a violent rapist.

Transgender isn't exactly an inconspicuous disguise for committing an opportunistic sexual assault in a public place. Gyms have CCTV and people are likely to notice a transgender person.

So why would you support allowing a violent rapist to pretend he's a female and get access to such a space? You don't have a problem with that at all? Safety comes first and if that means those spaces are restricted to biological sex only then so be it - the "feelings" of trans people are irrelevant in comparison to that, and the risk of this progressive path is simply not worth it.

El_Duderino 09 · 22-08-2019 02:42PM

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

That just seems wrong on so many levels

Expand on that, if you will.

And stop shouting me down. (Joke)

Stevieluvsye · 22-08-2019 02:44PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Expand on that, if you will.

And stop shouting me down. (Joke)

Personally i don't feel like young girls should be exposed to male genitalia. And believe me, the majority of mothers out there with young kids would feel the exact same

GooglePlus · 22-08-2019 02:45PM

I hope the world ends soon, this is getting out of hand now.

We had a good run.

Potential-Monke · 22-08-2019 02:45PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

But Cis doesn't just mean male or female. It means more than that. It means heterosexual which isn't covered by male or female.

Gender and sex in alignment and heterosexual sexual orientation, combined in a new term. I can't help thinking the people who are cross about the term Cis, would be cross about any term.

So, they invented the word cis to replace the word straight?

And to clarify, i'm not cross about the word, I just don't believe it's necessary.

TheBoyConor · 22-08-2019 02:46PM

First person to go crying to a mod about this is a wanker

What is they don't have a penis? Do they still have the right to be called a wanker if they want to?

Panrich · 22-08-2019 02:46PM

Potential-Monke wrote: »

So, they invented the word cis to replace the word straight?

And to clarify, i'm not cross about the word, I just don't believe it's necessary.

And is it pronounced cis as in kiss or cis as in sissy? Is it an acronym?

TheBoyConor · 22-08-2019 02:47PM

First person to go crying to a mod about this is a wanker

What is they don't have a penis? Do they still have the right to be called a wanker if they want to?

HorrorScope · 22-08-2019 02:47PM

TheBoyConor wrote: »

What is they don't have a penis? Do they still have the right to be called a wanker if they want to?

What's the female version of wanker, devils doorbell ringer?

El_Duderino 09 · 22-08-2019 02:50PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Not upset at all, but if some gob****e calls me a cis male I correct the clown and tell them I'm male end of. I fully accept the term is in usage by a small minority for a pathetic reason, absolutely no requirement on me to accept said term. Likewise I don't accept some lad with a hairy set has the right to use female facilities because he identifies as a 'trans woman' . You can see the result of that accomodating bull**** in Canada at the moment.

Cool the jets. You'll give yourself a coronary getting that worked up. You seem to be really looking forward to someone, some day calling you a Cis man so you can tell them all about your political stance.

It could be worse, nobody might ever call you a Cis man and you might have to work yourself up in your own mind

Plumbthedepths · 22-08-2019 02:57PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Cool the jets. You'll give yourself a coronary getting that worked up. You seem to be really looking forward to someone, some day calling you a Cis man so you can tell them all about your political stance.

It could be worse, nobody might ever call you a Cis man and you might have to work yourself up in your own mind

Being a condescending numpty achieves nothing tbh.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 22-08-2019 02:57PM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Actually mixed changing rooms are considerably more dangerous for women.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

That’s quite worrying.

Potential-Monke · 22-08-2019 02:58PM

Panrich wrote: »

And is it pronounced cis as in kiss or cis as in sissy? Is it an acronym?

Cis as in sissy.

Google definition of cis:

denoting or relating to a molecular structure in which two particular atoms or groups lie on the same side of a given plane in the molecule, in particular denoting an isomer in which substituents at opposite ends of a carbon–carbon double bond are on the same side of the bond.
"the cis isomer of stilbene"

But if we take it under the terms of this thread, after a bit more Googling:

Cisgender has its origin in the Latin-derived prefix cis-, meaning "on this side of", which is the opposite of trans-, meaning "across from" or "on the other side of".

El_Duderino 09 · 22-08-2019 03:03PM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Sometimes the new thing isn’t the same as the old thing even though there are superficial similarities.

Not the same - analogous. I set out the ways in which they're analogous. If you want you could set out why it's not a good analogy.

Is Mrs Doubtfire problematic?

Comments