nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Is Mrs Doubtfire problematic?

[Deleted User]

It's on TV and it has me worried and afraid to laugh given what is, in reality, very serious subject matter.

The fact that a cis male is dressing as someone who identifies as a cis female is used in this film as a vehicle for comic relief. This is not funny because :

1 - cis males should not be dressing as a woman in such a flippant manner given the issues trans people face on a daily basis

2 - cis males should not project a gender insincerely

3 - when Mrs Doubtfire is "caught", it is for going pee pee while standing and her son reacts with horror and violence. This re-enforces the gender normative stereotype that women don't have a penis!

Given these issues, amongst many others I'm sure you will help me to determine, I do not believe Mrs Doubtfire should be broadcast any longer.

I would also suggest that we make more of an effort to reflect and search out potential issues before finding something funny. No one should be in that much of a hurry to laugh.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

El_Duderino 09

Potential-Monke wrote: »

"the cis isomer of stilbene"[/i]

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".

Sounds inoffensive and accurate to me. But you can never be too sure with the easily offended. They seem to be very cross about the word Cis.

El_Duderino 09

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Being a condescending numpty achieves nothing tbh.

Does childish name calling achieve much?

Relax. It's just a chat.

Deebles McBeebles

Chill out cis-ters.

Sittingpretty

This. Again?

Zzz z z z z z z zzz

Mrs Doubtfire will forever be remembered for the immortal line “Bastard broke my handbag” after she gave a common thief a good wallow for trying to steal her purse

Bonniedog

Advocates of transgender ideology seem to apply a peculiarly naïve dispensation to men deciding they are women.

It is forbidden to question their motives and anyone who points out the dangers (as in sexual assaults on actual females in trans toilets and changing rooms); opportunism (to win sporting competitions) or even to get better prison conditions! - is automatically some sort of reactionary Neanderthal.

The use of Cis to describe heterosexuals who just go about their business without making their sexuality the centrepiece of their existence is a means to imply that they are really hiding something nasty.

Same applies to most gay people I know by the way, They don't turn that into some sort of badge to be flaunted at every hand's turn, or a lever to promote themselves.

jimgoose

Bonniedog wrote: »

...The use of Cis to describe heterosexuals who just go about their business without making their sexuality the centrepiece of their existence is a means to imply that they are really hiding something nasty...

I wouldn't go that far, but I suppose a lot of people consider the term "cis" to be a makey-uppey word to describe something that was so innate and obvious for such a long time that it didn't need a word. But I guess the times are changing, and I myself am coming around to it's usefulness.

It does remind me a little bit of the way Italian-Americans find the word "Guinea" so offensive - it's like, "Hey, you can't call us that you sonofabitch - we ain't black!!" :pac::pac::pac:

nthclare

So is cis meant to be a word used for getting men back for being such bad bstrds.

So are straight men supposed to feel offended by the word cis...

I actually think there's more bisexuals than gay and straight people combined...

As they say don't knock it until you try it

Potential-Monke

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sounds inoffensive and accurate to me. But you can never be too sure with the easily offended. They seem to be very cross about the word Cis.

I'm sure some are, but I still don't see the need to use it, so I'm refusing to use it. I'm a straight male.

nthclare wrote: »

So is cis meant to be a word used for getting men back for being such bad bstrds.

So are straight men supposed to feel offended by the word cis...

I actually think there's more bisexuals than gay and straight people combined...

As they say don't knock it until you try it

I won't say straight men are supposed to feel offended. It just seems an unnecessary addition to something we already have a descriptor for, "straight".

And no doubt there are a few potential bisexuals that they would realise. But as you said, it's not for everyone, definitely not for me but I can knock it if I wanted. I can see why someone may enjoy it, but the pain/pleasure barrier is too great for me.

Plumbthedepths

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Does childish name calling achieve much?

Relax. It's just a chat.

When you reply in the manner that you do condescension is what comes across loud and clear. Numpty is a far more polite term than I would usually use.

El_Duderino 09

HorrorScope wrote: »

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.

Stall the ball. Who said I'm in favour of anything to do with violent rapists? For all you know the bloke next to you in the changing room is a violent rapist. But we don't assume they are a violent rapist unless they attempt a violent rape. But for whatever reason you're assuming trans people are more likely to be violent rapists.

Do you have any reasons for making that assumption that a trans person is a violent rapist over the person next to you in the changing room?

El_Duderino 09

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

When you reply in the manner that you do condescension is what comes across loud and clear. Numpty is a far more polite term than I would usually use.

OK. We're not getting any where, are we?

nthclare

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I'm sure some are, but I still don't see the need to use it, so I'm refusing to use it. I'm a straight male.

I won't say straight men are supposed to feel offended. It just seems an unnecessary addition to something we already have a descriptor for, "straight".

And no doubt there are a few potential bisexuals that they would realise. But as you said, it's not for everyone, definitely not for me but I can knock it if I wanted. I can see why someone may enjoy it, but the pain/pleasure barrier is too great for me.

Obviously you've tried it then

HorrorScope

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Stall the ball. Who said I'm in favour of anything to do with violent rapists? For all you know the bloke next to you in the changing room is a violent rapist. But we don't assume they are a violent rapist unless they attempt a violent rape. But for whatever reason you're assuming trans people are more likely to be violent rapists.

Do you have any reasons for making that assumption that a trans person is a violent rapist over the person next to you in the changing room?

You are twisting what I said now - nowhere have I said anything about assuming trans people are all violent rapists. My point, if you read it again, is that trans identity can be hijacked by such people, and if we allow this unchecked mixed access to changing rooms, then there are going to be people who will exploit it for very sinister reasons. We are safer not allowing it full stop, no matter how hurt some peoples "feelings" get.

Potential-Monke

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do you have any reasons for making that assumption that a trans person is a violent rapist over the person next to you in the changing room?

I think you're taking it up wrong. Previously, and in the interest of prevention, male and female toilets were separate. Now, we're allowing both sexes to mix and it will most likely lead to this kind of situation. What the poster was getting at is there is now nothing to stop someone who is a violent male rapist to pretend/identify as female in order to gain access to areas where women will be naked. We can't say no, because it's offensive to say no, so we're just letting it happen.

Separate sex toilets will be a thing of the past soon. It will be 1 big room with 20 stalls. Changing rooms will have to evolve into unisex but separate stalls, like most water parks in Ireland.

Bonniedog

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

you're assuming trans people are more likely to be violent rapists.

I wouldn't assume that.

However, in a world where there are rightly strict guidelines regarding the safety of people from sexual abuse, the criteria for admitting biological males to places where females are at their most vulnerable need to be pretty strict.

Confined to those of the medical profession would be a good start.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

I’ve already provided a link which did exactly that. While gay men in male dressing rooms are not a threat, males in female or mixed dressing rooms are a threat, to women.

El_Duderino 09

Bonniedog wrote: »

The use of Cis to describe heterosexuals who just go about their business without making their sexuality the centrepiece of their existence is a means to imply that they are really hiding something nasty.

I've absolutely no idea where you would get that impression from. By the sound of it you're ignoring all the people who use it use it for what it is (a shorthand to describe people who's gender and sex align and their sexual orientation aligns with Social norms) and are waiting for someone to use it as a derogatory term so they can get offended.

The term Cis arose in this thread because it was about Mrs Doubtfire (not strictly transgenderism). It doesn't really arise in normal life unless discussing trans issues which, doesn't really happen often in my life.

I can't even force myself to be offended by the term Cis. It just isn't offensive. I wonder are the people who are so sensitive to the term Cis are equally accommodating to other people's sensitivity to pronouns (joke. I know they're not)

Franz Von Peppercorn II

nthclare wrote: »

So is cis meant to be a word used for getting men back for being such bad bstrds.

So are straight men supposed to feel offended by the word cis...

I actually think there's more bisexuals than gay and straight people combined...

As they say don't knock it until you try it

Nothing to do with gay or straight. Cis is the opposite of trans. A gay male is cis.

El_Duderino 09

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

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

That's grand. I'd propose more cubicles in changing areas like the swimming pool i mentioned earlier. That way they can be communal to save space. Seems perfectly easy and doable in most cases.

magic_murph

Deleted User wrote: »

It's on TV and it has me worried and afraid to laugh given what is, in reality, very serious subject matter.

The fact that a cis male is dressing as someone who identifies as a cis female is used in this film as a vehicle for comic relief. This is not funny because :

1 - cis males should not be dressing as a woman in such a flippant manner given the issues trans people face on a daily basis

2 - cis males should not project a gender insincerely

3 - when Mrs Doubtfire is "caught", it is for going pee pee while standing and her son reacts with horror and violence. This re-enforces the gender normative stereotype that women don't have a penis!

Given these issues, amongst many others I'm sure you will help me to determine, I do not believe Mrs Doubtfire should be broadcast any longer.

I would also suggest that we make more of an effort to reflect and search out potential issues before finding something funny. No one should be in that much of a hurry to laugh.

Kids Movie, fictional characters. Nothing to see here.
You have too much time on your hands to worry about the small thing.
Get a Hobby.

jimgoose

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

...what it is (a shorthand to describe people who's gender and sex align and their sexual orientation aligns with Social norms)...

Is that so? I didn't know the term "cis" included that as well.

Plumbthedepths

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

OK. We're not getting any where, are we?

Nope, because your posting behaviour is quite transparent. Take care.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's grand. I'd propose more cubicles in changing areas like the swimming pool i mentioned earlier. That way they can be communal to save space. Seems perfectly easy and doable in most cases.

What’s your feeling on the stats I linked to?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

jimgoose wrote: »

Is that so? I didn't know the term "cis" included that as well.

It doesn’t. Nothing to do with sexual orientation.

El_Duderino 09

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.

No, no. As I said in the post you quoted, it ALSO means straight alongside some other things such as gender and sex being in alignment.

There wasn't a word which covered all those things so they invented one for the sake of brevity and clarity. It's jot something to worry about. Iran just language moving along and making new words to describe new concepts as they become discussed more commonly. Totally standard stuff.

El_Duderino 09

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Nope, because your posting behaviour is quite transparent. Take care.

OK. Yours was spot on and got your point across clearly, whatever it was. Take care.

Sittingpretty

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I've absolutely no idea where you would get that impression from. By the sound of it you're ignoring all the people who use it use it for what it is (a shorthand to describe people who's gender and sex align and their sexual orientation aligns with Social norms) and are waiting for someone to use it as a derogatory term so they can get offended.

The term Cis arose in this thread because it was about Mrs Doubtfire (not strictly transgenderism). It doesn't really arise in normal life unless discussing trans issues which, doesn't really happen often in my life.

I can't even force myself to be offended by the term Cis. It just isn't offensive. I wonder are the people who are so sensitive to the term Cis are equally accommodating to other people's sensitivity to pronouns (joke. I know they're not)

It isn’t offensive. It’s unnecessary.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No, no. As I said in the post you quoted, it ALSO means straight alongside some other things such as gender and sex being in alignment.

There wasn't a word which covered all those things so they invented one for the sake of brevity and clarity. It's jot something to worry about. Iran just language moving along and making new words to describe new concepts as they become discussed more commonly. Totally standard stuff.

It’s literally nothing to do with sexual orientation. It’s the opposite of trans.

You seem to be avoiding the stats I linked to.

El_Duderino 09

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Nothing to do with gay or straight. Cis is the opposite of trans. A gay male is cis.

Actually you're right on that. It's not to do with sexual orientation.

leahyl

"It was the drink that killed him"

"Oh how awful, he was an alcoholic"

"No, he was hit by a guinness truck"

:D:D