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

Bonniedog

Sittingpretty wrote: »

It isn’t offensive. It’s unnecessary.

But crucial to ideological fanatics who enjoy categorising people more than a South African Pass compiler in 1948, or a Victorian entomologist

Everyone has to be blac/white/gay/cis/trans/otherbodied/able bodied and so on.

Forgetting of course that the origins of this mania to tag people originated with the people who brought you death camps, gulags, Apartheid and women dressed as curtains.

No thank you, all the same.

El_Duderino 09

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

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

Be fair, it was a news article which contained some stats. It wasn't a research paper. But it's relevant all the same. They suggest that you're 1/3 as likely to be assaulted in the gym or corridor or on the leisure centre pitch as in the changing room.

My Mrs works with offenders in the community including sexual and violent offenders. She says they all go to the community gym as it's the cheapest around. And community Gyms tend to have more communal changing areas. So she won't go to the community gym with the communal changing areas because she knows most sexual offenders go there because they're the Gyms they can afford.

Id say its more Complicated than the news article suggests. For example if you looked at gym patrons with sexual criminal history, they're probably clustered in cheaper gyms (various reasons) Communal changing areas are also clustered in cheaper Gyms - because it's a cheaper arrangement.

gormdubhgorm

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Even reading that word, it annoys me. Cis. I'm not a cis male. I'm a male. Don't give me pronouns that I don't want/need.

I really don't get it myself either.

I believe Russia had a summit about this CIS craic when Boris Yeltsin was president ?

Plus I believe Boris and Mrs Doubtfire were great friends.

As this wikileaks picture proves beyond doubt-fire....

gormdubhgorm

So if a cis person has a sister in law is the correct term 'cistern-in-law' ?

It's a minefield!

ILoveYourVibes

No. Its a harmless film with no malice intended

Elemonator

I don’t think people need you to get offended on their behalf.

If you’re that sensitive, you won’t get very far in life.

Rubberchikken

the world is made up of male and female.

thats it imo.

god this crap makes me tired.

El_Duderino 09

Elemonator wrote: »

I don’t think people need you to get offended on their behalf.

If you’re that sensitive, you won’t get very far in life.

Yeah, I'd agree. Lots of offence being taken without any being offered. Of course the only people who have been offended in this thread are the people offended by the term "Cis".

One had the neck to be cross about the word Cis and called other people snowflakes in the same post, if you can believe it!

I think only the OP expressed offence to the film and I think we're all in agreement that they were just doing it for a reaction. So that leaves only people who got cross at the mere idea that some people might hold the view the OP pretended to hold. They exaggerated what happens when you don't agree with transgenderism, pretended they're in a persecuted minority when they're clearly in the overwhelming majority, claimed to be shouted down when people don't simply agree with them and end the conversation.

Some people are very invested in making themselves out to be oppressed and in this thread it wasn't the transgender people.

El_Duderino 09

Rubberchikken wrote: »

the world is made up of male and female.

That's how I was born. One of those binary alternatives. But how can you discount the possibility that other people people are born differently. I was born heterosexual. I can't discount the possibility that other people were born differently to me.

How do you discount the possibility that other people are not simply male and female?

FTA69

Isn’t it gas that some of these lunatics will for example raise some Victorian comedy show where fellas are in dresses as “a historic example of genderfluidity” and all that crap but a few lads dressing up in drag for a laugh on a stag do are binned off as horrible homophobes?

I am honestly sick to me back bollix of hearing about this stuff. The planet is on fire like.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah, I'd agree. Lots of offence being taken without any being offered. Of course the only people who have been offended in this thread are the people offended by the term "Cis".

One had the neck to be cross about the word Cis and called other people snowflakes in the same post, if you can believe it!

I think only the OP expressed offence to the film and I think we're all in agreement that they were just doing it for a reaction. So that leaves only people who got cross at the mere idea that some people might hold the view the OP pretended to hold. They exaggerated what happens when you don't agree with transgenderism, pretended they're in a persecuted minority when they're clearly in the overwhelming majority, claimed to be shouted down when people don't simply agree with them and end the conversation.

Some people are very invested in making themselves out to be oppressed and in this thread it wasn't the transgender people.

Can you point out where people says they were in a “persecuted minority” when they didn’t like the term cis.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's how I was born. One of those binary alternatives. But how can you discount the possibility that other people people are born differently. I was born heterosexual. I can't discount the possibility that other people were born differently to me.

How do you discount the possibility that other people are not simply male and female?

It would need more science than “how can you discount”. Interesting phenomenon here - you don’t really understand the ideology you are defending but you defend it anyway. You didn’t know what cis meant for most of the thread.

What’s the psychological need here - to be on the right side of history. To be “moral”.

I wouldn’t hitch my wagon to the self identified trans movement as there’s going to be a fairly justified backlash eventually.

El_Duderino 09

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Can you point out where people says they were in a “persecuted minority” when they didn’t like the term cis.

No. I was paraphrasing. They managed to pretend the attitude expressed by the OP (and they were doing parody) is mainstream. They said you get imprisoned for not agreeing with transgenderism. They said you can't criticise transgenderism. They compared it to George Orwell's 1984.

El_Duderino 09

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

It would need more science than “how can you discount”. Interesting phenomenon here - you don’t really understand the ideology you are defending but you defend it anyway. You didn’t know what cis meant for most of the thread.

What’s the psychological need here - to be on the right side of history. To be “moral”
I wouldn’t hitch my wagon to the self identified trans movement as there’s going to be a fairly justified backlash eventually.

No no. I asked the question. As a dedicated adherent to the scientific method you'll need more science than the assertion there are ONLY male and female and transgenderism doesn't exist. That's what I was responding to.

Funny how you missed that and took issue with me asking how they back up their assertion.

El_Duderino 09

FTA69 wrote: »

Isn’t it gas that some of these lunatics will for example raise some Victorian comedy show where fellas are in dresses as “a historic example of genderfluidity” and all that crap but a few lads dressing up in drag for a laugh on a stag do are binned off as horrible homophobes?

I am honestly sick to me back bollix of hearing about this stuff. The planet is on fire like.

Sure. None of the lunatics have said that in this thread though. There were lots of "lunatics", as you light put it, getting upset about the term Cis and nobody making the point you're cross about.

That's an interesting point isn't it? The fact that people are winding each other up and egging each other on with things that nobody has actually said in this thread in earnest.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No. I was paraphrasing. They managed to pretend the attitude expressed by the OP (and they were doing parody) is mainstream. They said you get imprisoned for not agreeing with transgenderism. They said you can't criticise transgenderism. They compared it to George Orwell's 1984.

It’s not Orwellian.

I don’t think that Orwell would get away with Smith exiting room 101 believing that men are women so he went with 2+2 = 5.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's an interesting point isn't it? The fact that people are winding each other up and egging each other on with things that nobody has actually said in this thread in earnest.

?

You are literally doing that. You even admitted you were paraphrasing people who don’t like the term cis as seeing themselves as a “persecuted minority” which isn’t paraphrasing so much as total misrepresentation.

Suckit

Deleted User wrote: »

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!

*his son

El_Duderino 09

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

?

You are literally doing that. You even admitted you were paraphrasing people who don’t like the term cis as seeing themselves as a “persecuted minority” which isn’t paraphrasing so much as total misrepresentation.

Not really though. People pretending you get imprisoned for disagreeing with transgenderism, then claiming it's coming soon. It's persecution fantasy. It's very interesting to observe.

In this whole thread, how many posters have agreed that the film is a problem? I didn't see any but I haven't read the whole thread. All I've seen is unanimous agreement that the film is not a problem. I've seen loads of posters pretend that there are loads of people arguing the contrary. If it was a commonly held opinion, wouldn't someone have expressed it in the thread do far?

Instead of concluding that it's probably not a widely held opinion, they convince themselves it's a big problem. That's a fascinating aspect of human behaviour, to invent enemies

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

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!

Sittingpretty

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

This is not a stereotype. This is a biological fact. Women do not have a penis.

I’m at a loss as to what fog I’m in where this is apparently now a debatable point.

El_Duderino 09

Sittingpretty wrote: »

This is not a stereotype. This is a biological fact. Women do not have a penis.

I’m at a loss as to what fog I’m in where this is apparently now a debatable point.

Tony EH wrote: »

Just so you know, the opening post seems to have been ironic.

Sittingpretty

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Just so you know, the opening post seems to have been ironic.

In which case, I’ve fallen for it hook, line and sinker yet AGAIN

[Deleted User]

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Just so you know, the opening post seems to have been ironic.

Ironic?

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ironic?

Yeah. Exactly like loads of posters have been saying over the 20 pages of this thread.

Are you saying you seriously hold the opinions expressed in the OP?

[Deleted User]

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Just so you know, the opening post seems to have been ironic.

NHS-backed safer sex guide for women who sleep with women will leave many readers scratching their heads over its advice to wear a condom, ‘if you or your partner has a penis’.
The mind-boggling advice comes in a booklet produced by LGBT Youth Scotland in a section on ‘Contraception and safer sex tools’.

You can find the booket when you google lgbt youth women booklet. It's for lesbians. Apparently they can have a penis now.
Plenty of "ladydick" nonsense out there as well

spurious

If this thread brings any new viewers to 'Some like it hot', I'm happy. Great film, way ahead of its time.

[Deleted User]

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah. Exactly like loads of posters have been saying over the 20 pages of this thread.

Are you saying you seriously hold the opinions expressed in the OP?

I can honestly say all those questions occured to me as being quite pertinent when I watched the film the last night.

I would also say that who delivers the views matters little, what matters is the validity of them. If you disagree with the concept of a woman having a penis, or trans being a non-laughing matter, then that is up to you. But I suggest you have a good think about where you stand.

Tony EH

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Just so you know, the opening post seems to have been ironic.

If it's an attempt at satire, it's failed, because it's waaay too subtle. In the face of very real nonsensical gibberish that passes for thought these days, such a post can be seen as a real position.

Satire has to have an element of the obvious for it to be truly funny, or else one risks the danger of being taken seriously.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Not really though. People pretending you get imprisoned for disagreeing with transgenderism, then claiming it's coming soon. It's persecution fantasy. It's very interesting to observe.

Who did that?

Instead of concluding that it's probably not a widely held opinion, they convince themselves it's a big problem. That's a fascinating aspect of human behaviour, to invent enemies

Belief in trans and self Id isn’t widely held. It is held by elites though.