Advertisement

loader

Talk

Advanced search

So twitter is up in arms about 'transphobia'. Do you find this offensive?

(43 Posts)
HornyTortoise Sun 05-Nov-17 10:23:32

pbs.twimg.com/media/DNtiqt-WkAMTtai?format=jpg&name=medium

I certainly do, but in a different way to them.

They reckon its transphobic and making a joke out of trans people. I see it as the business accepting that Jenner is actually a w2oman now, so surely this sis about as 'inclusive' as it gets?

Where I think its kind of offensive to have 2 male loos, which is what this is saying really. Also think having the 'normal' male one mixed with disabled is pretty wrong, what if a disabled person was female? Having a male person on a female loo door is just silly, and if they want to be inclusive, they should really just make it all unisex.

But yeah, apparently wherever this is, that has tried their very best to be trans-inclusive...is transphobic. The word means nothing these days does it..

IfYouGoDownToTheWoodsToday Sun 05-Nov-17 10:26:20

Agree with you!

Wherever it is, I wouldn’t ever be visiting the establishment again.

shivermytimbers Sun 05-Nov-17 10:27:20

Neither of those doors represent me as a woman. That makes me feel as though there is no room for women, just lots of room for different types of men.

HornyTortoise Sun 05-Nov-17 10:49:38

I thought it might be TGI fridays, as they tend to have photos of celebs on the doors. In my local one, I am represented my Marilyn Monroe, which makes me feel pretty good grin

pisacake Sun 05-Nov-17 12:54:00

Yes it's saying 'if you're a bloke in a dress use this door, if you're a bloke in shorts use this door, women you can fuck off'

Transphobic my arse.

Stupid fuckers.

ladyballs Sun 05-Nov-17 17:07:10

Ugh

newtlover Sun 05-Nov-17 17:11:26

yes, this is the oppoisite of transphobic, this is buying into transactivism, to the point that women don't have a toilet they can use!
If transactivists find this transphobic, I'd like to know exacrtly why.

Datun Sun 05-Nov-17 17:14:24

If transactivists find this transphobic, I'd like to know exacrtly why.

Lol! Of course!! They think it’s taking the piss. You have to ask why exactly. They can only conclude it’s taking the piss if they disbelieve their own rhetoric.

Caspiana Sun 05-Nov-17 17:22:46

Sorry for the stupid question but is that Bruce Jenner on the male toilet?

Gingernaut Sun 05-Nov-17 17:24:59

Yes.

ArcheryAnnie Sun 05-Nov-17 17:28:56

I'd look at those two doors as saying "Males - everything is yours! Go where you want. Females - we don't give a shit about you or your safety or comfort."

Fekko Sun 05-Nov-17 17:32:18

I possibly wouldn't recognise the photo on the men's room door but think 'humph - men all sporty, women all sexy underwear...' still better than those loathsome unisex loos.

Sentimentallentil Sun 05-Nov-17 17:33:47

Well that would be easy, if I was wearing trousers I’d go in the Bruce Jenner door and if I was wearing my nice heels and a blow dry I’d go in the Caitlyn one.
hmm

OlennasWimple Sun 05-Nov-17 17:34:18

"Men - be a sporting achiever!"

"Women - get your kit off!"

Sentimentallentil Sun 05-Nov-17 17:47:03

Is there a link to the twitter thread where people are saying it’s transphobic

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Sun 05-Nov-17 17:52:36

This article explains why it is considered transphobic

amp.dailydot.com/irl/texas-restaurant-caitlyn-jenner-bathrooms/

nooka Sun 05-Nov-17 17:54:38

I think it's actually quite thought provoking, which may well be why the transactivists are so unhappy about it. Whether the people who put the pictures on their loo doors are buying into the trans ideology or rejecting it is difficult to tell.

I assume the more rabid TRAs feel that Jenner in all incarnations/clothes should be allowed into the women's loo as s/he' has always felt female. So therefore having a picture of Bruce on the men's loo door is transphobic because it implies that Jenner at some point was male and should not have been allowed into the ladies.

I think that this picture could be a) taking the piss, b) making a thoughtful point or c) trying to be inclusive. I'd like to think it was b, but who knows really.

newtlover Sun 05-Nov-17 18:02:03

yes, that's it apparently-
BOTH pictures show 'a woman' so they shouldn't be used to demarcate
also, apparently, it's transphobic to display a picture of a transwoman looking very 'feminine' because that holds transwomen to an impossibly high standard of femininity.
You couldn't make it up.

SelmaAndJubjub Sun 05-Nov-17 18:16:24

Twitter is confused. If Jenner has always really been a woman - as TRAs contend - then how could it be transphobic to show him as his younger self? By TRA logic, the only people who ought to be upset here are the bar's male patrons as the photos indicate that both toilets are for women.

Sentimentallentil Sun 05-Nov-17 18:25:08

So the argument is that Jenner has always been a woman????
Eh? confused can someone please explain this to me?

pisacake Sun 05-Nov-17 18:38:07

Jenner himself doesn't actually believe that, and says that his career as Bruce should be reported using 'Bruce' and 'he'.

So that's even more reason why putting Bruce on the men's door is not offensive to transpeople.

However the TRAs insist that not only were they 'women from birth', even if they only decided to change last week, but that the name never happened if the first place. So they are objecting on his behalf, even though he doesn't think that way.

This is the line of thought that leads to fuckwitter like this:

overland.org.au/2017/02/still-failing-trans-people/

"Last month, when reporting about Evie Amati, a young trans woman accused of attacking two customers at a 7/11 in Enmore, multiple news outlets failed to adhere to any of the current guidance on respectful gender reporting. Both News.com.au and Daily Mail Australia violated Amati’s privacy, focusing less on the alleged crime that had taken place and instead trawling through social media accounts to uncover Amati’s previous name and photos from before her transition. Both reports included screenshots from Amati’s Facebook posts as far back as 2012.

Neither of the papers demonstrates the relevance of Amati’s gender identity in the alleged attack."

"Publishing the previous name of a trans person is a practice commonly referred to as deadnaming – at best an offensive oversight and at worst a complete violation of someone’s privacy."

This is despite the fact that said (attempted) axe killer's own lawyer blamed his being an (attempted) axe killer on his hormones, because obviously female hormones are the reason why women are so fucking crazy.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4104642/Evie-Amati-accused-Sydney-7-Eleven-axe-attack-born-boy-named-Karl.html

So we are supposed to respect the privacy of violent men by pretending that they are actually violent women. And then when it turns out that they are actually violent men, well we can just blame the whole thing on FEMALE hormones, I mean everyone knows there are murders every month caused by women getting their period and being hormonal, right?

So the 'progressive' magazine wants us NOT to report that the violent criminal who attacked a woman in an unprovoked attack is transgender, because his human rights are more important than those of the victim (cis scum), even when his defence is 'I did it because I'm transgender'.

Stupid fuckwits.

BelligerentGardenPixies Sun 05-Nov-17 18:45:28

"Turning a transwomen's transition into a spectacle" - I'm pretty sure Jenner did that themselves, so that horse has bolted.

HornyTortoise Sun 05-Nov-17 18:47:53

Sorry, been reading the other long thread where we are all accused of being transphobic grin

OlennasWimple Sun 05-Nov-17 18:48:29

Facebook posts as far back as 2012.

The writer seems to think that 2012 was a long time ago, bless

HornyTortoise Sun 05-Nov-17 18:49:02

Posted before I linked too...failing today

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now