Dylan Mulvaney -created in a boardroom

It’s a perfectly relevant observation that TikTok is a new media format with new styles, and that anybody critiquing Mulvaney as a caricature simply doesn’t get it. It reveals the same lack of understanding that saw the Beatles being hated and Elvis being hated and Jazz music being hated before the war.

Completely agree..The Beatles were very talented, their songs stand the test of time, Jazz has been around for decades, and Ione cannot compare a male who dons girl's clothes and prances about {a one trick pony..Letterbox creepy grin, arse sticking out in that bizarre crouching scuttle he does, , arms flapping like a demented windmill..Mulvaney is devoid of wit and talent , unlike The Beatles and Jazz Greats.

This is very depressing indeed.
A man who in my opinion has cognitive decline , wanting to meet a creep who dresses as a schoolgirl and mocks females by his actions- I find it extremely distasteful.

As to the term ''Woke''..It was indeed initially to describe Black people's Struggles {Was only made aware by the posters on Mumsnet about that last year}, so another word might be best used to people who are using this man {Mulvaney} to push their own agendas.

Leftists?

Trump was vile, Burt he wouldn't be entertaining this kind of shit, courting a man who dresses as a prepubescent girl.

Oh, FFS, @landOFconfusion, this is nothing like the advent of The Beatles, Elvis, jazz music. The Beatles and Elvis had talent, proved by their longevity, the number of other artists who still cover their music and the respect other musicians have for them. Jazz music grew up from the ground, incorporating many different influences from all over the place. Organic, in other words. Many of those performers had significant trouble getting their music heard and in the format they wanted it to be heard. They fought for what they had.

Dylan Mulvaney and this entire trans movement are the opposite to organic. They have been imposed on us from outside, from above even. People such as Dylan are agreeing to have their strings pulled for financial gain and, as the article, clearly articulates - Dylan has no talent. He is manufactured.

You could argue that about The Monkees in a sense, as they were 'manufactured' too, in that they were put together by record company execs, or whoever it was. They broke the mould of a group of lads who'd known each other from school and practised in their front rooms. But even The Monkees had some talent. And it was quite acceptable, expected even if you were my parents' generation, to mock and deride this music for the young. Anyone publicly mocking or deriding Mulvaney risks friendships, reputation and livelihoods

You’re ignoring the point that Nike, by using Mulvaney in womanface, is deriding women and belittling female athletes.

@paulinesmithson - Have you even read the article OP kindly linked for us? If you had, you wouldn't have written 'you are all just annoyed to see a young trans woman gain popularity for sharing her experiences that you say spiteful things about her.'

I'd suggest reading it first and then coming back with your thoughts.

Really great article, OP, and thanks for sharing it. As with almost everything, the fight isn't where we are encouraged to think it is. This is not about Dylan Mulvaney, this is about corporate America, consumerism and capitalism in its most stringent form.

You’ve missed the whole point of this story.

I'll ask again.

How did the Beatles advocate self harm and body mutilation in women and girls? How did they promote the idea of girls as unthinking airheads?

How did they encourage a generation to hate their own bodies?

I'm a media /history graduate, and technology change does change society and there is generational shift and clashes. It's observable.

But saying this is comparable to the Beatles in terms of a generation is wrong. It's the wrong comparison. It's not about rebellion in the way you think. For that look more to climate change. Spontaneous, grass roots driven and not commercialised (though becoming commercialised).

The era of the Beatles wasn't manufactured. It become commercially successful but it wasn't cynically created in a boardroom like this. Beatles clones were, but not the Beatles themselves. This movement is more about feeding on the growing sense of isolation and community breakdown elsewhere in society. It's driven from above. Community only exists online for many now. In an unreality. It is the rise of the unreality.

And it's not rebellion. It's conformity driven. Don't dare to be different from your peers. Fit in at all costs. It's the fear of not ticking the right boxes for gender which is stronger than parental influence. It's not breaking away though. It's reinforcing old tropes that parents and grandparents recognise. It's not fresh nor new. Gender bending is so 1970s afterall...

For a better comparison you want to look squarely at fashion and advertising for this reason. It might be comparable to Twiggy encouraging young girls to be ultra thin though, in a way that's unachievable for their bodies. And this trend of hyper promotion of the unreal and unachievable has merely accelerated and become more pervasive as commercialism has increased. That's not a cultural shift, that's more marketing and more misgyonist push on the same concept of tapping into beauty ideals to make money at the expense of female socialisation which is built on a lack of self worth and confidence.

And this isn't a vision from women for women. It's still through males eyes and male desire. Even if the Mulvaney bud light campaign was run by a woman. (A woman who incidentally looks to have lost her career for fucking it up)

That's why the feminist argument still holds true on it.

And even if you do compare it to the Beatles, what you are in effect saying is that is a trend which is time limited and will crash and burn when the next thing comes along. It's got a level of superficially to it rather than profound social change like the civil rights revolution. Civil rights needed intergenerational support and value and it won social consensus with a sufficient spread of society rather than singular demographics.

It's bullshit. And it will come crashing down.

If you live long enough you get to see all the outrageously offensive stereotypes seen on the tv in the 70s come back round as empowering and cool.

It's generally accepted to have started in 2010, so the oldest members are 13. But I guess maths isn't for everyone. The older alphas, along with the youngest zoomers, are sooooooo sick of this shit. I spend a lot of time with kids and both overhear them talking to each other and have them talk to me about it. And they are a mix of angry at being lied to and derisive of the idiots who are participating in it.

The oldest members of Generation Alpha are only ten years old.

You're funny. You know the gen alphas hate this shit though, right? So if we're going to get into insulting people for not being down with the kids, the out of touch ones aren't us.

It’s a perfectly relevant observation that TikTok is a new media format with new styles, and that anybody critiquing Mulvaney as a caricature simply doesn’t get it. It reveals the same lack of understanding that saw the Beatles being hated and Elvis being hated and Jazz music being hated before the war.

Watching people wailing about Dylan Mulvaney reminds me of all the angst that was created when young people started dancing to rock and roll music. Apparently that too was a satanic plot cooked up in music industry boardrooms.

If you live long enough you get to watch each new generation of young people produce new media which outrages its elders. Which is both glorious and entirely as it should be.

This isn't even an argument. It's just nonsense.

Did the Beatles encourage proANA type comments? How is it rebelling? It's not. It's harming.

Tell us more about how you don’t understand what TikTok is, or the content that is posted on it.

There’s a good chance that your grandparents hated the Beatles for the same reason that you hate Dylan Mulvaney. They’re both examples of an inability to relate to a changing media landscape.

You’ll start to hate modern music soon. Perhaps you already do.

Finally got round to watching DM's Nike Tictok. A pure fucking send up. It's grotesque. He is insulting women and transwomen. It's a cartoon.

Maybe they went the same way as reality.

Red "The thread is about how Mulvaney was dreamt up in a boardroom."

Indeed and it's good to have this explained. I think we've hit a point where adults don't know when they're being trolled. I mean, there's entire workplaces going bonkers over this and I'm not sure they know why, beyond "everyone is doing it".

if we are all going to end up in a mad game of "follow the leader" we need to scrutinise the leader and their motives.

Let's get this straight.

Whether they are real trans or not, isn't necessarily the problem here either.

The thread is about how Mulvaney was dreamt up in a boardroom.

That also applies to the marketing campaigns they are involved with.

Trans is being cynically used not to market to other trans people. The market share is tiny so it's not worth while doing that.

A lot of the point here is about how yet another male is being used to flog to women who make up 50% of the population and how women aren't represented well.

It's the sexist tropes that continue. The Bud Light campaign seems to have been run by a woman which makes it even worse. We have to be sold to by male standards and values rather than having female role models and we have to put up with these dreadful gendered stereophonics themes.

Mulvaney is just another example of that.

Nike don't support women's sport to anywhere near the same level as men's. It's an after thought.

We've not moved on from the awful women's magazines of yesteryear. We've just got a reinvention of it, which reinforces unrealistic representations of femininity which aren't achievable.

If Mulvaney is indeed faking it, it does make it even worse.

The whole point is about how women can't have anything for themselves. Even marketing directed at them.

So this is all about misgendering?'

I am not talking to Mulvaney's face, and when Mulvaney is intentionally pushing in my face on international media a caricature of being a woman, I have been pushed to the discourtesy of stating fact and reality. Mulvaney is a male. When Mulvaney has some respect for women, I might be more enthused about respecting Mulvaney's chosen pronouns.

Oh ffs. Sorry, I kept getting server error. Will report the multiple posts.

Meaning this nicely, you're mistaken. I have absolutely no problem with Mulvaney being trans, or 'different'.

I have a whole lot of problem with highly misogynist, sexist, mocking behaviours, regardless of the sex or gender choices of the person making them. It's the behaviour that is the problem, not the identity.

I have no problem tolerating the identity at all. I have every problem tolerating the behaviour. I'll add this isn't a 'young' person, Mulvaney is nearly 30. And this behaviour isn't Mulvaney being Mulvaney quietly in a garden, this is being rammed in the faces of the general public with a demand to 'look at me!'.

Would you say to a disabled person offended by someone putting up videos to thousands of users taking the mickey out of their mobility and movement, and by a blog of 'day xxx of being disabled!' when they are trans abled and actually not in reality disabled at all that they just 'need to get used to it' and it's fear of difference that is the root of why they mind rather than go awww bless? Or is it normal boundaries against the assault of that person's behaviour? Would you support national firms using that person's caricature of someone with a disability as the front of a campaign aimed at disabled people and expect disabled people to celebrate it?

I would bet my life savings that Dylan doesn't take oestrogen.
The same if Dylan had any sort of bottom surgery.