You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Whoever shut it down on the charity end needs sacking and replacing. Bad PR all round.
Just posted to say I’m enjoying this thread whilst it’s still open..😂
Whilst I’m neither here nor there on the issue of men dressing as woman (although I do find it profoundly unfunny), I do find it slightly ironic that the folks whom preach about not being offensive to others are the same ones that are calling folks who hold a different opinion ‘arseholes’ ..
Can’t we all just be a bit more tolerant of other peoples views…
the telly comedy show is, to them, further proof of that.
Yes I am aware of that. And I am not insensitive to the traumas of a suicidal 9 year old child FFS.
They obviously need help and support, if that wasn't available then it is truly tragic.
I don't however think that, for example, banning Mrs Brown's Boys in case it upsets 9 year olds with gender identification issues is the appropriate response.
@brucewee, online abuse is *far” more likely to trigger self harm than charity money raising in drag.
I’m pretty sure people have actually killed themselves. (In fact, I think someone on STW has.)
Agree?
Ah yes, I'm the one who is saying things most likely to trigger a mental health crisis on this thread?
Between that and the absolute pile of horse manure you wrote above I think we know where you stand on this so don't try and portray your side as being the 'victims'.
Ignorance is one thing. Wilful ignorance that takes the levels of mental gymnastics you and ernielynch are displaying can only come from a place of deep seated prejudice and I have absolutely no time or patience for bigots.
I don’t however think that, for example, banning Mrs Brown’s Boys in case it upsets 9 year olds with gender identification issues is the appropriate response.
Yes, there are far better reasons to ban Mrs Brown's Boys.
What do people think about that well-known MTBer, Grayson Perry?
Can’t we all just be a bit more tolerant of other peoples views…
Tolerant of all views or just the ones you personally don't find offensive?
Whilst I do not agree with Ernie's overall stance, it seems better to discuss these things rather than not. Calling people a ****ing piece of shit is not acceptable imho.
Why? Cos you’re in a position of weakness? Not a very nice place to be, is it?
Bleedin'ell if I was worried about offending middle-class liberal hypocrisy I certainly wouldn't be arguing that a middle-age man dressing up as a woman is acceptable on one thread, whilst simultaneously arguing that calling a woman a fat slag was unacceptable on another thread.
Would I?
What do people think about that well-known MTBer, Grayson Perry?
No problem at all, he's not 'dressed as a woman' for laughs or to belittle anyone.
I do find it slightly ironic that the folks whom preach about not being offensive to others are the same ones that are calling folks who hold a different opinion ‘arseholes’ ..
This.
When the Two Ronnie's is deemed beyond the pale but vile Ad Homs are fine things are badly out of kilter.
Bleedin’ell if I was worried about offending middle-class liberal hypocrisy I certainly wouldn’t be arguing that a middle-age man dressing up as a woman is acceptable on one thread, whilst simultaneously arguing that calling a woman a fat slag was unacceptable on another thread.Would I?
Calm down love, I haven't read that other thread. Got a link?
And those comparing it to blacking up? For real?
Everything is getting banned nowadays. The world is moving to regulating and protecting peoples feelings somehow, which will lead to a whole host of future issues.
Soon you will be locked up just for calling someone a ****.
You hear all the time how young girls become depressed and self harm because they cant adhere to modern day beauty standards.
Lets also ban good looking and in shape women from dressing up as it could cause undue harm and offense.
What about young boys who cant quite make it to professional standards in sports they dedicate their lives to and then become depressed? Lets not highlight professional athletes on TV because it will upset all those that never made it.
Yeah these are pretty hyperbolic but the logic seems the same to me?
No problem at all, he’s not ‘dressed as a woman’ for laughs or to belittle anyone.
So anyone who puts on 'womens' clothing has to be deadly serious and mustn't be jovial in any way? So what you're basically saying, is that as long as it adheres to YOUR rules, it's ok?
Should I, as a man, find Yentl offensive?
Whilst I do not agree with Ernie’s overall stance, it seems better to discuss these things rather than not. Calling people a **** piece of shit is not acceptable imho.
If you read back I think you'll find I did try to discuss things.
I tried to make the link from something being socially acceptable, to being a bit of an arsehole thing to do, to finally being offensive.
He was obviously too busy trying to invalidate boriselbrus' obviously very sensitive and painful ACTUAL LIVED EXPERIENCES to respond.
So yeah, I called him a ****ing piece of shit. Because he's acting like one.
Maybe I am too. I really don't care.
Calm down love
See, pleasantries cost nothing 🙂
It's on the thread about the insulate protestors. Tbh I'm off that thread now. Probably time I was off this thread too.
I'm told it's not nice being wrong, which apparently I am.
And I am not insensitive to the traumas of a suicidal 9 year old child FFS.
Honestly, that's not the impression you're giving, but I'll be charitable and accept that nuance can be lost in these posts.
I don’t however think that, for example, banning Mrs Brown’s Boys in case it upsets 9 year olds with gender identification issues is the appropriate response.
I think Mrs Brown's Boys is different, to be honest (ignoring the fact that it's awful...). The joke there isn't that he's dressed as a woman, it's the other stuff that goes on. He's simply playing a character that happens to be a woman, like an actor/comedian may play any other role (and, yes, I know that actors playing roles that they "aren't" in real life is another hornet's nest, but lets' leave that be for now).
It's when the 'joke' itself is that there's a man dressed as a woman, and that in itself is supposed to be funny, that there's a problem.
So anyone who puts on ‘womens’ clothing has to be deadly serious and mustn’t be jovial in any way? So what you’re basically saying, is that as long as it adheres to YOUR rules, it’s ok?
Not at all, Grayson seems like a pretty jovial person. The problem I've got is with people in a (relative) position of power taking advantage of that power in order to keep others weak.
Bit of a poor argument there bridges, waaaay too absolutist. If something's not white it doesn't necessarily have to be black. Try being more fluid in your outlook 😁
So yeah, I called him a **** piece of shit. Because he’s acting like one.
But luckily I find it incredibly hard to get offended.
Well lucky for me.
Bit of a poor argument there bridges, waaaay too absolutist. If something’s not white it doesn’t necessarily have to be black. Try being more fluid in your outlook
Oh I am. I was just questioning your application of a set of 'rules' that make something ok or not. Seemed quite binary to me...
You win. I can't be ****ing bothered.
He was obviously too busy trying to invalidate boriselbrus’ obviously very sensitive and painful ACTUAL LIVED EXPERIENCES to respond.
So if boriselbrus had a lived experience of being called a "*POS" then you'd regard it as bad?
What if it wasn't boriselbrus, who had that lived experience? What if it was someone else?
You win. I can’t be **** bothered.
But:
Why? Cos you’re in a position of weakness? Not a very nice place to be, is it?
?
You win
No. Fact, logic and reason won.
I'm desperately trying to find Yentl offensive...
You win. I can’t be **** bothered.
I can, god help me.
I was just questioning your application of a set of ‘rules’ that make something ok or not.
Like I said above; if someone chooses to dresses as a woman because that's what they'd like to wear, smashing, whether they're a jovial soul or a miserable get. If they do it because they think that a man dressed as a woman is, in and of itself, funny, that's not really on.
As for the pantomime stuff, honestly, I'm not sure. My gut feel is it falls within my 'Mrs Browns Boys defence' above.
Fact, logic and reason won.
I think you're flattering yourself a bit there, sunshine.
Tolerant of all views or just the ones you personally don’t find offensive?
Ernie has expressed an opinion, I don’t personally agree with it, but he’s more than entitled to it and I suspect it’s a viewpoint shared by many people who don’t frequent the echo chamber that is STW.
The fact you are calling him a piece of shit and an arsehole because you don’t agree with his opinion speaks volumes…
Like I said above; if someone chooses to dresses as a woman because that’s what they’d like to wear, smashing, whether they’re a jovial soul or a miserable get. If they do it because they think that a man dressed as a woman is, in and of itself, funny, that’s not really on.
So it's all about YOUR opinions then? What about other people's?
As for the pantomime stuff, honestly, I’m not sure. My gut feel is it falls within my ‘Mrs Browns Boys defence’ above.
So you haven't really thought it through much then?
So it’s all about YOUR opinions then? What about other people’s?
You asked for clarification on what I (and kayla) thought the rules, and their application, were. Of course other people think differently.
So you haven’t really thought it through much then?
Well, you raised it about ten minutes ago, so I've not thought it through that much, no.
I’m desperately trying to find Yentl offensive…
You're way ahead of me, I'm still struggling to be bothered about what some middle aged rugby players get up to.
If the sum total of the joke is 'We're men and we're wearing women's clothing. It's funny cause men don't wear women's clothing' then it's not something that any charity, business, or public figure should be associating themselves with. Unless they are trying to signal their 'values' somehow.
Is Mrs Doubtfire offensive? My gut says no.
Is pantomime offensive? My gut is leaning more towards yes but it's probably going to depend on how it's done.
Is a rugby team dressing up as women for 'comedy' purposes offensive? I would say no. I would say it's an arsehole thing to do though but that's often SOP for some rugby clubs, unfortunately.
Should a business or charity associate themselves with this rugby team? Absolutely not.
Should Grayson Perry keep doing what they're doing? Absolutely.
Well, you raised it about ten minutes ago, so I’ve not thought it through that much, no.
The traditions of pantomime have existed for quite a while, longer than either of us have been alive. So you have had some time to be thinking about it.
Or perhaps it never registered as problematic, because nobody told you it was?
Is pantomime offensive? My gut is leaning more towards yes but it’s probably going to depend on how it’s done.
Please elaborate. Be a better use of your time than abusing people, anyway.
Should a business or charity associate themselves with this rugby team? Absolutely not.
Should Grayson Perry keep doing what they’re doing? Absolutely.
I'd really love to hear the rationale behind this argument.
This thread perhaps unsurprisingly has developed into the usual internet clever clogs with absolutely no lived experience trying to score points over one another.
All you really need to do is read Boriselbrus's post and digest what was actually being said. That's it. It tells you what you really need to know. Thank you.
The words offend and offence seem to pop up an awful lot on this thread, but my takeaway from that post was not that that child was offended. It made them hate themselves. It crushed them.
You attitude towards that speaks volumes.
The fact you are calling him a piece of shit and an arsehole because you don’t agree with his opinion speaks volumes…
He wasn't expressing his opinions. He was trying to invalidate the lived experiences of another forum member.
I challenged his opinions when he gave them and refused to tolerate him when he went beyond the pale.
Probably time I was off this thread too.
No mate, stick around. You might learn something, even admit that you're wrong. First time for everything right?
This thread perhaps unsurprisingly has developed into the usual internet clever clogs with absolutely no lived experience trying to score points over one another.
Making assumptions about the 'experience' of others is not only ignorant, it's also potentially dangerous. Why are you doing so?
All you really need to do is read Boriselbrus’s post and digest what was actually being said. That’s it. It tells you what you really need to know. Thank you.
Actually; I prefer to take information form as many different sources as possible, such as from people I know IRL who are trans, from reading/watching/listening to material by a plethora of writers on such matters, from men, from women, from everyone, in fact.
Boriselbrus' account is just one of many. It doesn't define the debate.
He wasn’t expressing his opinions. He was trying to invalidate the lived experiences of another forum member
Be mindful that this is in YOUR opinion. It isn't in mine, or in that of others.
Or perhaps it never registered as problematic, because nobody told you it was?
But that's how societal norms change, isn't it? Stuff isn't problematic until it is, see homophobia, drink driving, smacking children etc, etc etc. Stuff is taken for granted by pretty much everyone as being 'fine', until some people, who are usually initially classed as cranks or do-gooders, manage to persuade the majority to actually think about whether these things are actually 'fine' or not. And, slowly, those norms change.
So, no, I hadn't really thought about whether panto dames or, indeed, rugby players dressing as women for charity, was 'fine' or not until this thread came up. Reading it, and especially boriselbrus's posts has made me think about it, and come to the opinion that it's probably not.
Is a rugby team dressing up as women for ‘comedy’ purposes offensive? I would say no.
However, several people have said, and are continuing to say things, which are hopelessly (and at this point I would say willfully because I honestly can’t understand how you can read what boriselbrus wrote and continue to spout the same shite about ‘offense’) ignorant.
🤔
Please elaborate. Be a better use of your time than abusing people, anyway.
If people are going to dish out abuse they should expect to receive it.
What ernielynch said to boriselbrus was abuse. He didn't call them a piece of shit but to question someone's recollections and feelings like that when you have absolutely no frame of reference, just to try to support your own bullshit argument is disgusting.
But yeah, calling someone a piece of shit is the worst thing that has been said on this thread.
I’d really love to hear the rationale behind this argument.
The argument has been made by myself and others several times on this thread. Try reading it again and understanding this time.
With Grayson Perry there is no 'joke'.
With Pantomime it depends on whether the sum total of the joke is 'I'm a man wearing a dress. It's funny because men don't wear dresses.'
With the rugby team there is no question the sum total of the 'joke' was 'We're men wearing dresses. It's funny because men don't wear dresses.' Unless there is some hidden meaning to their actions I missed?
But that’s how societal norms change, isn’t it?
Of course. And long may that continue. Society needs to evolve, not become stagnant.
So, no, I hadn’t really thought about whether panto dames or, indeed, rugby players dressing as women for charity, was ‘fine’ or not until this thread came up. Reading it, and especially boriselbrus’s posts has made me think about it, and come to the opinion that it’s probably not.
So do you now consider, in the 30 minutes since I raised pantomimes as potentially problematic that you've had time to give the issue the amount of thought and consideration it deserves, in order to come up with an informed and balanced opinion?
The traditions of pantomime have existed for quite a while, longer than either of us have been alive. So you have had some time to be thinking about it.
Or perhaps it never registered as problematic, because nobody told you it was?
See, this doesn't make sense to me. I had never really been bothered about rugby players dressed in drag before opening this thread this morning. Sure, I've always thought it was tasteless and immature, but I didn't really consider it sexist - and I certainly didn't think it could affect someone as profoundly as it obviously has.
These discussions are good for helping us understand the world we live in. Having a prompt to consider a specific issue is how we develop as humans. Or maybe you don't want to develop.
The argument has been made by myself and others several times on this thread. Try reading it again and understanding this time.
I have, and my 'understanding' is that I have a different opinion to yours.
With Grayson Perry there is no ‘joke’.
With Pantomime it depends on whether the sum total of the joke is ‘I’m a man wearing a dress. It’s funny because men don’t wear dresses.’
With the rugby team there is no question the sum total of the ‘joke’ was ‘We’re men wearing dresses. It’s funny because men don’t wear dresses.’ Unless there is some hidden meaning to their actions I missed?
Seems that you're applying selective rules in order to justify your own views, rather than actually considering the whole topic more evenly. I have different opinions to yours, regarding all three examples. Who is 'right'?
No mate, stick around. You might learn something,
As I have said before, what I find particularly interesting about stw is that it provides me with a window into the middle-class liberal mindset. I've learnt loads!
Today I have learnt that it is apparently acceptable to call a woman a fat slag, although I believe that she needs to be a "chav" for it to be okay.
However the Two Ronnies comedy show, or maybe Morecambe and Wise, not so much so in the acceptability stakes.
But, and this is where it gets particularly interesting, it would appear that Mrs Brown's Boys is okay. I haven't quite figured out why yet. Although I suspect it is because it's still on the telly, no one has suggested banning it, and it therefore doesn't fit comfortably into the narrative.
All fascinating stuff.
I also keep a regular eye on the Brexit thread, although I never comment. That's quite an eye-opener too.
Seems that you’re applying selective rules in order to justify your own views, rather than actually considering the whole topic more evenly. I have different opinions to yours, regarding all three examples. Who is ‘right’?
I have no idea what your opinions are on the three examples because you never told us what your opinions are.
Do you think Grayson Perry is doing his thing as a 'joke'?
You seem to know more about pantomime than I do since I haven't been to one in 30 years.
Where do you think the humour in what the rugby team did comes from?
But yeah, calling someone a piece of shit is the worst thing that has been said on this thread
So if you had called boriselbrus a "*POS" you think that would not have not been the worst thing on this thread.
Whoever shut it down on the charity end needs sacking and replacing. Bad PR all round.
You didn't pay attention did you? Nobody shut it down. The charity (which is a small hospice not some nationwide thing with hundreds of PR/fundraining/Social Media staff) decided not to post the picture the fundraisers provided on their social media accounts. The fundraisers took offence at this and created the commotion. I can think of a dozen other examples where a sensible Social Media person might decide that its not worth posting even if the premise behind the photograph(er) was well-meaning: e.g.
- Boris Johnson, Ken Livingston, George Galloway or any other controversial politician pops in your charity shop
- Rolf Harris or some other now despised celebrity makes a big donation to your hospice
- A photo of someone running the London Marathon for you that has say a sex shop in the background
- A photo of someone handing over a cheque which has one of your staff in the background smoking
Even the Daily Mail got the difference between "won't use the pictures" and "don't do the activity" right. But there's no such thing as bad publicity - whilst they might lose a few donors from this, they may actually gain some too!
So if you had called boriselbrus a “*POS” you think that would not have not been the worst thing on this thread.
I'm honestly not sure what you're saying here but let me give this a go:
I was born in 1972. I knew I was different from the start. I wanted to wear clothes like my sister did, have long hair and play with dolls. I knew it was weird because no-one else was like me. I spent years agonising about this. I wanted to tell my parents so they would buy me a dress. They were kind and loving so it would be fine wouldn’t it?
Then when I was about 9 we were all watching TV. It was The Two Ronnies or Morecombe and Wise or similar. The two charactors came on wearing dresses. The audience erupts. It was the funniest thing ever. They didn’t tell jokes or do anything, the whole gag was two men wearing dresses. The audience laughter was the real screeching laughter. I was just locked in position. Then I was aware that my parents and sister were laughing as well. It was a massive joke. A man in a dress what could be funnier. I was absolutely mortified, I knew I could never be myself and I’d spend my life as a lie.
The programme finished. I went upstairs and embarked on a 20 year programme of self harm interspersed with a few half hearted suicide attempts. My parents would hate me if they ever knew the real me. I will never come out to Mum.
So where’s the harm in laughing at men in dresses? Well think of a 9 year old sitting in his bedroom slashing away at his arms with a penknife, then tell me where the harm is.
So what you're asking me is, if boriselbrus said all that and then I replied, 'You're a ****ing piece of shit' would that be the worst thing said on this thread?
The answer to that is yes.
However, if I said, 'Sounds bad but I don't think that really happened to you and I think something else happened that supports my argument better instead' then that would be the worst thing said on this thread.
If someone else came along and said, 'You're a ****ing piece of shit for saying that' then the worst thing said on this thread would still be, 'Sounds bad but I don't think that really happened to you and I think something else happened that supports my argument better instead'.
– A photo of someone running the London Marathon for you that has say a sex shop in the background
That really makes me want to open a sex shop on the Mall.
I doubt I'd get permission though. 🙁
You didn’t pay attention did you? Nobody shut it down. The charity (which is a small hospice not some nationwide thing with hundreds of PR/fundraining/Social Media staff) decided not to post the picture the fundraisers provided on their social media accounts. The fundraisers took offence at this and created the commotion.
+1
The charity behaved fine here, the fundraisers hung them out to dry and that is *far* more offensive and far far more likely to trigger mental illness than the fancy dress. (Trigger mental health issues in the poor person who does the Social Media for the Hospice -probably as a volunteer - who is now national news.)
Of course. And long may that continue. Society needs to evolve, not become stagnant.
I'm not convinced you personally plan on evolving too much however. I'm not sure quite what you plan on getting from needling others for an opinion as I don't get the impression their thoughts will influence yours in any particular way. Or are you just bored on the internet?
The most influential comments required to move on informed have already been made. Further bickering is just sullying that with little positive knowledge or understanding gleaned.
I was more interested in why you think what you do about the three examples. As you’re one that seems to find such behaviour offensive (unless it fits in with your own set of ‘rules’). You still haven’t really explained why certain actions are offensive, but others aren’t, though. That’s what I’d like to hear.
It has been explained by myself and others several times now but I'll try once again.
Read boriselbrus' account again.
See that the harm caused is when you make the entirety of the 'joke' be that men are wearing dresses.
Now try to understand that there is a difference between Grayson Perry, Mrs Doubtfire (which I have seen) or Mrs Brown's Boys (which I haven't seen but from what I understand it's a man playing a female part), and what the rugby team did.
With Grayson Perry there is no attempt at 'comedy'.
With Mrs Doubtfire it's not just Robin Williams in a dress, the comedy comes from the character. It may be questionable and of it's time but my gut says it's OK.
With the rugby players the 'comedy' was that they were men wearing dresses. They were supporting the idea that men wearing dresses are only there to be laughed at.
Now can I please have your opinions?
Does this mean everyone can ride a mixte frame then ?.
Now try to understand that there is a difference between Grayson Perry, Mrs Doubtfire (which I have seen) or Mrs Brown’s Boys (which I haven’t seen but from what I understand it’s a man playing a female part), and what the rugby team did.
With Grayson Perry there is no attempt at ‘comedy’.
With Mrs Doubtfire it’s not just Robin Williams in a dress, the comedy comes from the character. It may be questionable and of it’s time but my gut says it’s OK.
With the rugby players the ‘comedy’ was that they were men wearing dresses. They were supporting the idea that men wearing dresses are only there to be laughed at.
You started off saying the issue was triggering.
Then you claimed the rugby players weren't offensive.
Now you have an elaborate set of rules that have nothing whatsoever to do with triggering.
And all the while you're defending other things that are widely acknowledged triggers.
And with every twist and turn and change of your opinion you are adamant that you are right and everyone else is wrong and morally beyond the pale, despite the fact your strong opinion changes by the minute.
Bloody hell, are there any minorities left that we ARE allowed to upset?
To be serious though, I came into this thread thinking it sounded a bit of a storm in a teacup but I've changed my mind. And it sounds like the rugby boys are the snowflakes willfully taking offence in this story.
With Grayson Perry there is no attempt at ‘comedy’.
So why do people laugh when he appears on comedy shows?
And why does he always appear to be dressed as a woman when he is on comedy shows?
The only time I haven't seen him dressed as a woman, which is many times btw, was when he wasn't on a comedy show.
Click on the British Comedy Guide link below for a list of comedy shows Perry has appeared on.
https://www.comedy.co.uk/people/grayson_perry/
You started off saying the issue was triggering.
At no point have I said anything about triggering so we're off to a good start.
Then you claimed the rugby players weren’t offensive.
Yes, in my patented 'BruceWee levels of offense gauge' I would say that the rugby players are at the 'acting like arseholes' level (where people say things like, 'What a bunch of arseholes') rather than the 'causing offense' level (where you can expect to be be publicly shamed, lose your job, etc). Other gauges are available.
Now you have an elaborate set or rules that have nothing whatsoever to do with triggering.
It's one rule really. Is the sum total of the 'joke' that men are wearing dresses.
And once again, I never said anything about triggering.
And all the while you’re defending other things that are widely acknowledged triggers.
Possibly I am but that could be because I haven't mentioned triggers.
And with every twist and turn and change of your opinion you are adamant that you are right and everyone else is wrong and morally beyond the pale, despite the fact your strong opinion changes by the minute.
Yes that sounds like me. Although I would say my opinion isn't changing. You're just trying your absolute hardest to not understand it.
So do you now consider, in the 30 minutes since I raised pantomimes as potentially problematic that you’ve had time to give the issue the amount of thought and consideration it deserves, in order to come up with an informed and balanced opinion?
Bloody hell, what do you want from me?
1. You asked what I thought about panto dames
2. I said my hunch was that they were okay, and explained why
3. You asked if I'd given it much thought
4. I said no, not really, cos you'd only just asked the question
5. You said I'd had lots of time to think about it, give that they've existed for ages
6. I said that I hadn't thought about it until the question was asked, and explained why
7. Now you ask whether I've given it enough thought to really have an opinion.
It's like trying to nail jelly to a wall.
All the while, I'm pretty sure you've not offered an opinion on anything. I think what you've actually done, very effectively mind, I'll grant you that, is just act as a shit-stirrer. And to my discredit, I've been sucked into arguing with a shit-stirrer on the internet, and I'm old enough to know better, so I think I'll leave it there.
As far as I can see the joke in ‘comedy drag’ is always the person dressing up laughing at themselves (In the case of rugby players people who have always rigidly conformed to their own form of gender stereotype doing something completely different).
The ‘offence’ caused has more to do with society becoming entirely individualistic rather than taking time to imagine where someone else is coming from.
And once again, I never said anything about triggering.
You've quoted this twice as your rationale:
The programme finished. I went upstairs and embarked on a 20 year programme of self harm
it would appear that Mrs Brown’s Boys is okay. I haven’t quite figured out why yet.
Mrs Brown's Boys is never okay, ever, forever.
.
A 9 year old doesn’t go up to their bedroom to self-harm because of a telly comedy show.
No, and that didn't happen.
They did it because of their family's reaction to it. And by extension, the family's potential reaction to them.
I don’t however think that, for example, banning Mrs Brown’s Boys in case it upsets 9 year olds with gender identification issues is the appropriate response.
Who's talking about banning anything? Well, other than you, presumably to try and point-score. It's simply a case of trying to be aware of when we're being hurtful, whether accidentally and wilfully. Armed with that knowledge, someone is perfectly at liberty to carry on being hurtful if they choose.
Ernie, you and I have had many differences of opinion over the years and that's fine, long may it continue. But you really need to stop and think before hitting the keyboard when we're talking about actual individual people's actual lives. Because,
I’ve learnt loads!
... I hate to break to you something that you almost certainly know already, but you've learned the square root of precisely **** all.
Whether or not you agree with Boris's account or believe them even, them sharing this sort of stuff must be incredibly difficult.
Think. Be nice.
I’ve closed this thread as it’s reached the point of people trying to point score. We’ve had one member open heartily explain how things can lead peoples attitudes towards trans or gender fluid people. I’m not sure I fully understand it, but what I do know is someone experienced has tried to explain it. Now there’s arguing over who’s right and who’s wrong, as well as some tasteless replies.