So one minute you said "he" had surgery next you admit he has his "dinky" so which one is it?
And what a surprise, you've taken 1+1 and came up with 3 and also consider that transphobic.
To answer your question, if he didn't have his dinky and did indeed have surgery you would be fair in considering him a trans as that is enough proof, the fact he had it "hidden" away unlike other trans people suggest to me he was trying to mislead people and not just "be trans". Unless you're going to tell me it's completely normal for trans people to hide it away like that?
No doubt that special brain of yours will quote me and find something to call transphobic.
I could be misremembering, but I'm pretty sure it's pretty definitively stated that Einhorn had, at that point, had a buttload of gender reassignment surgery. They just hadn't had the junk down there removed.
It would've, but it was a slightly edgy comedy from the 90s. Making sure it was presenting itself in a politically correct manner was probably pretty far down the priority list.
If it was just the final scene, sure. But there's also the scene when Ace discovers Finkle/Einhorn's identity and repeatedly exclaims to himself "Einhorn is a MAN!" in his own home. There's no unmasking the villain, he's not proving his point to anyone. He's just loudly proclaiming to himself that, in his world view, Einhorn is a man now because Einhorn was born a man.
And then the following scene has him reacting in almost the same way as a stereotypical rape victim. Which, I'm only just now realizing, is kind of mega-yikes.
(To clarify: I don't think any of that is emblematic of any hatred or bigotry from the writers or actors. It's just a very poorly aged relic of its time.)
- - - Updated - - -
Bro, there's more to your body than JUST your dick. You can have surgery in all sorts of places! The chest, the jawline, the shoulders, the hips. There's a lot more gender-affirming procedures than just "remove chungus".
Dude, do you actually, sincerely believe that trans women don't "tuck"? You are shockingly out of touch.
Finally! Some new content!Pip Quickwit
Yeah to evade the police capture Einhorn had a lot of expensive surgery done to present as a woman. Now I will say this: I am a cis white male, if I so will myself to get gender reassignment surgery to evade the police (As ridiculous as it is, I'd rather just go to Mexico. but then again I don't have a revenge complex so I am not Einhorn.) am I now trans?I could be misremembering, but I'm pretty sure it's pretty definitively stated that Einhorn had, at that point, had a buttload of gender reassignment surgery. They just hadn't had the junk down there removed.
Definitely. Society has shifted a lot since the 90s. ultimately for the better I feel, but there are plenty of rough edges to work out.It would've, but it was a slightly edgy comedy from the 90s. Making sure it was presenting itself in a politically correct manner was probably pretty far down the priority list.
Ace was also investigating a case. I believe that scene is not transphobic in nature but rather the detective having a breakthrough. Could it have been expressed a little more eloquently? Sure. But as previously mentioned PC wasn't high on the priority list.If it was just the final scene, sure. But there's also the scene when Ace discovers Finkle/Einhorn's identity and repeatedly exclaims to himself "Einhorn is a MAN!" in his own home. There's no unmasking the villain, he's not proving his point to anyone. He's just loudly proclaiming to himself that, in his world view, Einhorn is a man now because Einhorn was born a man.
And then the following scene has him reacting in almost the same way as a stereotypical rape victim. Which, I'm only just now realizing, is kind of mega-yikes.
What it boils down to for me, what does it mean to be a trans person?
Agree with you right here! I highly doubt Jim Carrey is some deep closeted transphobe. Maybe one day some dirt will leak but for now he is alright. haha.(To clarify: I don't think any of that is emblematic of any hatred or bigotry from the writers or actors. It's just a very poorly aged relic of its time.)
So first not "mentions or depictions" but OFFENSIVE mentions and depictions. That's why blizzard is removing them. (And no I'm not saying that humour should be banned or outlawed. But I get why blizzard don't want them in thier 12+ game)
Anyway moving on you get how race/gender etc of a person is different then car accidents and Sucuide (depending on the reason)? (I grant you depression as a mental illness falls in with my examples). One group are awful events that happen and another are the core of people identities?Hence by joking on that set you are inherently joking about people indentities?
- - - Updated - - -
Wow must invent new Fanstay slurs for Orcs then.
Maybe the humans can just shout "Go back to Outland"?
Last edited by Newname1234567890; 2021-10-14 at 11:15 AM.
Reading these comments kinda gives me hope for the future. Maybe false hope though.
Its nice to see how many people see right through this virtue signaling bullshit.
Oh how sweet it is to see this.
I accused you before of finding a sample group that confirms your own beliefs, and how do you respond to someone? Precisely by suggesting to do that.
Too bad you don't response to the fact that your stance becomes highly contested when one finds members of the same subgroup that disagree with your assessment. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Go on, accuse me of gaslighting again, will you.
Doesn't matter.
Read my accusation above.
We're talking about situations that may be triggering to others. My oldest brother died in a car crash. My mother suffered from depression and tried to commit suicide. I could very well embark on a campaign to have these things removed cause they trigger me. Alas, they do not. Would you like to know why? Because infantilizing and fragilizing people is definitely the subpar way to empower people.
That's what you're suggest people do and endorse. To put a blanket over certain things because of the risk they might offend someone.
And to reiterate my other point once again. Stop. Please stop. You are not talking on the behalf on anyone else other than yourself. You're banking on the vague notion that you'll find your opinion endorsed by others and that somehow validates your stance.
Also, what was that we called painting groups of people in broad strokes? What is it that we can possible call treating people in a homogenous way, assuming that they all share the same opinions, beliefs, and traits? I wonder what we call that.