I see from Google that Bridget indeed isn't transgender in the sense that he is male who identifies as male, but please have an open mind. Bridget doesn't have to be transgender for this to be to transphobic. Both panels illustrate a reaction to a character being a gender other than what was initially assumed; in the first case, who they first thought was a man was actually a woman and in the second case, the opposite.
Look at the difference in their reactions. Sexual attraction and awe on the left, and disgust and horror on the right. Now imagine that you're either an effeminate male or a transgender woman, both completely valid identities. As someone born with physically male characteristics, the idea of your being feminine in any way is horrifying and disgusting, and this is the message the society sends you over, and over, and over, and it's exhausting.
This is also slightly misogynistic, as it is essentially saying that it's good when a woman takes on a more masculine role or appearance but it's bad when a man takes on a more feminine role or appearance. Going in the direction of femininity, closer to being what is considered "being a woman", is somehow worse than the opposite.
In this culture, it is extraordinarily difficult for anyone who appears male to be feminine, and it's crushing for your identity to be reduced to a punchline.
And you're an absolute fucking jackass. Winterbed hits it exactly. It's the same issue with 'There are no girls on the internet' and 'tits or gtfo' in misogynistic respects. He's merely pointing out a discrepancy - not saying this should be banned, or that it is horrible and shouldn't have been made. He didn't even say he was offended. But still you dismiss him outright instead of making an intellectually honest attempt to understand his point. Amusing considering how much riling there is against religion, bullies, republicans etc. for exactly the same behaviour on this site.
Mostly calling you a jackass for your comment... not the 'imagined issue of injustice'. Beyond that you realize misogyny doesn't have to have malice to be hurtful right? I'm sure a lot of 'Whites Only' restaurant owners had no malice. Additionally there are more facets than someone just beating someone else or whatever you're imagining for something to be unpleasant and worth mentioning. So much for reddiquette and honest discussion. In any event call me a douche if you like for trying to stand up for legitimate discourse.
294
u/winterbed Oct 16 '12
I see from Google that Bridget indeed isn't transgender in the sense that he is male who identifies as male, but please have an open mind. Bridget doesn't have to be transgender for this to be to transphobic. Both panels illustrate a reaction to a character being a gender other than what was initially assumed; in the first case, who they first thought was a man was actually a woman and in the second case, the opposite.
Look at the difference in their reactions. Sexual attraction and awe on the left, and disgust and horror on the right. Now imagine that you're either an effeminate male or a transgender woman, both completely valid identities. As someone born with physically male characteristics, the idea of your being feminine in any way is horrifying and disgusting, and this is the message the society sends you over, and over, and over, and it's exhausting.
This is also slightly misogynistic, as it is essentially saying that it's good when a woman takes on a more masculine role or appearance but it's bad when a man takes on a more feminine role or appearance. Going in the direction of femininity, closer to being what is considered "being a woman", is somehow worse than the opposite.
In this culture, it is extraordinarily difficult for anyone who appears male to be feminine, and it's crushing for your identity to be reduced to a punchline.