Sprint's transphobic new ad opposing Dallas-based AT&T's takeover of T-Mobile

Posted on 10 May 2011 at 1:59pm

http://www.dallasvoice.com/sprints-transphobic-ad-opposing-dallasbased-atts-takeover-tmobile-usa-1075883.html

Dallas-based AT&T Inc. faces its first congressional hearing Wednesday on the company's $39 billion takeover bid for T-Mobile USA. The deal is opposed by other mobile carriers including Sprint, which helped pay for the below ad declaring, "No matter how you dress it up, this takeover is bad for consumers and the economy."

--------

Sprint-Funded Ad Pulled After Complaints From Transgender Community

by Ina Fried
Posted on May 10, 2011 at 4:27 PM PT

http://mobilized.allthingsd.com/20110510/sprint-funded-ad-pulled-after-complaints-from-transgender-community/

An ad funded by Sprint to fight AT&T's proposed takeover of T-Mobile USA is being pulled after complaints that the ads were offensive.

The ad, which ran on a number of political Web sites and in various newspapers on Tuesday, depicts a man in a dress similar to that worn by the spokeswoman for T-Mobile. The ad featured the tag line "It makes sense if you don't think about it"–also a play on T-Mobile's advertisements. The ads were funded by Sprint and created on behalf of a number of groups opposing the proposed $39 billion deal.

my god, people will look for 'discrimination' under whatever rock they think they see...PC run amuck. 

I guess those 'transgender' activists don't really support full inclusion that takes into account the guy who simply wants to be in a dress...you know, one of those demographics that was supposedly intended to be incorporated under the umbrella that they forced upon the gay and lesbian political entities.

I find it to be problematic. Even if the ad is not meant to depict a trans woman, it's still transmisogynistic because of the femininity shaming, which is a driving force behind transmisogyny as well as misogyny. It's not only insulting to trans women but to cis women too.

Who are these transgender activists and how do I make clear that their views don't reflect mine? :/

I really don't care about the ad personally. Wear whatever damn clothes you like.

I am deeply disturbed that anyone in this community would not find the ad offensive. While I agree that there is nothing wrong with displaying an image of a man wearing a dress, what is important is the message that goes with that image. It's clear that what the advertiser is saying is, "This proposed merger is f***ed up." And for a large segment of the trans-community the words, "no matter how you dress it up," is a clear rejection of our self-identity. Maybe if you identify yourself as a man-in-a-dress, it doesn't offend you, but that doesn't make it right to negate our feeling offended. No matter how you dress it up, I am not a man in a dress.

I don't see what the big deal is, all I see is a guy in a dress, and this certainly isn't the first ad to do this, I remember an ad in one of the video game magazines many years ago that had a guy in a pink tutu, he looked absolutely rediculous in it by the way, but hey whatever, don't see anything in this Sprint ad hinting at transgender people. Some people are just way too insecure, offended too easily by the littlest things.

My appologies to the above post (had what I said above already typed out when you posted), but just my feelings on the matter, that it don't matter, not to me anyway. I'm not a guy in a dress, at least I don't feel that way, and if somehow anyone else thought differently about what I look like in a dress, so be it, doesn't bother me one bit.

I'm not a 'guy in a dress,' but it is a tad hypocritical for the 'transgender activists' to take offense to an image that potentially could be a person that that have told legislatures that all forms of 'gender expression' are supposed to be covered under the 'transgender umbrella.' 

Or gee...maybe NOW those that want the entire inclusion enchilada grasp why those of us who previously suffered from a transsexual medical condition NEVER WANTED an umbrella that incorporated 'expression' variants.   

I could almost justify the pucker factor if they had gotten someone like Carolyn Cossey or another model-type to do the ad, but the ad as it was presented simply does not warrant any reading on my outrage meter...

Quote from: Sarah7 on May 11, 2011, 01:12:22 PM
I don't think it's transphobic, I just think it's sexist. It is based on the old-fashioned idea that femininity is inherently inappropriate for males, because to be feminine is to be inferior. I don't see any women in suits with captions saying "no matter how you dress it up" etc. (Because people would have a fit.)

I agree with this 100%, except for the not transphobic part, because I think it is cissexist. In the eyes of your average cissexist, a "man in a dress" and a "->-bleeped-<-" are the same thing. They'll see that ad and equate that type of imagery with trans women. Just because they're not depicted as a trans woman doesn't mean it's not transmisogynistic.

Its advertising they do things like this.  I really doubt they had any bad intentions towards Transgendered people.

I considered it to be a spoof, I have seen ads I object to much more.  We take a chance of irritating the general public if we complain too much.

Some people in this thread still need to read Whipping Girl 

I don't have a problem with it.  It's the T-Mobile girl's dress not being worn by the T-Mobile girl.  I don't think it's just about any guy in any dress.  It has everything to do with that particular type of guy, one who conjures up corporate imagery as per the cigar, and that particular dress.  It's ruining a great thing, sexy girl in sexy dress, by taking the dress and putting it on someone who is the opposite.  It only makes sense if you don't think about it.

Quote from: EmilyElizabeth on May 11, 2011, 04:16:36 PM
Some people in this thread still need to read Whipping Girl 

For me, the caption rather than the photo is the problem, but then, it does depend upon how you interpret "it makes sense if you don't think about it."  My first thought was that it was a slam against the guy wearing a dress and comparing such a senseless act to the proposed take over.  I think they could have made their point using either a different caption or photo (a dog in a cat suit or something).  Obviously the man is not trying, at least very hard, to present as a woman, so it personally does not seem to be an attack on the transgendered, but it does seem to put down cross dressing, even if unintentionally.  Still, I personally found the photo a bit humorous by itself - the guys expression is priceless.

THERE MOCKING TMOBILES AD CAMPAING! WHICH WAS A SPOOF OF MAC VS PC!

THE FUNNY SPOOF BEING THAT TMOBILE IS NOW MOCKING THE IPHONE!

This ad takes the oddity that ATT is selling IPhones. If anything the merger is bad for T Mobile data users.

To understand the above you to be capable of thinking financially in addition to emotionally.

That damn advert should win an Award.

Intentions aside, making fun of a guy in a dress and inferring that this person must be either mentally unstable or stupid is just not a stereotype that is acceptable to me.  I am not a dude in a dress either, but it does matter to me.

So disappointed in some people after reading some of the replies in this thread. Anybody who doesn't realise that this advert is mysogenistic, a little bit sexist and can be interpreted as quite blatently contributing to anti trans (both sexual and gender) preconceptions is pretty dense. Doesn't mean that aspects of it aren't funny or you can't see what they were actually trying to do, but seriously people....i you can't figure out that a bad message is being sent out by this, intentionally or no, then there is something wrong with you.