A buddy of mine sent this to me.  From the Seattle Time:

Does ‘Mrs. Doubtfire’ at The 5th Ave transcend the original’s problematic elements?

Progressives have to ruin everything.

A man in a dress. That was the central gag of “Mrs. Doubtfire,” the 1993 Robin Williams hit about a hard-luck actor named Daniel Hillard who loses custody of his kids and masquerades as a Scottish nanny to stay in their lives. It was the second-highest-grossing movie of the year, just behind “Jurassic Park.”

But a man in a dress doesn’t cut it as a punch line in 2019 — not without serious and necessary conversations. The new musical adaptation of “Mrs. Doubtfire” at The 5th Avenue Theatre, which features heavy-hitter talent (including Tony Award-winning director Jerry Zaks), is already slated for Broadway, but not without scrutiny and criticism.

This summer, a Change.org petition asked The 5th Ave to cancel the musical altogether, citing the film’s “tired, transphobic tropes.” Though “Mrs. Doubtfire” is not directly about transgender identity, “the central device of the plot, crossdressing as an elaborate ruse, strengthens the assumptions and misjudgments that continue to harm trans women in implicit, pervasive ways,” the petition, started by Seattle-area theater artist Eli Blodgett, says. “As trans theatre-maker and critic Brin Solomon writes, … ‘Because mainstream society, by and large, thinks of trans women as “men in dresses” instead of women, the man-in-a-dress joke perpetuates the idea that trans women are “unnatural” and fit for ridicule and scorn.’”

First of all, the petitioner admits that the character of Daniel Hillard is not transgender or trans-sexual.  So really, there is nothing here that is an attack on the trans community.  Still, this Progressive piece of shit and the human garbage at the Seattle Times needed to make trans-people the victims because 2019.

They feel that “man in a dress doesn’t cut it as a punch line in 2019 — not without serious and necessary conversations.”

So let’s have that serious and necessary conversation.

I haven’t seen the musical, but I have seen the movie, and assuming the plots are similar, that is what I will be discussing here.

This is the original trailer for Mrs. Doubtfire:

Yes, it’s advertised as a light-hearted family comedy starring the hilarious and talented antics of the late, great Robin Williams.

But it’s not a comedy, it’s a melodrama.

Here are some important plot points.

Robin Williams plays Daniel Hillard, who (like the actor playing him) is a voice actor.  He absolutely loves his children, but like many actors, has sporadic employment and money problems.

In the original movie, he quits his job on a children’s cartoon because he doesn’t agree with the script portraying one of the characters smoking a cigarette.

He goes home, unemployed, and throws a birthday party for his youngest daughter, and rents a petting zoo.  When his wife finds out, she confronts him and tells him she wants a divorce, and then reads him a laundry list of his failings as a father.

His shrew bitch of a wife takes him to court, where her lawyer celebrates in the fact that she gets sole custody and he gets to see his children once a week.

It is a heartbreaking scene.

Keep in mind, there was never any allegation of abuse or putting the children at risk, only that he is a temporarily unemployed father, kicked out of his own home.

So what does he do?

He disguises himself as a nanny so that he can see his children after school, after working a soul-crushing, back-breaking day job handling film in a studio archive.

When his ruse is found out, he loses his custody status even further, being limited to supervised visitation.  At the end of the movie, he ends up an actor on a very popular nationwide children’s show he created, based on his Mrs. Doubtfire character.  Then he is allowed joint custody of his children.

So what is the lesson here?

That a loving and absolutely devoted father does not deserve joint custody of his children unless he has full-time employment, to the satisfaction of a humorless scold of a social worker.

It is a movie about the man-hating cruelty of the family court system and how the attorney’s of ex-wives find great satisfaction in punishing a man by taking his children away from him with the force of law.

That’s why he dresses as a woman.  To be able to spend time taking care of his children.

Consider the lesson: that society considers a random female stranger to be more trustworthy with a man’s children than he is.  That a nanny is preferential to a loving father.

The real victim in this story is a loving dad who is temporarily out of work because of his principles.

The trans-Woke scolds want to erase that and claim that this makes the trans community the victims.

Well, guess what?  For that, they can go fuck themselves with a surgically fabricated dick.