transphobic humour

[Anonymous]

I am a simple girl too with simple tastes and I do know right from wrong.

The message you are portraying here Virginia is spot on IMO.

Personally I found the videos to to me to be really offensive and upsetting. No wonder many of the population have such a poor opinion of people such as us when things like that are aired at our expense.

Just because that type of entertainment does not directly affect us personally does not make it right. Attitudes need to change and the media and television programs is what drives much of public opinion.

Shows and skits of this manner ought to be banned so hopefully attitudes will change and everyone of us can eventually be thought of and teated with some respect and dignity by everyone.

Thanks Virginia for bringing this to our attention.

[Adrian]

Quote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbHN6wh8rvc&feature=player_embedded#!

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfXeAAdIb1A

Virginia,
Are you aware if either of these videos were shown in Australia?
Or are they just an example of how bad things are in the USA?

[Anonymous]

I have seen the first in Australia and heard about the second.
Gwen

[Anonymous]

I agree with you 100% V.

I just watched the videos you posted, and whilst I’ve always thought I had a fairly open mind when it comes to humour…I found those particular videos hideous and disgusting.

[Anonymous]

i found the david lettermen clip to be very funny. i dont think its a joke on TG but more of a joke on Al (the voice over guy) have sex with someone he belive to be a real 100% woman and finding out she used to be a guy. its more a joke on gay people then TG, i think.

the family guy clip is just famliy guy being family guy, if you dont like it dont watch it.

so watching both clip. its more of a joke on the guy rather then the TG. i think you have to put yourself in there shoes. just think if you have sex with someone who you think is something there not.

i dont think jokes like these should be banned becuase. if we ban jokes like these, why not ban everything else.
freedom of speech is a double blade sword.
please should just learn to live with it

[Anonymous]

Quote:

i found the david lettermen clip to be very funny. i dont think its a joke on TG but more of a joke on Al (the voice over guy) have sex with someone he belive to be a real 100% woman and finding out she used to be a guy. its more a joke on gay people then TG, i think.

+1

Quote:

the family guy clip is just famliy guy being family guy, if you dont like it dont watch it.

+2

Personally I don’t find Family Guy very humorous most of the time, so to see something like that is very unsurprising. Letterman on the other hand was quite funny, the guy that ran off was clearly the main part of the joke, and realistically….

Amanda Simpson is a well known as TS and unlike a few I have had personal experience with, she is open about her past and makes no attempt at hiding. From an article on Jan 5. 2010:

Quote:

But what gnaws at her, she says, is the fear of being labeled a token who was hired because of her sexual identity rather than on her merits.

“Being the first sucks,” she told ABC News.com. “I’d rather not be the first but someone has to be first, or among the first. I think I’m experienced and very well qualified to deal with anything that might show up because I’ve broken barriers at lots of other places and I always win people over with who I am and what I can do.”

If anything the Letterman joke, is congratulating her on the fact that seeing her, you can’t tell she wasn’t born female. Personally I think she’s a credit to all of us because even I, whom has been outed very publicly (and self outed I might add) don’t think I’d have the guts to take such a public position, so my hat is well and truly off to her.

Michelle

[Anonymous]

Virginia, thank you for your posts. I think we need more people to stand up for our rights and personally I think you are doing an awesome job of that.

I find watching both of these personally distressing and while I can appreciate that some people even in the trans community might find them funny, the fact that they do simply depresses me.

I’ll have one try in trying to explain why.

I’m a very femme post op transwoman. I date people. I do not reveal my past when casually dating. Most people guess but some don’t.

The underlying concept that someone would projectile vomit for something effectively in my past or run off screaming “Oh no, they’re a dude” is incredibly offensive to me. I am not or have ever been psychologically a guy. To me men are definitely the opposite sex.

The stereotypical position of these clips denies us our true gender by more or less implying once a guy always a guy in that the two reactions follow an intimate act with a transwoman and if they weren’t portraying us as men then there would be no reason for the reaction.

Worse, the “they were a guy, I made love with a guy, I’ve been tricked” philosophy is then used as an excuse to bash or murder us. These clips pander directly to that perception that we are still somehow some kind of guy acting as a woman and should be reviled. You don’t think it’s reviled? Projectile vomiting? Really?

What did the trans woman do but share an intimate moment with them. How is that a basis for derision? Or even comedy?

It dehumanises us, demeans us and is an appalling treatment of the trans community.
And that’s why I don’t find either of these funny. Not funny at all when everyday you have to live with that perception.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Quote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbHN6wh8rvc&feature=player_embedded#!

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfXeAAdIb1A

Virginia,
Are you aware if either of these videos were shown in Australia?
Or are they just an example of how bad things are in the USA?

amanda

i think the late show with david letterman regularly screens in australia on channel ten. i don’t know if this particular episode ran here, but i think it would be reasonable to believe that it would have aired.

family guy is regularly shown on foxtel subscriber network (you pay for the privilege of watching family guy), on the fox8 channel. again, i don’t know if the quagmire’s dad episode has aired here, but i would assume that it would have – i don’t know how far behind australia is in terms of screening episodes here after broadcast in the usa. that being said, current episodes of family guy on fox 8 are from season 5, whereas, in usa, family guy season 8, the latest series, finished screening in may 2010.

[Anonymous]

It looks like there is clearly “an increasing polarization of differing views”, so before Amanda gets her keys out and throws us into the hurt locker, I would like to set out what I think, are emotion free facts and observations.

Letterman

Funny? Let’s look at it closely. Amanda Simpson is appointed by Barack Obama to a senior technical advisor position in the public service. She is the president’s first transgender appointee. Letterman explained that she is now part of the Commerce Department, but was interrupted by his announcer yelling “Amanda?! Amanda used to be a dude?! Oh my god!” The man runs off stage, implying he had been seduced by a transgender woman and that it was horrifying to him in retrospect.

By most accounts, this depiction is seen as affirming and encouraging a prejudice against transgender Americans. As Gwen points out, the “Oh, you used to be a man and you have deceived me” response is one of the most common pleas in trans woman murder cases.

As Misty points out, this clip could be interpreted as trangender supportive – it is actually making fun of the narrow-minded, stereotypical response to learning a friend or colleague is trans. In a world where transphobia is still much more acceptable than other forms of discrimination (try Googling “Mann Coulter”), where gags about guys being “duped” by “trannies” are still a comedy staple, this is hardly an excuse.

What the Letterman skit does is to make light of Amanda’s gender identity, not her struggles to get to where she is despite transphobia, not the fact that she is eminently qualified for the job, and not last but least, not the fact that gender or genitalia is irrelevant to what a person’s worth should be. Making fun of narrow-minded, stereotypical responses could have been done in a much more sensitive manner.

But it gets worse. What Letterman’s skit does is also imply that Amanda Simpson (and maybe transgender people in general) is promiscuous. I guess some people may find some humour in that.

As for the skit being a joke on gay people, I don’t think there is any mention or implication that this was about gays. Amanda’s sexuality has never been raised. The words “gay” or homosexual” are never used. I think that any implication that this skit is about gays cannot be supported.

Family Guy

“If you don’t like it, don’t watch it”. This argument is no argument at all. If there was a program promoting the killing all aborigine people in Australia, or about a new law that forces all people who post pictures of themselves on the Internet to not have their faces blocked out, yes, people may not agree with it, and don’t need to watch it, but that doesn’t make the content of the program right.

“If we ban jokes like these, why not ban everything else.” There is a line at which some things are acceptable and some things are not. That’s the very point about a complaint system, about having the Advertising Standards Bureau regulating advertising, and about the Australian Communications and Media Authority regulating content in television and radio broadcasting. Both of these organisations have rules and guidelines set out as to what can and what cannot be said. We must abide by their decisions (even if we think that they are in error). They are the community standards that we are deemed to find acceptable. As I pointed out in another thread, I believe that the standards are not very strong and easy to adhere to and yet still allow offensive material to be advertised and broadcast.

I am not a prude, and I don’t consider myself as some trans-feminist-Nazi. All I am for is a positive and supportive portrayal of transgender people in the media. In my opinion, these two clips do not do that. I am not asking for them to be banned. Letterman could have had the announcer say, “Hey, it doesn’t matter about what gender Amanda is, I am sure that she is well qualified for the job”. Family Guy could have had Brian say, “Wow, I was intimate with Quagmire’s dad, but do you know what, I still find her an attractive person and when it comes to choosing a partner, it’s the personality that is most important to me, not her genitalia or gender history” instead of 30 seconds (count them) of projectile vomiting.

I may be naïve and asking too much. I certainly hope that we (as a part of the trangender community) all feel that way about how we are portrayed. For those that don’t, I don’t mind a little bit. I will support you to the end to have the choice in deciding what it is that you find funny, just as I would expect you to support me in how I feel.

Keys, Amanda?

[Anonymous]

Virginia, you have stated what I was thinking in such eloquent terms. Thank you.

I have watched the Letterman sketch, and I recognise that it has a funny side. I even smiled a little. As far as negative stereotyping of TG people goes, this is relatively mild.

However as I have said in another post, the main issue with these sort of negative portrayals is that we (transgendered or gender-diverse people) are all too often being portrayed in ways that would not be acceptable for other groups. Imagine if the wording was “Amanda? Amanda is Asian?” That would of course (quite rightly) be totally unacceptable. Would we accept “humour” based on someone indicating disgust of a disabled person? Why should we have to accept negative stereotyping due to our non-binary gender?

50 years ago, cheap “humour” such as this could have been at the expense of someone’s race. 20 years ago, at the expense of someone’s sexuality. Now, in the 21st century, we no longer accept negative stereotyping or vilification (in any form including humour) based on race or sexuality, so why should we accept that it is now OK to attack people based on their gender?

I respect that every person may have a different sense of humour. I have no problems with people making fun of themselves. My issue is with people making fun of other people.

There is a big difference between funny, and portraying disgust!

[Adrian]

Quote:

Keys, Amanda?

Not sure where I left them V

Seriously though, we have to accept that in a forum a controversial issue will attract some sort of divided comment. I don’t mind that – I only take action when people question the rights of others to hold differing opinions.

So if you identify a worthy cause the forum is really good for finding out how widely your views are shared by others – it is a sounding board.

But the current format does not lend itself to groups of similar minded people being able to form and execute any actions. Which is of course the right of all of us in a free society.

So I need to discuss some alternative/additions to TR – but this thread is NOT the place to do that ,otherwise I will be going off topic and will have to delete my own post.

I’ll go back looking for those keys – will let you know when I find them!

[Anonymous]

Because of these types of debate over the past week or two I have thought a lot about where the line is ( for me) in regard to humour that makes fun of marginalized people. I think that it is not a simple issue. For instance, in the 80’s I found Ernie Dingo’s portrayal of an Aboriginal man very funny but did not do so for the King Billy Cokebottle character ( played by a white cricketer) around the same time. Steady Eddie I did find humorous as he sent himself up as well as his so called “normies” (normal) people. The blackface BS on Hey hey was just poor taste as well as unfunny as was the Chasers sick child skit IMO.
I am a great pisstaker myself and am often told I go too far but I often do so for irony and am actually doing so at the expense of racists and prejudiced views as well as taking the piss out of myself. I would say things that I thought would offend an Aboriginal person, disabled , women etc.
I think the line therefore is a private one. Anyone has the right to say what they want privately and about who they like but to publicly vilify or offend others is not acceptable IMO.
As for the examples in discussion I think that the Family Guy is an “out there” cartoon show and like South Park , sets out to offend but to pretend to vomit at the thought that a person had sex with a ” pretend woman” or in fact ANYONE , is across the line.
When Crocodile Dundee sexually abused a beautiful trans women , in the bar scene in the film I did not find it acceptable . Sexual abuse is just not funny or acceptable.
Finally , though I may laugh at some pretty sick stuff , the fact that I do does not make it OK, I think that there is a wider issue at play in these matters and my personal sense of humour is no arbiter of decency.

[Anonymous]

Long before I saw the Family Guy excerpt in question I saw five minutes of the show one night and feared for the world if anyone thought that any part of this show was remotely funny.

As for Letterman, an obvious bit of humour that I find it hard to be offended by. I’m sorry, but I think it’s drawing a long bow to suggest the skit suggests Amanda is a promiscuous seducer of men.

[Anonymous]

I’ve just had a look at both of these videos throught the links above and yes, I can see the reasons why people have said what they have said in their posts above also. Personally I don’t know what to say because I do feel that society is a lot better to be in than say…. 15/20 years ago and people are slowly becoming more open minded as we know. There are pros and cons to both of these portrayals but I guess that I would say that the Family Guy one with the big, long vomit part is rather unnecessary.

Peta.

[Anonymous]

I’m guessing this will not earn me any friends or points, but it’s something that I feel should be said…

Quote:

but was interrupted by his announcer yelling “Amanda?! Amanda used to be a dude?! Oh my god!” The man runs off stage, implying he had been seduced by a transgender woman and that it was horrifying to him in retrospect.

or that ‘I can’t believe she was a dude, that makes me gay.. yeeeaaaarrgghhh’ … glass is half full or half empty? There is a polorisation with the whole subject, are TS’s gay or straight if they date men/women or other TS’s? What about the people that date TS’s…?

People in side the community don’t agree so I can see how people outside don’t. Obviously a cross dressing guy that dates men is a gay man, a CD that dates both is bi and a CD that dates women is hetro. When it comes to TS’s, a TS M2F that dates women is gay, a TS that dates both is bi and a TS that dates me is straight… Think we all agree on that..

Problem is back to my thread a few weeks ago, many people don’t understand what the differences are between the terms TG, TS, TV, and CD, they have even less understanding of what that means in terms of gender and sexual preference/labels. The skit works because of that lack of understanding and is not intended to be offensive regardless of whether some people think it is or not, it works because everyone was laughing (even the dude running off.) Many people consider me straight when I am clearly gay, they can see that I’m TS (some don’t even know that until told) and I date women, I have always dated women, and after a brief experience I will always date women… when they know I used to be a guy, they think ‘guy+woman=straight’ they fail to see that I am and always have been female trying to be male, and therefore the correct equation is ‘woman+woman=gay’.

Quote:

By most accounts, this depiction is seen as affirming and encouraging a prejudice against transgender Americans. As Gwen points out, the “Oh, you used to be a man and you have deceived me” response is one of the most common pleas in trans woman murder cases.

So should the person you love know that you were always female or not? Any and every TS walks a fine line if they hide their past because it is deception and love is the most powerful of emotions. Play with love and it’s very easy to flip it to hate in an instant. Hate is the opposite of Love and has the same level of emotion so it is easy to see how flipping from Love to Hate does result in VERY bad things.

Quote:

As Misty points out, this clip could be interpreted as trangender supportive

actually I thought that was me…

Quote:

it is actually making fun of the narrow-minded, stereotypical response to learning a friend or colleague is trans. In a world where transphobia is still much more acceptable than other forms of discrimination (try Googling “Mann Coulter”), where gags about guys being “duped” by “trannies” are still a comedy staple, this is hardly an excuse.

But is that TS, TG, TV, or CD? again back to the labels… to most of America TS=TG=CD=TV=DG=Gay man in a skirt.

Quote:

What the Letterman skit does is to make light of Amanda’s gender identity, not her struggles to get to where she is despite transphobia, not the fact that she is eminently qualified for the job, and not last but least, not the fact that gender or genitalia is irrelevant to what a person’s worth should be. Making fun of narrow-minded, stereotypical responses could have been done in a much more sensitive manner.

joke + sensitive manner = not funny

Quote:

But it gets worse. What Letterman’s skit does is also imply that Amanda Simpson (and maybe transgender people in general) is promiscuous. I guess some people may find some humour in that.

Now where are you getting that from? Just because one person did it doesn’t imply anything of the sort. If they had arranged for a handful (or more) of the audience to scream ‘oh my God’ and run out, then I would agree (and I have seen a skit like it, but not on Letterman.)

Quote:

As for the skit being a joke on gay people, I don’t think there is any mention or implication that this was about gays. Amanda’s sexuality has never been raised.

No but it was the implication for the voice over guy, nothing to do with Amanda. I don’t think Amanda was the joke, she is just the enabler, the joke was the guy. The implication was perceived gay sex…. back to the labels thing again…
.

Quote:

Family Guy

“If you don’t like it, don’t watch it”. This argument is no argument at all. If there was a program promoting the killing all aborigine people in Australia, or about a new law that forces all people who post pictures of themselves on the Internet to not have their faces blocked out, yes, people may not agree with it, and don’t need to watch it, but that doesn’t make the content of the program right.

True and misguided. There are a lot of programs on the TV around the world (not just in Aus) that depict things that are not right or offensive. Most rational people apply the “i don’t like this so I won’t watch it” method, if it goes beyond the realms of common decency they complain to have the program removed. Family Guy is mostly humorless or stoops to the lowest forms of humour available, it is not very creative and often follows other more intelligent programs and just lowers the tone to rock bottom to get cheap laughs. What is funny about a talking dog that vomits for 30 seconds solid… doesn’t matter what the joke is, that level of humour is for the lowest forms of life.

Quote:

“If we ban jokes like these, why not ban everything else.” There is a line at which some things are acceptable and some things are not. That’s the very point about a complaint system, about having the Advertising Standards Bureau regulating advertising, and about the Australian Communications and Media Authority regulating content in television and radio broadcasting. Both of these organisations have rules and guidelines set out as to what can and what cannot be said. We must abide by their decisions (even if we think that they are in error). They are the community standards that we are deemed to find acceptable.

Agreed, and if they find a program should be aired and we disagree we have the right not to watch it. If you want to complain you have that right. In the case of family guy, I’m sure they have had many complaints, but yet its still allowed to air (all be it after the watershed) so it’s not deemed offensive to the community. As a minority we get to shout about it if we want, but it is clear that there are some that find it offensive and some that don’t, such is the diverse nature of the world. I find family guy offensive in most cases, in this particular example, my view is solidly re-inforced. Family Guy is well known for it’s use of lowest common denominator humour, if you watch it and enjoy it you do so knowing this and shouldn’t be offended by it (even if it chooses to poke fun at you.)

Quote:

Family Guy could have had Brian say, “Wow, I was intimate with Quagmire’s dad, but do you know what, I still find her an attractive person and when it comes to choosing a partner, it’s the personality that is most important to me, not her genitalia or gender history” instead of 30 seconds (count them) of projectile vomiting.

Well that would be as funny as the attempted humour.

Quote:

I may be naïve and asking too much. I certainly hope that we (as a part of the trangender community) all feel that way about how we are portrayed.

Do you find jokes about native Australians funny? Do you find jokes about New Zealanders funny? You know that most of the jokes about New Zealanders are told in New Zealand in the same way but with Aussies as the butt of the joke. Same applies to the Irish to the English and visa versa. The jokes are about a minority in the community, the problem we have is the community is split into distinct subsections and the jokes are directed at the community as a whole.

I guess I’m never going to explain this properly (or my feelings more specifically) in email as there is passion in my thoughts that I cannot express in words.

Everyone is the butt of a joke sooner or later. The nature of those jokes will always play on perceptions of people and/or events. If you can’t take a joke (and be the subject of a joke) I feel sorry for you, and that means light hearted humor on a show that I would (in most instances) class as a family show. If you can’t take a lowest common denominator humour like Family Guy (a show that has to be shown after the watershed), I’m with you and fully understand.

Quote:

For those that don’t, I don’t mind a little bit. I will support you to the end to have the choice in deciding what it is that you find funny, just as I would expect you to support me in how I feel.

On that we agree. Please do not consider my words above as an attack on values, I got into a bit of a rant there, but I do think the Letterman skit was not making TS’s the butt of a joke, but the enabler of a joke – everyone was smiling/laughing through it. The Family Guy skit could have been a joke, but the 30 seconds of vomiting was to depict that the idea of a male sleeping with an ex-male was disgusting to the point of physical illness, something that is very different and quite offensive.

I guess the last paragraph better explains my thoughts than any of the previous rant. Laughter and light heartedness in the way you tell a joke is what defines it as funny or not. Making a joke which depicts an idea being one that would make one physically sick is offensive to the target of the joke, and should be to any onlookers.

Michelle