I was watching the Graham Norton Show recently because I was bored. Click here to view the clip. It's not something I normally watch, just something to watch over dinner and I wasn't really paying any attention until I heard the name Thomas Beatie. I don't know what I was expecting, but I was not expecting Graham to say: "If he hasn't had genital surgery surely that just makes him a lesbian. I mean, I know there's hair but surely that just makes him a Welsh lesbian." I understand that he's a comedian, and that it's his job to get some cheap and easy, uneducated Lols, but I was pretty pissed off. So I wrote a (slightly melodramatic? heck, not like I have anything to lose..) email to the BBC complaints department, expecting some kind of banal, innocuous "Sorry to hear you were upset, we'll pass on your concerns" email, and instead I received the email below.
My original email:
The BBC's Reply
*Deep Breath*
a) Not only have they completely misunderstood my comment, they've dismissed it in a really aggravating "generic response" way. I couldn't really give two figs about Thomas Beatie, I'm talking about general transphobia. It's really frustrating that there are huge uproars when something racist is said (and rightly so), but things like this get trivialised.
b) I can assure you that no offence was intended. - In what conceivable way could you interpret that statement in a non-offensive way?
c) We try to ensure that post-watershed, anarchic comedy series are well signposted. - I most definitely saw no warning before this program. And if there were to be one, it would have had to read: "This program may offend those who believe in gay and trans rights and anti-discrimination generally. If you feel you have been affected by this program, please go complain to someone else." Anarchic? Graham Norton is about as revolutionary as a sandwich left to go soggy in a fridge.
d) As the BBC is a public service financed by the licence fee it must provide programmes which cater for the whole range of tastes in humour. - Oh good, it's reassuring to know that there are a percentage of viewers who are PAYING for the socialization of transphobia into the brains of the general population.
e) We believe that there is no single set of standards in this area on which the whole of society can agree. - What wishy-washy bullshit. Is it just me, or is this scarily close to the BBC saying they haven't made their minds up about whether they're going to be trans-friendly yet? Trans-rights are ridiculously far behind gay rights, and there are plenty of people who think trans-gendered people are "freaks" or "gays in denial", but this is because they're either bigots or just misunderstanding the issue. There are plenty of "members of society" who believe that all Muslims are terrorists, and that black people should "go back to Africa", but this doesn't mean the BBC should be catering to all sides of the argument. The media doesn't just reflect the beliefs of the population, it leads them and it needs to take more responsibility for that. The only reason I'm not reading an apology email right now is because not enough people have complained or care, and therefore it's not an issue for them.
I realise that I'm probably overreacting here, but I felt like a rant about it. Comments appreciated.
EDIT.![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
piperfan has just pointed out that Graham actually says: "that thing is still a woman". 0_o
My original email:
I have just watched the Graham Norton, a show which I enjoy and considered to be very LGBT-friendly. However I found Graham's comments tonight regarding Thomas Beatie's pregnancy, namely: "If he didn't have genital surgery isn't he just a lesbian?" extremely transphobic, and even homophobic! I expect better from an openly homosexual celebrity, who should be educating viewers and promoting diversity rather than being crude and ignorant. Is it too much to expect that the difference between gender and sexual orientation can be understood?
The BBC's Reply
Thank you for your e-mail regarding 'Graham Norton Show'.
I understand that you were unhappy because you felt that the presenter made offensive comments about Thomas Beatie.
I can assure you that no offence was intended. 'The Graham Norton Show' features trademark Norton comedy monologues, celebrity chat, eccentric stories and characters, and home-grown weirdness from the great British viewing public. The show provides him with a comedy vehicle to extract humour from people and events that interest him and his audience.
We try to ensure that post-watershed, anarchic comedy series are well signposted. As the BBC is a public service financed by the licence fee it must provide programmes which cater for the whole range of tastes in humour. We believe that there is no single set of standards in this area on which the whole of society can agree, and it is inevitable that programmes which are acceptable to some will occasionally strike others as distasteful. The only realistic and fair approach for us is to ensure that the range of comedy is broad enough for all viewers to feel that they are catered for at least some of the time.
I would like to assure you that we have registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us.
Regards
Rory Egan
BBC Complaints
*Deep Breath*
a) Not only have they completely misunderstood my comment, they've dismissed it in a really aggravating "generic response" way. I couldn't really give two figs about Thomas Beatie, I'm talking about general transphobia. It's really frustrating that there are huge uproars when something racist is said (and rightly so), but things like this get trivialised.
b) I can assure you that no offence was intended. - In what conceivable way could you interpret that statement in a non-offensive way?
c) We try to ensure that post-watershed, anarchic comedy series are well signposted. - I most definitely saw no warning before this program. And if there were to be one, it would have had to read: "This program may offend those who believe in gay and trans rights and anti-discrimination generally. If you feel you have been affected by this program, please go complain to someone else." Anarchic? Graham Norton is about as revolutionary as a sandwich left to go soggy in a fridge.
d) As the BBC is a public service financed by the licence fee it must provide programmes which cater for the whole range of tastes in humour. - Oh good, it's reassuring to know that there are a percentage of viewers who are PAYING for the socialization of transphobia into the brains of the general population.
e) We believe that there is no single set of standards in this area on which the whole of society can agree. - What wishy-washy bullshit. Is it just me, or is this scarily close to the BBC saying they haven't made their minds up about whether they're going to be trans-friendly yet? Trans-rights are ridiculously far behind gay rights, and there are plenty of people who think trans-gendered people are "freaks" or "gays in denial", but this is because they're either bigots or just misunderstanding the issue. There are plenty of "members of society" who believe that all Muslims are terrorists, and that black people should "go back to Africa", but this doesn't mean the BBC should be catering to all sides of the argument. The media doesn't just reflect the beliefs of the population, it leads them and it needs to take more responsibility for that. The only reason I'm not reading an apology email right now is because not enough people have complained or care, and therefore it's not an issue for them.
I realise that I'm probably overreacting here, but I felt like a rant about it. Comments appreciated.
EDIT.
piperfan has just pointed out that Graham actually says: "that thing is still a woman". 0_o
Comments
Although I'm surprised you actually got an individualised reply rather than the general "Sorry to hear you were upset, we'll pass on your concerns" email".
They still suck though.
Edited at 2008-04-23 09:54 am (UTC)
And apparently, transphobia is funny if you have a sense of humour.
not one of you has complained about the insult to welsh people, though i bet there's some welsh people out there that were unamused, and consider this joke to just further the cultural divide between england and wales.
some jokes are funny just because we know they're wrong, and that they could be offensive. just because you find it funny, doesn't mean you're transphobic.
jews are far more common a subject of mockery, get over it.
My issue is that trans people are a small minority group who experience fewer rights and a great deal of misunderstanding than many other groups, and it is not humorous or appropriate to fuel a misconception that trans people have to tirelessly struggle against anyway.
If you found it funny, go ahead and laugh. But please, don't tell me what do.
"experience fewer rights" - wtf? what rights are they missing that i have? call up the U.N.!
and minority? how about stupid people? They're the butt of everyones jokes, and the fact that they're in a majority (i.e. more of them to suffer from it) makes it worse.
Stuff like this annoys me so much, as soon as a minority is targetted, suddenly the political correct buzzers start whirring and everyone picks up their pitchforks and torches. In order to avoid being hypocritical, surely you should argue banning all jokes that mock a group of people?
As a side note, whatever else is claimed, there is a difference between a transgender male, and a birth male. Yes, they should have equal rights to a birth male, but whatever is legislated and such, they were still born a woman. ESPECIALLY in this case, where he decided to keep a fanny, the line between the two is so blurred, it's completely unreasonable to get stressy about someone making a joke about it. For example, if this transgender guy with a fanny goes down the pub and seduces a girl, and she decides she'll go back with him, should he tell her first about his parts? I think he has a social responsibility to.
As technology gets better, this would become less of a problem (as the change would be more complete) - but if the guy keeps some girl parts? Oh dear, there goes the gender. Suddenly we have a unisex world, because noone's really sure what the hell is a guy/girl any more. Why? here's why..
A table is a table because it looks like a table and we called it a table, take away a leg, and is it still a table? How about two legs? The physical representation of a person is used to define their gender in society at the moment. According to the law, it isn't, but socially it is. Is that what you want to change? Suddenly gender is based on what you have written on a piece of paper? Unisex world, here we come.
Phalloplasty is expensive. It's major surgery. It's not perfect, and doesn't give you a fully functional natal penis. It interferes with reproductive capability.
So basically if you're saying that for a transmen to be recognised as male they should be required to undergo four operations (what is usually required for phalloplasty), costing in the region of $100,000, costing them their reproductive ability (surprise surprise they don't just swap your ovaries for a pair of working testicles), losing a high percentage of genital sensitivity, and erectile ability (constructed penises can only get erect with artificial help such as a pump or insertible rod)?
I'm trans. If I could choose to be born with (or even gain later) a normal, average and functional penis then I would go for it. But I don't want to go through all that pain, money and general faffery for some half assed surgical procedure, even if I could afford it. At least my testosterone enhanced bits still feel good, get hard when required and retain (an admittedly decreased) ability to make one half of a baby, even if it isn't the half I'd prefer.
I didn't say you should have to have the problematic surgery to be a guy, i said if you publicise the fact that you dont have a penis to the national press, and get pregnant, society is going to be unsure how to deal with it, and the occasional comedian will find it amusing and crack a joke. If a birth male politician had a lot of feminine attributes, and a comedian made a joke about this, would you be so annoyed? It's the same thing.
I repeat: get over it.
The right to employment protection. If you have seen anything on the ENDA scandal you are aware that there is no federal protection of transpeople with regards to employment, this is also true in Canada (not sure of the UK). We can, and are, fired for being trans. My husband and I were denied employment specifically due to our trans status, they didn't even try to hide it as something else because they didn't have to.
Many countries do not have hate crime protection for trans people. I can press hate crime charges if I am assaulted for being a girl, being queer, being pagan, being white, being married, but the single most likely reason I have for being assaulted is not protected at all. The accused simply has to say "I didn't attack her because she was queer, I attacked her because she was trans" and the hate crime charge is dropped.
the right to pee in a public washroom. Lots of places do not have clear laws regarding which washrooms we are allowed to use... the ones we present as, the one we were born as, the one our ID says we are..... It is nearly always up to the security guard who comes to throw us out regardless of which one we are in.
right to not be discriminated against for housing. Many transfolk are denied renting or buying a place because background credit checks tell the landlord who we were. while I have no problem with people checking my credit, I am not too fond when it means that I can't rend an apartment just because of what was in my pants at one point.
right to access to healthcare 1: In the US, many insurance companies have clauses that flat out deny ALL treatment for transpeople.... if they find out you are trans you lose all coverage, even for non-trans stuff. In other places, if you legally change your name you no longer have coverage for care corresponding to your previous ID. EG: A post-op transwoman still has her prostate... if that gets cancer they may have to pay for it themselves as there is no form that has "female" and "prostate cancer" on it.
right to access to healthcare 2: transition expenses are often either explicitly or implicitly denied by many state and private insurance policies. Those that do so explicitly get away with it because we lack protection from discrimination. A clause that specifically denies coverage to anyone who is black would be tossed out on it's ear, but one that specifically denies coverage to anyone who is trans is rock solid. Policies that deny coverage implicitly will often list our medical costs as "cosmetic"... despite decades worth of studies showing that it greatly improves our quality of life and lowers our suicide rate to only a few times that of the average population (instead of being about 3 orders of magnitude higher)
Right to marry (for places without same-sex marriage laws). Many transpeople find their marriages annulled (usually by unsupportive in-laws upon the death of their spouse), either they say that since the transperson was born an X and their spouse was an X it is same-sex and should be annulled, or they say that since the trans person was living their life as Y and their spouse was living their life as Y it was same-sex and should be annulled.
there is a short list, I'm sure I could come up with more given time.
Yeah, the US is stupid and backwards about a lot of stuff.. that's what happens when government decisions are influenced by religion.
I still stand by the idea that being a guy is playing a role, and breaking character is going to understandably draw mixed reactions.
Civil-union on the other hand is perfectly reasonable, i think there should be an option to get the marriage converted to a civil union for the purposes of gender change, then reapply for marriage if that's what is wanted. Then you wont miss out on any tax.
also, the law I mentioned in the post you replied to is not a religious thing, it is a government law. IE: You must legally file for divorce, then legally apply for gender change, then legally apply to be wed again as the new gender (be that now a same-sex or hetero marriage).
The law has nothing to do with a church, it is strictly civil law.
What problems do you have with the notion of gender being an act, nothing more than what society perceives us to be? Maybe on a personal level it's different, but as far as people are concerned, the outside viewer, you are whatever they think you are. Society was convinced this person was a guy, the quotes from neighbours prove this. Now people don't know what to think, and a less than witty observer made a rather obvious joke. What am I missing?
Yeah the world is harsh and cruel, and society rates you on appearance. You think that's something only the transexual have to deal with? Go hug an ugly stupid person, they probably need it.
If I threaten to kill myself unless i get a nosejob, should i get one free? (there's nothing wrong with my nose damnit!)
Trans people have an absurdly high suicide rate. I wish I could find the link, but there was a British study where over 75% of the respondents said they had attempted it once, 33% more then twice. Keep in mind that those numbers do not include those who succeeded. Even a conservative estimate puts it at about 80%, the general population is less then 0.1%.
http://www.hemingways.org/GIDinfo/morbi
not got time for more research; there's no citation for the "5 times" he claimed. A lot of reports commisioned by transexual websites appear to be unreliable though, and just make up numbers (probably looking for the biggest number possible that anyone has claimed).
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/m
That woman who has been working with transexuals for many years places the number at 17-20%, again no citation, but that seems more realistic. The base population suicide "attempt" rates seem to be about 9%, but that's based on uncited claims that i've come across.
I'm not saying it's not a problem, but claiming it's a worse problem than it really is, kills the credibility of your argument.
Most studies in the field that do not include GLBs are decades old and are done by the psychiatrists in charge of the persons transition. Even if we can assume that the rate has not changed that much in 20 years (big IF), the fact that the study is being done by the psychiatrist instantly invalidates the study. Transpeople learn very early on how to talk to shrinks, what we can say and what we can not if we want our transition to proceed at a reasonable rate. Telling your shrink you have suicidal thoughts is extremely dangerous as the shrink will likely determine that you are unfit for transition and terminate your treatment on the spot (I've seen it happen more then once) even if the sole cause of the suicidal thoughts is being trans or not having access to treatment. As you can imagine, this creates an extreme sampling bias... "Now answer honestly, A or B... but keep in mind, if you answer A I will give you a cookie and if you say B then Bruno here will beat you with this cricket bat until his arms get tired.... but please, answer honestly"
you simply can not expect an accurate result from a study run by a psychological doctor. An annonomous survey totally unrelated to ones psychological care is the only hope at getting accurate info.
And why do you think the suicide rates would have gone up? Time has only increased society's acceptance of the transexual. It's not perfect yet, but it's better than 20 years ago.
I'm gonna converge the two threads here, and talk about the marriage thing in this post, to make it easier to read and reply to.
UK law is great, you'll find it's not so hard to understand. Here's a link to the main bill the protects transexual rights in england (if you're interested):
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p
but here's the relevant bit..
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p
No clergyman is obliged to solemnise the marriage of a person
whose gender has become the acquired gender under the Gender
Recognition Act 2004.
So they can't say the marriage doesn't exist, they can just refuse to sit over the ceremony. This is something that *has* to be addressed in law, because marriage is (sadly) a legally recognised union. This mean that laws have to exist to govern it, the one in question here; gender reassignment not being allowed if you're married, is reasonable for that reason. Marriage is both religious and lawbinding, and if you wanna cut out the religious aspects, you can go the civil union route. Otherwise, you just have to put up with the oddities (although saying that, religion is getting better with time, and will probably have a shakeup soon enough).
P.S. i'd like to apologise to Ruth for highjacking her LJ post :P
http://www.dca.gov.uk/constitution/tran
--:
Why does the Government require married transsexual people to annul their marriage before they can be legally recognised in their acquired gender?
The aim of this Act is to give transsexual people the right to live legally in their acquired gender, not to make special allowances for transsexual people which do not apply to other groups in society.
Following the grant of a gender recognition certificate, the applicant is, from that time, recognised in law as being of the opposite gender to his or her birth gender. If the applicant was married, this would mean that the marriage would become a marriage between two people of the same gender. English law does not recognise same-sex marriage, and the Government has made it clear that it does not propose to change this.
There is nothing to prevent a married person from making an application to the Gender Recognition Panel. If the Panel decides to grant the application of a married person, it will issue an interim gender recognition certificate. The issue of this certificate makes the existing marriage of the applicant voidable at the application of either party to the marriage within six months of its issue, but has no effect beyond that. In granting the annulment, the Court will be able to make orders dealing with financial and other issues arising from the annulment of the marriage. A full gender recognition certificate will be issued by the Court granting the annulment of the marriage.
Re: marriage
you are still misunderstanding my point. I am not trying to say that they must force a clergyman to solomize a NEW marriage, I'm saying that the state (not the church) disolves any existing union before gender change, be that a marriage in a christian church, synagog, druidic ceremony or by a justice of the peace.
any legally recognized union, performed by anyone must be dissolved regardless of that faith's (if any faith was involved at all) view on gender changes.
I fully agree with you that any religious type person must be able to decide who they are willing to marry, and if that does not include trans people then that's ok with me. The part I take issue with is when the state (not the church) forcibly dissolves any and all unions for transpeople regardless of their religion or lack there of and requires them to go through three legal processes in the same working day in order to avoid massive tax issues if they wish to remain in a legal union with their partner.
Okay, first a couple of examples that this topic really needs to be read* up on this first:
i'd say he's closer to dyke
"experience fewer rights" - wtf? what rights are they missing that i have? call up the U.N.!
But if the guy keeps some girl parts? Oh dear, there goes the gender.
Just NO. No, no, no on every level. Gender and Sex are different things. Sex is biological; chromosomes and hormones. Gender is a social construction; it represents the behaviours/appearances that define 'male' or 'female'. If a guy decides not to have surgery this does not make his gender female. As an everyday example: you meet a guy walking down the street. He looks, walks, talks and even smells like a guy. Do you ask him to just quickly drop his pants for a moment so you can check he's definitely a man? Exactly.
jews are far more common a subject of mockery, get over it.
God that's a lame argument, and you know it.
you publicise the fact that you dont have a penis to the national press, and get pregnant, society is going to be unsure how to deal with it, and the occasional comedian will find it amusing and crack a joke
I understand you on this one. I will admit to choosing a bad example to jump on with my anti-discrimination-stick, but it was the BBC's perhaps 'not-caring-less', but more likely 'copy-pasted template' response that really riled me up. I can take a faux-discriminatory joke as much as the next person, when and if it is understood that it IS actually a joke. I think some people these days are taking this liberty a little too far, rolling off racist jokes and such like nobody's business, but it's "Okay because we're only kidding".. sometimes it's too easy a get-out clause.
Thomas Beatie is probably a bad example, and I agree with you completely that he's pushing his luck. He transitioned to male and decided to become pregnant, breaking all of our society's rules about what gender is, and then went to the media. He is practically asking for it and I understand a lot of trans people were angry about it. In this context, the joke could be almost excusable.
However, as I tried to make clear and perhaps failed to, I'm not really talking about Beatie, so let's leave him behind now. I'm talking about the general trans-discriminatory undertones. Calling FTMs (female-to-male) "lesbians" or "things" happens in Real Life, shock horror, and to people who stick rigidly to their new gender and really don't want to be reminded about their past. This joke offended me because what Norton said is merely the repetition of what trans people suffer on a day-to-day basis from people who are either ignorant or malicious. People who then watch the television of an evening and have their beliefs reinforced by a popular comedian, and don't realise he's joking (if he even was). Trans-rights are far behind in law but more importantly in the mind of the general public, through lack of education about the issues etc. Personally, I don't believe that these kinds of jokes are okay until people realise that it's "funny" because it's not true.
I truly believe that the majority of people watching would have found that funny because they agree, and that is the crucial difference.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me on this, and I definitely don't want a huge critique of what I've said hurled back at me. There are parts of these arguments I'm just leaving be, either because I don't know much about US or UK marriage laws, or because they're just ridiculous.
This is my opinion (albeit a bit meandering and incoherent) and I hope I've clarified it a little.
* Judith Butler, Christine Delpy, West & Zimmerman, Garfinkel, Liz Stanley, Berger & Luckmann
[Yes, I'm late to the party - only just saw this entry.]
I normally like Graham Norton. He does go too far sometimes, (the taunting of Jade "Piggy" Goody when she was on Big Brother a few years back is one of those times - which he himself eventually acknowledged) but he's usually funny with it and I don't usually get the impression that he means it maliciously. However, using "thing" or "it" to refer to a trans person is never acceptable.
I don't have a problem with anyone acknowledging that Beatie's choices make them uncomfortable. Hell, they make me a bit uncomfortable and I don't think anyone's ever accused me of transphobia! I wouldn't even have had an issue if he'd made jokes about the challenges Beatie's decision to bear a child has presented to the gay and trans communities, and to the hetero-centric state. There was scope there for positive and affirmative comedy. Instead, he went for the lowest and easiest blow (a phrase which he'd probably find hilarious) and thus managed to piss off a section of his audience he probably ought to take more care of.
Beatie was and should be free to make the choice that felt right for him, as long as it didn't hurt anyone else. I don't think it has done (although I think the whole subject will have to be handled carefully as his kid gets older), and thus it's simply up to the rest of us to deal with our own reactions to it. We're also all entitled to our own opinions and decisions to the same limit that Beatie is - up to the point that we hurt other people. Graham Norton, I think, has hurt people and therefore I don't feel it was appropriate to express that opinion (whether real or assumed for comedic effect) on the British broadcast media.
Selina - I'd go back to the BBC Complaints Department with a link to this post and the comments, and another email. I don't recall whether there's a TV equivalent to Radio's "Feedback" programme, but that'd be the place to take this. The reply you got from the Beeb just isn't good enough.
'LD'
Ofcom on the other hand sent me an actual letter, which was very well explained and actually took on board what I was saying. They state: "we do not believe there was any intention to denigrate those of transgender" and "There was no actual criticism directed towards this man for being trans-gender. The joke was very much regarding the newspaper headline and the picture of him showing off his bump". I have already explained in my comment above that Beatie was almost asking for it by presenting himself to the media, etc, so I can understand this element of it and their decision.
However they also mention that they have had no other complaints. What can I say, in the words of Queer_Rage - If you're not pissed off, you're not paying attention!