Is it a new level of lame when you cross-post on your own journal? I replied in comment form on my recent transphobia entry, but it ended up being so long that I thought it deserved its own post. Sorry it took so long.


*deep breath*

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

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:

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