Anti-Trans Letterman Skit Insults Obama Appointee Amanda Simpson

[tekla]

The deal with worrying about some late night comedy joke is that for such people coverage is coverage.  Not good or bad, just coverage.  In the end a hella lot of people will just remember seeing your name, and not what was said about you.  Morever, there is the great lesson from The Last Temptation of the Christ which goes a little something like this.

But lets go way back to 1988.  A fairly young director, who had had some success decided to make a very personal movie.  He could afford it, after all Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, The Last Waltz and the boffo box office hit, The Color of Money all had done well, why not do something personal?

So this young director took a book by Nikos Kazantzakis and made a 164 minute film about what Jesus was thinking about when he was on the cross.  The movie had no fights, no car chases, no space toys, no wiseguys, no major stars, no nuttin.  And 164 minutes is a very long film.  It's distributor was having trouble getting it booked into Art Houses - showing it in First Run Houses was out of the question.  It had zero box office potential.

Then, then the Xians got their knickers in a twist over it.  First it was noted that the book that was the basis for the movie was placed on the Roman Catholic Church's highly popular and very interesting, Index of Prohibited Books^* (Index Librorum Prohibitorum for you Latin scholars) alongside Kepler's New Astronomy, and Kepler's World Harmony, along with writers like Jean Paul Sartre, Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, David Hume, Rene Descartes, Francis Bacon, John Milton, John Locke, Galileo Galilei, and Blaise Pascal.  Talk about pallin' around with terrorists!

Then it was denounced as heresy, blasphemy, anti-Christian and just about everything else by so many Xian leaders that eventually Time, Newsweek and other popular publications began to take note and wrote about it.

The end result was that a movie that they were having trouble booking at off-beat theaters was running at all the major ones, and receiving major acclaim.

They should have learned to STFU, and left it at that, I'm sure outside of some movie buffs, no one would have noticed it at all.



* - which I find particularly hysterical, as Calvin, Knox and Luther are on the same list.

[juliekins]

When Julie Marie first mentioned that she had seen this on Susan's, my reaction was frustration and disgust. Lettermen is a liberal, but he and his writers seem quick to cash in on a cheap joke at our expense. For those here who don't see what's wrong with this brand of joke consider this:
(1) Our family or friends who have abandoned us feel justified and backed up with their in sensitivities. "See, being trans is gross and wrong-everyone is laughing at the freaks" mentality.
(2) Over 100 trans killings and serious acts of violence took place in 2009.
(3) Under or unemployment amongst trans people is very high. Discrimination by employers is once again justified by perpetuating stereotypes exhibited by these jokes. Phobic people think they are in the right because of media like this.
(4) This low level appointment of Amanda would have never made news had she not been trans. Tells you how rare it is for one of us to be placed in a position of power once our gender history is made public. Employers don't want to take a chance on us because we might "embarrass" their company in the eyes of the public.

I'll write the show(and encourage our state gender group) to let them know that this humor has real negative effects on us. Imagine had they done a joke about a biracial person, and the band member had run out of the room screaming, "I didn't know she was part black"~followed by the roar of laughter from the audience. Our society needs to grow up and move on!

[tekla]

I think that Letterman and his staff do nothing but cash in on cheap jokes.  What other choice do they have?  They have to put that show on five days a week, and writing on that kind of schedule has a burnout rate that is off the charts.  Even SNL had a hard time keeping writers more than a few years and that's just doing one show a week.  Point being, there is no time to really work the material and the timing, and to hone it the way people doing stand-up in clubs can do.  So you can't really ask them to do something that is not in the job description in the first place.

Really its a show for poseur hipsters (and really, aren't hipsters a style of woman's underwear?) because any real hip person ain't at home watching TV at that time of night.  Matter of fact, anyone really hip doesn't watch TV at all, considering it little more bland, mainstream, middle of the road mush.

Some of the other stuff you mention, though true, can hardly be blamed on some late night jokes.  Like high unemployment rates.  It's hard when people with very real skills, and excellent work records can't find work (and lot's of non-trans persons are in the boat these days also) but for the most part, I don't see where that describes the majority of the people on this board, many of whom have deficient and marginal educations, no skills, and spotty work records. Realistically I wouldn't hire most of them, and if you told the truth, neither would you.  I've read countless posts from people who have a great deal of trouble separating their personal life from work, and to me that's about the worst trait anyone can have.  I can teach you the skills if I have to, but you have to take your problems to your wife/GF/family/friends/therapist/minister - anywhere but here.  I don't tolerate it, nor do most workplaces.

Nor do I see any of this as being responsible for violence, and I doubt that the people doing the violence are watching this kind of stuff on TV either, like I said, it's poseur hipster stuff.  And they are not out bashing anyone.  Matter of fact, they are not even out, they are at home watching TV.

And I'm not so sure that her appointment is all that low-level.  It requires a top-secret security clearance to begin with.  And such positions come with a 6 figure salary, so it's not exactly chump change.

At any rate, its topical humor, that was the press release that day, it will only continue to the degree that people make a deal out of it, and it becomes an ongoing topic.

Truly, it's best to let it alone.  Let our old pal Sara prove the point for us, because after she got all hot and bothered about old Dave - to the point of having to issue an apology (highly insincere, at best) - did he then lay off her?  Nope, they go out of their way to write a new Sara joke every day.

[Sandy]

I think that Letterman and his staff do nothing but cash in on cheap jokes.  What other choice do they have?  They have to put that show on five days a week, and writing on that kind of schedule has a burnout rate that is off the charts.  Even SNL had a hard time keeping writers more than a few years and that's just doing one show a week.  Point being, there is no time to really work the material and the timing, and to hone it the way people doing stand-up in clubs can do.  So you can't really ask them to do something that is not in the job description in the first place.

Really its a show for poseur hipsters (and really, aren't hipsters a style of woman's underwear?) because any real hip person ain't at home watching TV at that time of night.  Matter of fact, anyone really hip doesn't watch TV at all, considering it little more bland, mainstream, middle of the road mush.

Some of the other stuff you mention, though true, can hardly be blamed on some late night jokes.  Like high unemployment rates.  It's hard when people with very real skills, and excellent work records can't find work (and lot's of non-trans persons are in the boat these days also) but for the most part, I don't see where that describes the majority of the people on this board, many of whom have deficient and marginal educations, no skills, and spotty work records. Realistically I wouldn't hire most of them, and if you told the truth, neither would you.  I've read countless posts from people who have a great deal of trouble separating their personal life from work, and to me that's about the worst trait anyone can have.  I can teach you the skills if I have to, but you have to take your problems to your wife/GF/family/friends/therapist/minister - anywhere but here.  I don't tolerate it, nor do most workplaces.

Nor do I see any of this as being responsible for violence, and I doubt that the people doing the violence are watching this kind of stuff on TV either, like I said, it's poseur hipster stuff.  And they are not out bashing anyone.  Matter of fact, they are not even out, they are at home watching TV.

And I'm not so sure that her appointment is all that low-level.  It requires a top-secret security clearance to begin with.  And such positions come with a 6 figure salary, so it's not exactly chump change.

At any rate, its topical humor, that was the press release that day, it will only continue to the degree that people make a deal out of it, and it becomes an ongoing topic.

Truly, it's best to let it alone.  Let our old pal Sara prove the point for us, because after she got all hot and bothered about old Dave - to the point of having to issue an apology (highly insincere, at best) - did he then lay off her?  Nope, they go out of their way to write a new Sara joke every day.

So I guess that in the end that is all we have to do.  Just STFU and leave it at that.  Always and everywhere.  Anytime anybody makes any ->-bleeped-<- jokes or decries that queers are taking over society, or that the homosexual agenda is out to teach fisting to our children.  Just shut the ->-bleeped-<- up and hope it goes away.  Right.

God!  I never knew that getting acceptance in society was so damned simple!

whowuddaguessed!

-Sandy

[tekla]

No, but I think its far more useful to frame outrage at people who matter and not people who don't.  While it might feel good to write some note of outrage to some faceless corporation who isn't really going to do anything about it, its far more important to confront people who are really out trying to change things for the worse.  Of course that takes personal commitment and getting out of the basement, and out in the streets and in people's faces.  Letters to a stand-up are a hella lot easier.

[Tammy Hope]

I won't deny that more Republicans in power means no new progress towards expansion of protection for us (given that all politicians knee-jerk to their political baseand the most vocal Christian activists are the most unfriendly to such issues)

BUT

This:

I wouldn't be surprised if in 2013 President Palin introduces legislation to outlaw cross dressing of any sort and, after having "proved" that transsexuality is a lie, require that all post op ->-bleeped-<-s  have reversal surgery at their expense.  And force heterosexual re-education for all those who are homo.  Neighborhood watches and a toll free tip line with a reward will also be set up.

I love you Sandy, but that's as unrealistic as saying "I wouldn't be surprised if Aliens from Saturn came to earth and executed all the transsexuals."

Be concerned? Absolutely. But such wild overstatement is equivalent to the worst of what the legalistic assume about us.

(apologies if it was intended as humor - I didn't pick up any tells of that)

[SarahFaceDoom]

hipsters watch the daily show and Colbert.  Not Letterman.

[Silver]

Once again, my apologies if I have come across harsh.  I'd just really like someone to back up their ideas with some solid thoughts on the matter.

I don't think it's possible to explain humor with "solid thoughts."

[chrysalis]

No, but I think its far more useful to frame outrage at people who matter and not people who don't.  While it might feel good to write some note of outrage to some faceless corporation who isn't really going to do anything about it, its far more important to confront people who are really out trying to change things for the worse.  Of course that takes personal commitment and getting out of the basement, and out in the streets and in people's faces.  Letters to a stand-up are a hella lot easier.

To be an effective revolutionary (social or otherwise) you must fight your battles, and the war, intelligently. If you foam at the mouth over every little thing then you'll get a reputation like PETA has and find yourself slowing the progress of your movement. Pick your battles.

The funny part to me is that some people are surprised that a late night talk show would make a joke about something like this. I saw it coming the moment I heard the news.

[glendagladwitch]

At least the punch line wasn't "You mean Amanda IS a dude?"  She is getting a lot worse treatment elsewhere in the media.

I think this joke says something about the age group of Letterman's target audience.  No, not middle schoolers.  An older generation.  It probably never occurred to him or his writers that it would be over the line.  I mean, it's not like they strive to be in good taste.

[Sandy]

I love you Sandy, but that's as unrealistic as saying "I wouldn't be surprised if Aliens from Saturn came to earth and executed all the transsexuals."

Be concerned? Absolutely. But such wild overstatement is equivalent to the worst of what the legalistic assume about us.

(apologies if it was intended as humor - I didn't pick up any tells of that)

Laura:

If there was humor in it, it was very dark humor.  I was then, and am now, in a very cynical mood about the possibility of any further progress made for the LGBT community in general and trans people in specific.

I feel that the tide of progress for the LGBT community has turned, starting with Prop H8 and continuing with every defeat of civil marriage since.

I really don't feel that ENDA will be passed, neither will DOMA or DODT be repealed.  After all the political capital that has been spent on health care reform, the democratic party will not really want to really go into any more heated political controversy.  Least of all for minorities like us.

When the next republican president is elected in 2012, they will specifically address those issues that the extreme conservative fundamentalist religious "chrisitian" right find most appealing.  I picked Palin simply because she is so much in the public eye, though, in my opinion not even qualified to be the president of the PTA let alone hold the keys to nuclear launch codes.

With the head of the RNC, Micheal Steele, saying that the republican party must become even more conservative and more right wing in order to return to power, I don't see much hope for any continued progress and feel that we will be easy targets for discrimination.

I really should keep my political opinions to myself and I apologize if I have offended anyone and you specifically Laura.  Also I use the term "christian" in the way that is probably the least in line with true Christian ideals of love and acceptance. 

-Sandy

[tekla]

Currently the only thing doing worse in the polling then the dems are the pubs. Extreme right wing candidates who have been teabagged will not win elections outside of places that are already sending total nut jobs to Congress.

In the last 2 years, the value of homes in Modesto have fallen on the average of 67%, do you think those people care about social issues?  Do people without a job care about who is marrying who?  So long as the economic situation continues to go down (and it will) social issues - which are really champagne problems - will not gain traction against economic issues.

And the only people in the US with less chance of getting elected than Sara Palin are the followers of Chuck Manson.  She polls high with a fringe group in the Republican Party, but its not like people in the West, or Northeast are going to vote for her.

[eshaver]

Foget Letterman , I don't look at that show anymore . He's not funnny to me at least . Lets examine what Michiael Savage has against Transpeople . Would somebody from San Francisco please enlighten me ? i only want to hear from those citizens of the Oakland and Marin County area . Ellen Shaver

[Sandy]

Currently the only thing doing worse in the polling then the dems are the pubs. Extreme right wing candidates who have been teabagged will not win elections outside of places that are already sending total nut jobs to Congress.

In the last 2 years, the value of homes in Modesto have fallen on the average of 67%, do you think those people care about social issues?  Do people without a job care about who is marrying who?  So long as the economic situation continues to go down (and it will) social issues - which are really champagne problems - will not gain traction against economic issues.

And the only people in the US with less chance of getting elected than Sara Palin are the followers of Chuck Manson.  She polls high with a fringe group in the Republican Party, but its not like people in the West, or Northeast are going to vote for her.

Yes, Bush XLI lost the bid for his second term because of jobs, although he had an incredibly high approval rating during the first Iraq war.  So I agree that it will be jobs, not social issues that will be the driving issues in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

But "Going Rogue" sold over half a million copies in the first week.  Teabaggers, right wing extremists and other wing nuts will have much more say over platform issues than they have been in past.  I still don't have a warm fuzzy for us maintaining even a toe hold on the social gains we have made.  And it will be extremely easy to lose what we have.

The fruitcakes still say that minority rights must be approved by the majority.  And it goes against the basic principles of our democracy.  And yet they still manage, time after time, not only to get our issues put up for referendum, but and ALWAYS WIN!  Not once has civil marriage been approved by the majority despite the best efforts of the LGBT community.

I have been and still remain cynical.

"Audacity of Hope" indeed.

-Sandy

[Laura91]

Get used to it folks.  And enjoy it.  For these are the good old days.

With the resignation of key democrats in the house and senate the writing is on the wall for 2010 and is starting to look grim for 2012.

The conservative ultra right will hold sway over this land and will begin to undo all the good that has been done to now.

I wouldn't be surprised if in 2013 President Palin introduces legislation to outlaw cross dressing of any sort and, after having "proved" that transsexuality is a lie, require that all post op ->-bleeped-<-s  have reversal surgery at their expense.  And force heterosexual re-education for all those who are homo.  Neighborhood watches and a toll free tip line with a reward will also be set up.

At least right now they're just laughing.  The lynchings will happen soon enough.  That will make for great comedy, trust me.

-Sandy(very cynical today)

Well, when that happens I will just end it all. At least I would die on my own terms rather than being beaten or shot to death (or worse).

[tekla]

What makes it all too easy for us to lose what we have gained is the number of us who are willing to sit back and let it happen.  Gee, if you're going to off yourself, they are not even going to have to try very hard are they?

And 500,000 books, most of which were sold in bulk purchases to conservative groups who bought them to inflate sales figures and then turn around and give them away as donation premiums, isn't a lot in a country of over 300,000,000.  For a more accurate estimate about sales, look at the price.  You could find deeply discounted copies the week it came out.  More people listen to Rush then bought that book (not that such is a comforting thought) but where that number seems huge in isolation, in reality it's not much. In fact it's like .16%, or in statistical terms, insignificant.

[Britney_413]

I don't really see where this fearmongering is coming from. I happen to be an economic conservative myself as well as conservative on some other issues. I also have quite a few conservative friends. I don't seem to run into all this bigotry and hate that so many seem to believe conservatives have. Perhaps, part of the problem is defining conservative. If you are referring to "social conservatism" then that is where the prejudice will be found. You have political conservatism and social conservatism. I am a political conservative meaning I believe we need a traditional government. Social conservatives push for traditional values. Some Republicans may be both or they may be one or the other.

I find this political liberalism actually more frightening than anything else. It is certainly true that trans issues have a long way to go and I have to agree that the social and political liberals will be more on our side on this issue than the conservatives. Unfortunately, everything often is a trade-off. What we often fail to remember is that the power is in the hands of the people. Liberals want to push for things like ENDA where the federal government makes it a law that employers cannot discriminate on the basis of gender identity. Sooner or later this will materialize. It won't materialize because more Democrats are in power or because more Republicans are won over. It will result by the actions of the people. Ask yourself why gays didn't have the protection they did in the 1970s than they do now? It had little to do with laws and everything to do with not being out in the public eye.

We don't have ENDA but many companies are already in the process of adding us to their non-discrimination policies and many already have. Why? Because of credibility. Companies want to make a profit, they need customers to buy their products or use their services, and they need happy employees to run them. They don't want bad press. ENDA won't happen because of liberals. It will happen because 80% of companies already have it in their policies to begin with.

This is why I'm a conservative. If you want change, get out there and change the world and it will change. Stop asking the government to do it for you. If starting tomorrow, every TG/TS/CD went public there would be change overnight. This rests on us. Will there be pain and suffering? Absolutely. Discrimination? Absolutely. Danger? Of course. Freedom isn't free and you have to fight for it. I'd rather have a society that isn't perfect but where you can struggle through your problems while maintaining most freedoms than a society where everybody is provided a safety net and spoon-fed handouts.

This same Obama administration that passed a law "protecting" us from hate crimes is the same administration that doesn't believe citizens should be allowed to own or carry firearms for personal protection. Here's another one as well: I think discrimination is wrong so how should it be handled? I think it is more productive to reveal true colors than to hide problems with sugar coating. Let a corporation discriminate against gender identity and then let the public protests begin, let them get bad press, and let them lose customers. Then they will learn from their mistakes and make better decisions. If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was repealed today, you wouldn't see stores suddenly putting up "Whites Only" signs because they don't want to lose business. It wasn't "liberals" that got that Act passed in the first place. It was black activists and allies who made their voices heard. You can't have all trans people hiding in their closets, sitting at their computers, watching their TV sets, waiting for "Change We Can Believe In." If you want change, get out there and do it.

So instead of all of this conservative bashing, let's take responsibility for our own futures. We have life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in this country. Are you guaranteed happiness? No. But you have the right to pursue it how you see fit. Liberalism seems to want to force happiness where everyone's happiness has to be regulated and properly distributed. There are probably some who would even make it illegal for Letterman to say what he did. That is stupid. Expose these people and let the consequences come on their own. If my job does not like me for being trans, I will expose them and either find a different job or stay when they make things right. If I want to go out in my preferred gender and am concerned about hate criminals, I will carry a gun or other device for self-defense. If a store doesn't treat me nicely, I will spend my money with their competitor and expose them as well. What I am not going to do is sit there and whine for big government to take care of me.

Life is tough. You have problems. I have problems. We all have problems. What did all the trans people do before surgery was available? This doom and gloom is ridiculous. The U.S. is not likely to go back to 16th Century England. An individual is responsible for where he or she is in life. The people are responsible for the state of their society. The millions of trans people and crossdressers in this country who were watching Letterman could have spent that hour doing something more productive for their lives as well as their society. I've even considered going to one of these "tea parties" as some here seem to hate dressed in my preferred gender identity even if I don't pass and I would still feel safer going to such a gun-toting freedom-loving event than to some huddle where everyone is crying about ObamaCare not passing. I have been to many conservative rallies and I just don't seem to see or hear the hate that everyone discribes here. That is because a lot of conservatives are political conservatives but not necessarily "traditional values" or social conservatives. Rank-and-file conservatives are not the Bible-thumping bigots everyone seems to make out. If conservatives are so evil, why is it that liberal states such as New York and California seem to have virtually all of the hate crime murders in? Enough said.

[Tammy Hope]

Laura:

If there was humor in it, it was very dark humor.  I was then, and am now, in a very cynical mood about the possibility of any further progress made for the LGBT community in general and trans people in specific.

I feel that the tide of progress for the LGBT community has turned, starting with Prop H8 and continuing with every defeat of civil marriage since.

I really don't feel that ENDA will be passed, neither will DOMA or DODT be repealed.  After all the political capital that has been spent on health care reform, the democratic party will not really want to really go into any more heated political controversy.  Least of all for minorities like us.

When the next republican president is elected in 2012, they will specifically address those issues that the extreme conservative fundamentalist religious "chrisitian" right find most appealing.  I picked Palin simply because she is so much in the public eye, though, in my opinion not even qualified to be the president of the PTA let alone hold the keys to nuclear launch codes.

With the head of the RNC, Micheal Steele, saying that the republican party must become even more conservative and more right wing in order to return to power, I don't see much hope for any continued progress and feel that we will be easy targets for discrimination.

I really should keep my political opinions to myself and I apologize if I have offended anyone and you specifically Laura.  Also I use the term "christian" in the way that is probably the least in line with true Christian ideals of love and acceptance. 

-Sandy

Well please know that what I'm about to say is NOT any sort of values argument or any other sort of "confrontational" reply to your thoughts...just my general political take.

On the point of whether or not further progress will be made: I think you are right that it will be a while on the national level. they MIGHT squeeke EMDA through but nothing else. they will be in election year mode next year.

I DO think that the Reppublicans have a fair shot at taking back the house and a great shot at picking up enough Senate seats to get back to a near balance of power in the upper chamber.

I do think, barring a remarkable recovery, that obama is in danger of being a one-term president.

I don't think I take any great satisfaction in that because I don't think the Republicans have learned anything from their loss of power.

All that said:

IMHO, the massively full plate that whoever is in power has, in terms of dealing with an economic situation that is not only not over but is not even as bad yet as it will be, along with what looks to be a generational international conflict (not Afghanistan particularly but the conflict between the west and Radical Islam)  will be SO VERY demanding that I would be very surprised if the people in power wish to spend ANY time on "social issues"

I don't think there will be significant legislation out of Congress on ANY issue typically associated with the Religious Right - furthermore, as a matter of political stratagy, I don't thing the RR particularly WANTS them to.

the Right wing Christian political activists are as much or more worried about what they perceive to be the "war on terror" and "creeping socialism" (as personified by the Health Care Bill) than they are about abortion or gay rights or whatever right now (on the national level).

There won't be ANY political capital lost with the Religious Right if the next Republican with political power ignores the social issues altogether until the economy is sound again.

Please note, that doesn't mean there won't be "Prop 8" type battles on the state level all over. I simply mean in Washington.

But then, the state and local battles go on no matter who's in power in Washington.
Post Merge: January 10, 2010, 01:39:19 AM

Currently the only thing doing worse in the polling then the dems are the pubs. Extreme right wing candidates who have been teabagged will not win elections outside of places that are already sending total nut jobs to Congress.

In the last 2 years, the value of homes in Modesto have fallen on the average of 67%, do you think those people care about social issues?  Do people without a job care about who is marrying who?  So long as the economic situation continues to go down (and it will) social issues - which are really champagne problems - will not gain traction against economic issues.

Which the RR knows - which is why, outside of the early Republican primaries, they will have next to nothing to say about those issues in the next two or three election cycles.


And likewise, if they don't bang the drum about abortion or whatever - if they talk about economics and spending and so forth, those homeowners you mention will not be saying to themselves "Yeah, you SAY that but really you are just waiting to ban abortion if you get elected!"

No, they will be responding to the attention being paid to their issues - which is their wallet.

[tekla]

I DO think that the Reppublicans have a fair shot at taking back the house and a great shot at picking up enough Senate seats to get back to a near balance of power in the upper chamber.

Oh damn if I had only had half a hit of that stuff on NYE when Bob and Phil played. Sugar Magnolia would have never sounded better.

To 'win' the House would take a reversal of 40 seats and not even the RNC chairman thinks that can happen.

[Tammy Hope]

Well, I said that not really looking at the numbers so I'm not prepared to defend the thought.

But I will say that I think that with a properly run campaign (as in '94) which I have no idea if they will mount, they could have similar results numerically (and no, I don't remember how many they won in '94 off the top of my head)

More than the left thinks they will for sure, and possibly more than even the GOP leadership thinks (they, like you, vastly underestimate the potential effect of the tea party folks - they are not in the pocket of the GOP but right now, it's an "enemy of my enemy" thing)

A LOT of the passion of the tea-party crowd is that they are a lot of the same folks that said "there's no real difference in the parties so I'll boycott McCain because the GOP nominated a RINO and teach them a lesson" in 2008 and are now horrified at just how much worse Obama is than McCain would have been (and McCain WOULD have been bad - well mediocre instead of bad on war issues, but bad otherwise)

That's likely to drive them to work hard to get the Republicans they want in the next couple of cycles, true - but it will also make them bite their tongue and vote Republican over staying home too.