Trans Scenes from The Simpsons: What Do You Think?
Filed by: Alex Blaze
January 18, 2011 1:30 PM
http://www.bilerico.com/2011/01/trans_scenes_from_the_simpsons_what_do_you_think.php (http://www.bilerico.com/2011/01/trans_scenes_from_the_simpsons_what_do_you_think.php)
A reader emailed in about this Sunday's episode of The Simpsons, where transsexual-Smithers convinces Moe to set up a gay bar, Mo's. I watched it and was surprised that The Simpsons got funny again (there were a few bad seasons there so I had stopped watching). I liked the episode, as it was the usual commentary on American life, poking fun at looks-fascism among gay men, with a whole lot of heart that keeps the ridiculousness from collapsing on its own weight.
The reader who emailed was concerned about the transsexual scenes. I'm trying to discern what they're supposed to mean, other than "Whoever wrote this episode doesn't know the difference between 'transsexual' and 'drag queen.'" There seems to be an implication that they're trying to fool people, that they're not really women, or something vaguely off.
Offensive but still nowhere near as terrible as Family Guy. If the sign said "drag queens for change" instead of "transsexuals for change" I wouldn't have an issue because the characters seem to be drag queens.
I actually see this as more offensive than the Family Guy portrayal...
Quote from: Miniar on January 19, 2011, 06:48:20 PM
I actually see this as more offensive than the Family Guy portrayal...
Although the Family Guy portrayal is a lot less stereotypical, it's the way that the other characters reacted to Ida that makes it more offensive. But then again I haven't seen the entire Simpsons episode so I can't really make a full comparison.
Quote from: Seven on January 19, 2011, 06:57:40 PM
I don't like the "doctor already did" part; before that it could've just been a bunch of crossdressers and/or TV fetishists.
I haven't seen the episode so I'm not aware of the context, but lumping the transsexual and gay protestors in with the furries has the potential to be extremely irritating.
Totally agree; same with the sign that says "Transsexuals for Change".
I watched it and was surprised that The Simpsons got funny again (there were a few bad seasons there so I had stopped watching).
Those years when the Simpsons were not funny, they were not offensive either.
Comedy is always at someone expense.
Neither is anywhere near as offensive as South Park's Transpecies (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154798) episode that paralleled the plot of one character seeking surgical reassignment to the plot of another character seeking surgery to become a dolphin, with the "moral" of the episode being that surgery can't make you into something you're not.
I'd have to see more than 21 seconds to know if it's offensive.
Yeah, and I'm sure that the writers of South Park feel real bad about insulting transpeople, pot smokers, hippies, civil war reenactors, Michale Jackson, coffee shops, Hilary Clinton, Oprah, Mel Gibson, people in SF, veterans, parents, other kids, Kentucky Fried Chicken, police, teachers, gays, people with Tourette syndrome, people in wheel chairs, Christian rock bands - do I need to go on?
Quote from: glendagladwitch on January 20, 2011, 10:33:37 PM
Neither is anywhere near as offensive as South Park's Transpecies (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154798) episode that paralleled the plot of one character seeking surgical reassignment to the plot of another character seeking surgery to become a dolphin, with the "moral" of the episode being that surgery can't make you into something you're not.
Observation: the "transspecies" trope is rooted in the "men and women are different" ecological fallacy of sexism because the implication is that men and women are so different, that transitioning from one to the other is equivalent to "transitioning" into a whole different species.
Quote from: tekla on January 20, 2011, 10:25:39 PM
I watched it and was surprised that The Simpsons got funny again (there were a few bad seasons there so I had stopped watching).
Those years when the Simpsons were not funny, they were not offensive either.
Comedy is always at someone expense.
It doesn't have to be. It's very possible for something to be funny without upholding some form of kyriarchial oppression.
OK, tell me a joke (it has to be funny) that is not at someone's expense. In a normal stand-up routine it frequently is at the expense of the guy on stage, which is why so few people can tell a joke half-way decently, and even fewer can be good stand-up comdians (perhaps THE hardest job in show biz). But if The Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, or the Golden Globe writers are not having fun at someone's expense, they are not earning their money.
Quote from: tekla on January 20, 2011, 11:30:52 PM
But if The Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, or the Golden Globe writers are not having fun at someone's expense, they are not earning their money.
And none of the money they are getting is mine, thankfully.
That good Vexing, because The Simpsons, Family Guy and South Park were only one viewer away from becoming huge hits like The Simpsons, Family Guy and South Park.
And, by the way, these shows are way tame compared to stuff like Squidbillies. And god forbid you should ever watch re-runs of The Dave Chappelle show.
Some favorite Squidbillies quotes:
Nothing binds a father and a son more closely than the truth behind the decapitated hooker in the rec room.
She was my dream, my muse. A vision suitable for the wide-screen format. I can still taste her fist against my face. The sweet sugary sweat from a lifetime of diabetes. A heartbeat you could hear from six blocks away. One big pump every hour.
Erupt into a Bev-Rage this summer with "Glug"! That's the slogan. We'll add the word "Dawg" for the blacks. They like that word, like they're friends with the product.
Early's tenure as CEO of Dan Halen International had not been long, but it had been distinguished... By drunkenness, hair-trigger violence, and a total lack of performance. I would call it a steady decline in performance, but that would imply that he performed at one point in time. In fact he had not. He was drunk.
And if you really want to be offended, like to the max, try this.
Dave Chappelle- (Woogie-Boogie) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFR9xkZm4ck#)
Quote from: tekla on January 21, 2011, 12:38:02 AM
That good Vexing, because The Simpsons, Family Guy and South Park were only one viewer away from becoming huge hits like The Simpsons, Family Guy and South Park.
I don't think you get the clearly illustrated point:
I don't give a ->-bleeped-<- whether or not they're huge hits, my prerogative is making sure none of my money goes their way, because I like my money being spent on thing that I
like and support - and that none of my time is wasted watching such utter drivel.
All clear?
Well it's a good thing then that the entertainment industry in the USA is so backward, or else people all over the world would be watching it.
:police:
Can you two just can it. Why are you just baiting each other on open threads? Why not exchange pm and bait each other at leisure?
Any more and the thread will be locked etc.
Cindy James
Global Moderator
Quote from: CindyJames on January 21, 2011, 01:45:21 AM
Can you two just can it. Why are you just baiting each other on open threads? Why not exchange pm and bait each other at leisure?
Any more and the thread will be locked etc.
If my intention was to bait Tekla, then I would not hesitate in following your advice.
Because freedom of speech is the most basic and important freedom we have left in the electronic age.
It may well be the ONLY freedom we have left, and, at that, it's pretty much confined to comedy anymore. To censor comedy, is to censor life itself, particularly when that censorship comes from people who don't even understand what's going on when comedy goes down.
Now...
It's kinda beyond awesome that I lost a reputation point for posting Dave Chappelle. I have not laughed that hard in years. Some people just don't get humor do they? (I'll explain that at the end).
In the US, Dave is not considered 'a good black comic' he's ranked up there with Richard Pryor, the Smothers Brothers, Dick Gregory, Mort Saul, Rowan and Martin, and Lenny Bruce as people (who like Lady Gaga) are/were trading art for politics and used their art to make a statement. Like Stewart and Colbert do. (Which by the way is what The Simpsons, Family Guy and South Park do too. Look up 'satire' in your on-line dictionary).
Now, tomorrow I'm going to hang stuff in the Cow Palace with my rigging buddy. We've been working for over a decade now together as a team. I trust my life (really, I'm 55 feet in the air, sitting on an I-Beam, or he is) to him, as he does to me. And I'm going to tell him about this. I'll have to do it a good 15 minutes before I start because that is how long it's going to take him to stop laughing and stand back up again. Oh yeah, he's AA, and I'm a honky, at work they call us 'salt 'n pepper' - as in 'Get Salt and Pepper to do that' because flat out, we're the best riggers ever. But he will love it.
Now, the deal with those shows is that pretty much, and I think because of people like the most puritan among us, those that are really what the jokes are really about (I'll explain that at the end) for the most part, the ONLY way to criticize 'the system' is through comedy, cartoons in particular. There is no real political commentary left on TV outside of cartoons and Stewart and Colbert, and that's exactly what this is, political commentary as curve ball.
So, here is the real joke in the Clayton Bixby sketch, are you ready? The only people who find that racist, are....
Because the only people (in the USA) who would find that offensive are the white, trailer trash, white supremists, KKK members - because that's who it's making fun of. Not black folk.
Quote from: tekla on January 21, 2011, 01:03:37 AM
Well it's a good thing then that the entertainment industry in the USA is so backward, or else people all over the world would be watching it.
Actually my view, and the point of view of many is that people all over the world are watching it not because it is particularly good, because arguably it isn't, but because many people are actually pretty base in their tastes in entertainment. Many people like smoking, that doesn't mean cigarettes are necessarily a "healthy" product.
Much American TV is like a "dark side" to the human need for entertainment, kind of the entertainment equivalent of eating junk food, which you know may one day kill you, but which still has a strangely addictive quality.
Bottom line is its a free world, and in a world where people DO some of the daft things they actually do, we really shouldn't be surprised that a substantial part of the human population has, what I would consider as somewhat questionable viewing tastes.
Personally I prefer stuff which is more intellectual but each to their own. Perhaps 95% of American TV simply leaves me stone cold and utterly bored, so I am clearly not part of the target audience. I take the point that Tekla makes about some of it being satire. Which of course is why the jokes don't play so well outside the USA.
:police: Anyway building on what Cindy said, by all means lets debate this, but let's try to put our points across in a reasonable and constructive way rather than just letting it become an "offend fest". Thanks. :police:
No person from a county that produced Monty Python, Beyond the Fringe and Benny Hill should ever be talkin' 'bout offending people.
Where do you think I learned this stuff from?
Tekla and Vexing
I agree so much on the freedom of speech. I also totally agree that comedy is essentially cruel. " Thank goddess it didn't happen to me, but it was so funny to see it happen to someone else." Yea, we take it through most of life and both of you are far too intelligent for me to spell it out from sport to disaster. The essence of the court jester was to allow cruelty in a non-violent manner. I may and I am usually wrong. I'm happy to debate.
I also think :laugh: that you enjoy proding each other. I know why (I think) but it is not useful to the rest of the posters. Just had a thought, How about a page/area whatever for argumentative discussion? It would still be moderated and banned to none members but there may be a way to allow more robust stuff. Yes no insults but more of a public debate area? Thoughts please.
Cindy
For some reason I'm just not offended that much. They seem to have made them still male looking (with side burns and stuff) when they could have made them pretty which leads me to think they're using stereotypes for humor, which can be harmful sometimes, but I think as long as people separate the stereotypes with real life then there's no problem with this. Unfortunately since it seems like most of the USA is driven by the media I think the stereotypes from television and movies have worked their way into reality when they shouldn't have.
Just imo.
Quote from: CindyJames on January 21, 2011, 02:36:33 AM
I also think :laugh: that you enjoy proding each other.
Actually, I find it onerous and unrewarding.
QuoteHow about a page/area whatever for argumentative discussion?
Not my cup of tea :)
Quote from: Vexing on January 21, 2011, 03:08:24 AM
Actually, I find it onerous and unrewarding.
Which begs the question why bother then? particularly with some of the old-lags in this place whom you must know by now are simply never going to agree, even if just simply on principle. Isn't it easier to simply state your point clearly and then if they want to disagree simply walk away and agree to differ.
After all this isn't a battle or a debate. You don't have to actually win or concede a point for your view to be noted and understood. Once you have stated your view we all accept and understand that it is your validly held view even if some people choose to hold differing ones.
I suppose my point, and indeed Cindy's point is that this forum serves a huge diverse population. Some of us enjoy reading and participating in a robust debate others can find it unsettling. Now you may say that they need to toughen up, and that may indeed be the case, but this may not be the right time or place for that to happen.
So the needs of both groups have to be equally served and sometimes when two people lock horns in a thread it is not helpful to the rest of the group. As Moderators we spend an inordinate amount of time calming down spats between xxxx and yyyy which have got out of control.
Now without in ANY sense criticising, I must observe that, for someone who, in your own words finds it onerous and unrewarding, you do surprisingly often seem to end up being one of the combatants.
Like I say - no criticism intended here. This is just an observation which I hope you may like to ponder.
Quote from: lightvi on January 21, 2011, 02:46:49 AM
For some reason I'm just not offended that much. They seem to have made them still male looking (with side burns and stuff) when they could have made them pretty which leads me to think they're using stereotypes for humor, which can be harmful sometimes, but I think as long as people separate the stereotypes with real life then there's no problem with this. Unfortunately since it seems like most of the USA is driven by the media I think the stereotypes from television and movies have worked their way into reality when they shouldn't have.
Just imo.
The problem is that most people do not seperate stereotypes on TV from reality. And therein lies the problem. It's media portrayals like this that drive a lot of the hatred behind trans people and other minorities.
I can laugh at trans jokes if they're clever, I just get upset when it's the same sort of cheap shot you'd expect from Letterman all the time. I don't respect comedians and writers who rely on easy targets to elicit a response by dredging up the same old ridicule because they know it will work. I've done a few stand up gigs and been doing musical comedy for years (I'm one of the top 50 acoustic folk-jazz rock satirists in Dulwich Hill) and sure there is always a target (and as Tekla said, a lot of performers including myself will use self deprecation as part of their schtick) but I try my hardest not to rely on propagating inaccurate stereotypes for the easy laugh.
Having said that I didn't find the Simpsons offensive - it's in keeping with their style and I don't think it's really meant to be a clear shot at anyone. The Dave Chappelle sketch was great too.
Quote from: TheAetherealMeadow on January 21, 2011, 04:49:09 AM
The problem is that most people do not seperate stereotypes on TV from reality. And therein lies the problem. It's media portrayals like this that drive a lot of the hatred behind trans people and other minorities.
I agree. I don't think it's the medias fault though, I think it's every persons responsibility is to separate the fact from fiction and decide for themselves what should cross over from being a dream to reality. Calling the media the problem doesn't work because it's the people who watch the media and don't think about it that are the core issue.
I haven't studied psychology very much though and I could be wrong on a lot of fronts. This is just imo :)
Quote from: TheAetherealMeadow on January 20, 2011, 10:22:52 PM
Although the Family Guy portrayal is a lot less stereotypical, it's the way that the other characters reacted to Ida that makes it more offensive. But then again I haven't seen the entire Simpsons episode so I can't really make a full comparison.
The reactions are similar to the ones we face in reality.
Ida's son was supportive of her in the end.
Ida was a well spoken, intelligent, good looking woman, not an over the top caricature.
How is this offensive?
It's just,... true.
I unplugged my TV in 1993, coincidentally the same year as my transition. My life and psyche is much better off without the constant blaring of advertisements and lowest common denominator programming.
The 20 second clip wasn't enough for me to say for sure, but what I saw didn't seem particularly offensive. It just seemed like what one typically expects from The Simpsons.
Zythyra
Well no one is going to be happy with what I have to say..
It was spot on. I have seen this exact behaviour by trans people many many many times. I have also witnessed quite a few posties who acted just like Mrs. Garrison in that episode of South Park. Hell I even once saw a newly post op woman scream at a drive thru box because a teenager on the other end said "sir"......this postie' voice was like Barry White but she was screaming that she paid 16 grand for a vagina and would not put up with being called sir.
All the defensive answers make me wonder just how many making them ever get outside the house.
The problem is that most people do not seperate stereotypes on TV from reality
All the defensive answers make me wonder just how many making them ever get outside the house.
One leads to the other, and then circles back to the beginning, and causes the second...
Comin', comin', comin' around, comin' around, comin' around in a circle
Quote from: transheretic on January 21, 2011, 09:01:45 AM
Well no one is going to be happy with what I have to say..
It was spot on. I have seen this exact behaviour by trans people many many many times. I have also witnessed quite a few posties who acted just like Mrs. Garrison in that episode of South Park. Hell I even once saw a newly post op woman scream at a drive thru box because a teenager on the other end said "sir"......this postie' voice was like Barry White but she was screaming that she paid 16 grand for a vagina and would not put up with being called sir.
All the defensive answers make me wonder just how many making them ever get outside the house.
Incorrect I'm afraid. I, for one, have no issue with anything you say, other than the assertion that "no one" will be happy with it.
As I haven't watched any of these shows I can't really hold an opinion on them... other than that I prefer other types of entertainment. Besides I'm on record as being completely un-phased by anything so mind bogglingly trivial as pronouns. As I always say when introducing myself, I'll answer to anything that isn't rude.
Quote from: Laura91 on January 21, 2011, 09:19:52 AM
The reason that most people find it addictive is because they are idiots.
I was just trying to be polite! ;D
Quote from: rejennyrated on January 21, 2011, 03:44:51 AM
Which begs the question why bother then?
I
don't bother. I stated my point; it was not understood. I clarified it, then left it alone when it was further misunderstood.
The accusation of 'baiting ' is ill-fitting when I haven't actually done any of it. My point was a valid observation about my
personal views on these shows and had nothing to do with the other person posting.
They engaged
me.And that's the last I'll speak of this, since the derail has gone far enough.
Quote from: Seven on January 21, 2011, 11:07:39 AM
Yeah, it's perfectly true, but the show could have been a little less supportive of those types of attitudes. They're common, but not excusable. Playing them for laughs is one thing if we're laughing at the stupid transphobes, but portraying it as reasonable irks me.
That's not to say I approve of censorship, I just mean it'd be nice if shows would choose to be a little more progressive.
I don't think they portrayed them as "reasonable", but more as "ignorant" or poorly thought out.
Quote from: tekla on January 21, 2011, 01:03:37 AM
Well it's a good thing then that the entertainment industry in the USA is so backward, or else people all over the world would be watching it.
If you think US TV is backwards, what a bout those that show 80% US television (ie Australian FTA & PayTV)
Quote from: tekla on January 20, 2011, 11:08:53 PM
Yeah, and I'm sure that the writers of South Park feel real bad about insulting transpeople, pot smokers, hippies, civil war reenactors, Michale Jackson, coffee shops, Hilary Clinton, Oprah, Mel Gibson, people in SF, veterans, parents, other kids, Kentucky Fried Chicken, police, teachers, gays, people with Tourette syndrome, people in wheel chairs, Christian rock bands - do I need to go on?
Well, compare the way they treated the trans issue with the way they treated the gay issue. Big Gay Boat Ride (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/149822)
Seems to me that they treated gays with a whole lot more respect.
I don't think there was supposed to be much behind it. I was kind of curious so I watched the whole show online (my television has been canceled for a while now). Those combined 20-something seconds of clips were the only references to transsexual people in the entire episode, with the rest being almost entirely about gay men. Sure, it was a bit tasteless to show only manly-looking transwomen... but why get so upset about 20 seconds of a 20 minute show? If the entire episode was about trans folks there might be cause for concern, but honestly there are more important things to worry about. I doubt it was even a blip on the collective radar.
Quote from: AmySmiles on January 21, 2011, 08:56:31 PM
I don't think there was supposed to be much behind it. I was kind of curious so I watched the whole show online (my television has been canceled for a while now). Those combined 20-something seconds of clips were the only references to transsexual people in the entire episode, with the rest being almost entirely about gay men. Sure, it was a bit tasteless to show only manly-looking transwomen... but why get so upset about 20 seconds of a 20 minute show? If the entire episode was about trans folks there might be cause for concern, but honestly there are more important things to worry about. I doubt it was even a blip on the collective radar.
i agree i wouldn't think it's as big a deal to really complain about it. i liked the south park episode about gays too. for once they weren't just insulting for the sake of pissing people off they were being respectful, grown up and standing up for gay people. though i liked when they made fun of Osama Bin Laden and Tom Cruise heh heh.
As opposed the the way they treated hippies in Die Hippie, Die?
Quote from: Miniar on January 21, 2011, 06:30:36 AM
The reactions are similar to the ones we face in reality.
Ida's son was supportive of her in the end.
Ida was a well spoken, intelligent, good looking woman, not an over the top caricature.
How is this offensive?
It's just,... true.
The Family Guy depiction and the Simpsons depiction are two parts of a dichotomy of how trans women are depicted in the media that Lisa Harney of Questioning Transphobia calls the stealthy deciever/man in a dress double bind or the "deceptive transsexual" and the "pathetic transsexual". The characters in the Simpsons are "pathetic transsexuals" whereas Ida being good looking and not a caricature is part of the "deceptive transsexual" trope because she "tricks" other characters into sleeping with her, and the butt of the joke is when they find out she is "really a man". If Ida was a "pathetic transsexual" then the joke will not work because the other characters would not be "tricked" by her.
Except she's not depicted as scheming or deliberately deceptive.
She's depicted as a girl who meets a guy and is happy afterwards, telling her son that she's met someone special.
Quote from: tekla on January 23, 2011, 07:31:38 AM
As opposed the the way they treated hippies in Die Hippie, Die?
But we all want to kill hippies, with their crystals and vampyres and ley lines and yogurt fancying.
As for the clip you posted, I'm sure it was hilarious, but I didn't understand a word - well, that and American race humour doesn't tend to work so well in London, we have our own stereotypes and such to play with,