Radio ad mocks Caitlyn Jenner after local trans woman 'nearly beaten to death'

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/08/05/radio-ad-mocks-caitlyn-jenner-after-local-trans-woman-nearly-beaten-to-death/

Pink News/by Nick Duffy  08/05/2015

"A local radio host is taking aim at Caitlyn Jenner's transition on a new billboard ad – in a town where a trans woman was nearly beaten to death last year.

Denny Schaffer, whose show airs on Star 105.5 in Toledo, Ohio, is pictured on the billboard imitating the Olympian's Vanity Fair cover, on which she unveiled her new identity."

Our community has been far to blase about this sort of thing. I posted a poll asking how we should respond to humor at the expense of trans people. Nearly half the people responding thought we should just ignore it.

If we think we're a joke, how do we expect other people to respect us?

Well, I checked out their FB page, and they have removed it.  The station and the listeners are now just insulting transgender people.  This is why I really only play a game on FB and sometimes look at news stories.  Everywhere I go, I see anti-trans related post and pics.  Very depressing.

Quote from: suzifrommd on August 05, 2015, 06:09:38 PM
Our community has been far to blase about this sort of thing....

If we think we're a joke, how do we expect other people to respect us?

Is ignoring the same as agreeing with what is being said? If ignoring tasteless, bigoted humour is being party to that bigotry, then I'm a huge bigot. I think we just have to be smart about it and choose our battles wisely. Besides, I think some trans focussed humour is funny.

More generally, humour, especially satire, focussed on specific sections of the community is complex. It's hilarious until it's about you, right? I guess the most recent example of this is the Charlie Hebdo case, where millions of people showed solidarity with the satirical publication who many believe is extremely bigoted. The argument behind the Je Suis Charlie campaign was one of free speech. While people are loath to be associated with his ideas, Australian Attorney General, George Brandis, believes that "People have a right to be bigots". Taking Brandis' argument to its logical end, his comment could be interpreted as saying that any kind of censorship is unwarranted (which I agree with and Brandis doesn't, as Brandis later proved to be a hypocrite on this point). Avoiding censorship altogether is also a sentiment expressed by Noam Chomsky, who states, "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." *

What's my point? Well, broadly speaking, I guess it's to ask whether humour targeting specific groups should be viewed in a relative (some humour good, some bad -- but who decides?) or absolute sense (no censorship, or total censorship). Some questions to ponder, then, are (a) whether any group should be the target of satirical humour, (b) who is in a position to make these satirical observations and (c) how should such humour be received (by the wider community and the targeted group itself)?
___________________________________________________
* In Understanding Power (2002), Chomsky elaborates on his views relating to freedom of speech and personal rights, pointing out the complications involved. "In real free speech discussions, there is nobody who's an absolutist on free speech. People may pretend to be, but they're not... Rights aren't an axiom system, so there are conflicts between them, and people just have to make their own judgments. But my own judgment, at least, tends to be that a lot of leeway ought to be allowed."

Quote from: Serverlan on August 05, 2015, 08:57:28 PM
What's my point? Well, broadly speaking, I guess it's to ask whether humour targeting specific groups should be viewed in a relative (some humour good, some bad -- but who decides?) or absolute sense (no censorship, or total censorship). Some questions to ponder, then, are (a) whether any group should be the target of satirical humour, (b) who is in a position to make these satirical observations and (c) how should such humour be received (by the wider community and the targeted group itself)?

As long as it was consider OK in our culture to make jokes where "he's gay" or "she's a lesbian" was the punchline, gay people were not going to be accorded respect.

As long as it was OK to make jokes where "he's/she's Latino" was the punchline, Latino people were not going to be accorded respect.

As long as it is OK to make jokes where someone being trans is the punchline, we will not be accorded respect.

I am not interested in the specific jokes. I am interested in the culture and the acceptability of transness/blackness/gayness/etc. as a basis for humor. Our culture will only change if we send a strong message that this is not OK. No one else will do it for us.

Quote from: suzifrommd on August 06, 2015, 05:34:56 AM
I am not interested in the specific jokes. I am interested in the culture and the acceptability of transness/blackness/gayness/etc. as a basis for humor. Our culture will only change if we send a strong message that this is not OK. No one else will do it for us.

I'm interested in the grey area, the twilight, where satire and bigotry sometimes appear to merge. Is the acceptability of satire a relative thing, based on the sensibilities of a culture at a particular time and place, or is there an absolute line in the sand? I don't think it will ever be that cut-and-dry, it's way too complicated. I also don't want that tension to disappear, because if it does it probably means we're dead as a society. I've seen plenty of people in these forums make fun of people from all walks of life, but that seems to go unchecked, often even facilitated (it's funny when the target isn't you). But, yeah, sure, as a rule of thumb, no group should be the punchline. I just don't want to live in a humourless world, and humans are such a great source of humour.

Quote from: Serverlan on August 06, 2015, 06:13:16 AM
I just don't want to live in a humourless world, and humans are such a great source of humour.

Agreed.

I'd like the cisgender world to think twice before making a joke about us. To realize that they're making fun of an entire class of people, of people who didn't choose their fate but are making the best of it in a world that misunderstands and marginalizes us. Too many people are in the habit of dehumanizing us. We are a punchline to them, not a group of millions of humans with feelings and challenges.

I don't think we'll get there by saying, "If you want to make jokes that sound like ----, that's ok with us, but don't be making jokes that sound like ---".

I think we will be only get there by saying, "WE ARE NOT A JOKE. PERIOD."

Almost every comedy I watch lately has a trans joke in it. After seeing the trailer for TED 2 I had no desire to see it. For what was 5 seconds of the movie the entire comment section was trans hate which was incited by the movie.

Quote from: suzifrommd on August 06, 2015, 08:09:26 AM
Agreed.

I'd like the cisgender world to think twice before making a joke about us. To realize that they're making fun of an entire class of people, of people who didn't choose their fate but are making the best of it in a world that misunderstands and marginalizes us. Too many people are in the habit of dehumanizing us. We are a punchline to them, not a group of millions of humans with feelings and challenges.

I don't think we'll get there by saying, "If you want to make jokes that sound like ----, that's ok with us, but don't be making jokes that sound like ---".

I think we will be only get there by saying, "WE ARE NOT A JOKE. PERIOD."

Yo, Suzi, those were awesome things you said.

But if you think about it, I feel that discrimination needs to go extinct period if we hope to ever achieve fantastical things like world peace or even just to be taken seriously.

I just think if humans are so intelligent, why have they not been able to by-pass...no, surpass discriminating any group of people?

Discrimination must be eradicated. Its for this reason why we are a 'joke' to the majority. Only the majority survive. And the majority out there ain't us 'weirdos.' Sometimes, I have very lil hope left for humanity, in general. Sorry for bein' a pessy(pessimistic), but this how I honestly feel about such matters.

P.S. I don't know why, but my Subject Line won't allow me to place the whole title of the thread in there. Not sure if this matters or not...

I think we're smart enough to determine what is a harmless joke and a joke that's just meant to be mean. Using slurs, purposeful misgendering, and incorrect name i think would be a huge indicator of someone just being a jerk, not funny.

Of course we(transgender people and some understanding cisgender people) are smart enough. I meant the majority(cisgender heterosexuals who are ignorant about ->-bleeped-<-). I don't think they care that they are being harmful(more like thoughtless and mindless). And we surely know and are smart/intelligent enough to tell the difference between a harmless joke and one meant to do major scarring to our inner selves.

Oh no...I am sure they know what they(cisgender jerks) sayin.' I don't wanna sound like I'm lettin' 'em off da hook or anything, as if to say, "well, its cause they lack intelligence, so give 'em a break." No. That's not what I meant. Or that we ain't smart enough to tell if they was bein' rude or just silly. Is that what you were implying or no? If so, I'm sorry I came off that way. It was purely unintentional.

What I mean is, those type of people should be smart enough to know not to do those things. Its a lack of education I think, as to why they say this stuff. If people really could comprehend it, maybe they wouldn't scoff like that. IMO.

Quote from: Serverlan on August 05, 2015, 08:57:28 PM

What's my point? Well, broadly speaking, I guess it's to ask whether humour targeting specific groups should be viewed in a relative (some humour good, some bad -- but who decides?) or absolute sense (no censorship, or total censorship). Some questions to ponder, then, are (a) whether any group should be the target of satirical humour, (b) who is in a position to make these satirical observations and (c) how should such humour be received (by the wider community and the targeted group itself)?

I think someone here on Susans recently pointed out that the worst form of humour is that humour that mocks people who are seriously disadvantaged in society.

As for free speech, no one in the U.S. as far as I can tell has been imprisoned because they made vile, bigoted comments, as the recent confederate flag incident proved.  But is this really about restricting free speech or is it more about mobilizing the greater community to educate businesses that it's not okay to try to profit off of disparaging transgender people?

Interesting thread.

Take care,
Paige

Quote from: Paige on August 06, 2015, 09:20:41 AM
But is this really about restricting free speech or is it more about mobilizing the greater community to educate businesses that it's not okay to try to profit off of disparaging transgender people?

Interesting thread.

Take care,
Paige

Whoa. I don't even know how to answer this, so I ain't even 'bout to attempt that. Lol. That's very impressive indeed. Which do you think it is, Paige? Sorry if I sound too much of an idiot to be able to really understand what the answer could be. Or perhaps its rhetorical, even?

Actually, I looked at the billboard, as shown in the article.

I don't see that the sign per se is mocking Ms. Jenner.  The message and the humor don't depend upon any negative stereotypes or attitudes toward trans people or Ms. Jenner.  It only depends upon being familiar with her Vogue cover photo and associating the verb "to transition" with Ms. Jenner.

There may be a context which I'm not aware of which gives this a disparaging subtext, but on the face of it, I don't see any mocking.

Quote from: King Phoenix on August 06, 2015, 10:09:10 AM
Whoa. I don't even know how to answer this, so I ain't even 'bout to attempt that. Lol. That's very impressive indeed. Which do you think it is, Paige? Sorry if I sound too much of an idiot to be able to really understand what the answer could be. Or perhaps its rhetorical, even?

Hi King Phoenix,
Maybe a little rhetorical, I think it's an opportunity to educate businesses, but I'm interested in the opinion of others on this.   
Take care,
Paige

I don't see the ad as an actual joke, just an attempt at using current events to draw listeners.