18 votes

Graham Linehan says he won’t work with Channel 4 again unless transphobic IT Crowd episode is reinstated

60 comments

  1. [21]
    hamstergeddon
    Link
    I guess first of all I should say I support trans rights and fully admit that the episode in question didn't age well. The episode is definitely transphobic, but before I found out Linehan himself...
    • Exemplary

    I guess first of all I should say I support trans rights and fully admit that the episode in question didn't age well. The episode is definitely transphobic, but before I found out Linehan himself was transphobic I'd interpreted it with a more trans-friendly ending than perhaps I should've.

    In the episode Douglas goes on a date with a reporter, April. The date goes well, so he asks her out for a second date. Before agreeing, she reveals that she used to be a man. Somewhat out of character for Douglas, he shrugs it off and throughout the episode there are montages of them having the time of their lives. They both enjoy watching/playing darts, getting shitfaced while watching TV, eating pizza, and bunch of other "dudebro" stuff (this is the stuff that I don't think aged very well).

    Prior to (and after) this episode, Douglas is shown as a stereotypical bachelor on the prowl, hitting on any woman he comes across and constantly trying to get into the pants of the show's only regular female character. He's clearly not the sort to settle down, but after meeting April he seems genuinely happy to do so. He's finally found someone that he really connects with and enjoys being around beyond a night in bed.

    So then Douglas reveals that he thinks what April told him on that first date was that she "was from Iran", rather than "used to be a man". April immediately corrects him and Douglas gets transphobic. A comical "OH GOD!" is shouted. This has also not aged very well. What follows is Douglas trying to come to terms with the fact that he's been dating someone he considers to be a man. He ultimately dumps April, says some more transphobic stuff, and then they proceed to beat the shit out of each other (more "haha she's a man!" stuff...he calls her a bastard..yadda yadda).

    What I love about the episode though is the last scene. Douglas is sitting in his bed eating pizza, drinking beer, and watching darts on TV. He sobs and cries out "Oh April!" and the studio audience laughs and "awwws" and that's the episode. To me the lesson is that Douglas found someone who was perfect for him, someone that finally made him happy...and he threw it away because he couldn't get over the fact that she's transgendered. The episode ends with the transphobic guy looking like an asshole and maybe having learned a lesson.

    Also I find it frustrating that this is just a subplot for the main story of Moss/Roy convincing Jen that a small box with a light on it is "the internet" and she uses it for show-and-tell at a shareholder speech. Like that's seriously some of the funniest comedy I've ever seen, but it's part of the April/Douglas episode, so it inherits that reputation.

    So in conclusion, I guess I just took away something positive from a pretty negative plotline. Have you seen the episode? What are your thoughts?

    30 votes
    1. [12]
      Gaywallet
      Link Parent
      I think anyone who thinks this is acceptable needs to stop for a second and consider two things - first, how someone else might interpret what happened, and second how someone belonging to the...
      • Exemplary

      I think anyone who thinks this is acceptable needs to stop for a second and consider two things - first, how someone else might interpret what happened, and second how someone belonging to the minority group represented might feel.

      The reality is that not everyone will understand and process every interaction within the show the same way. Someone who is transphobic will agree with all of the bad behavior and hateful takes that are presented and ignore any redeeming or positive qualities. Someone on the other end of the spectrum will likely be hurt by all the negative presentation and feel good about when the redeeming and positive qualities are shown off. Some of what is displayed will likely go over some people's heads as it requires an intimate knowledge of the minority group being displayed on television. This is something that needs to be considered, and considered to great length when creating something that is going to be displayed in the media. Often times its the repetition that sticks with people more often than the specifics and you can't always rely on your audience to have the same interpretation or take on something presented.

      Obviously no one can possibly be an expert in everything so you can't be too critical, but it's clear when there isn't a great level of engagement and when there's a personal bias at play. Let's stop for a second and before moving on to my second point consider if this same exact plot point had been made, but with a different minority class such as one of an African American. Consider all the negatively shown stereotypes which are associated with the minority displayed. How often in the episode were positive aspects shown off? How often were they treated with humanity? How much of the episode is spent focused on the negative aspects of the minority and how much is spent showing off positives? How much is showing behavior that is stereotypical of the minority and how often do they break the mold? The episode ends with a 'lesson' but the culmination of the lesson is just a "oh dang" by the main character like they accidentally knocked a cup of water over - oh well I guess it's not that big of a deal after all!

      Which brings me to the final point - how do you think a minority individual is going to think about this portrayal of the group they belong to? The episode focused on a lot of stereotypical behavior and painted them in a negative light for 99% of the episode. Frankly I'm not going to dig into this too much other than to say please have some empathy and stop for a second and consider what if the episode displayed a group you belong to in the same way?

      One final point I want to make because @Adys pointed it out:

      The audience hugely empathizes with April as she and Douglas were clearly in love and having fun, and Douglas just dumps her because he's a shallow prick. I haven't thought much of it until I heard about this drama, but I'd definitely say this is one of the influences in my life which made me explicitly not care about people's biological gender but rather see them as who they are in the present.

      In the end, this had a positive outcome which is good and should not be discounted.

      However this does not mean that we cannot do better and we should not hold them accountable for doing a bad job at representation. There is absolutely no reason that they had to make this character as stereotypical as they did or to display them as one dimensional as they did. I don't know what kind of research they did in preparation for this episode, but I would expect they did not reach out to a large number of transgender individuals to better understand their culture. You see something like this in comedy all the time - people without a fundamental knowledge of a group making jokes about that group tend to get chastised for doing it. A good and relevant example here might be Dave Chapelle's jokes on transgender women. The punch line for every single joke he's ever done in this realm is "girl have penis?!?!1 oh noes!". The reason that he gets chastised is precisely this - it's incredibly one dimensional and demeaning to the individuals who belong to this group whether the joke itself is funny or not. Contrast that, however, with the much more in depth jokes that Natalie Wynn makes on youtube such as an episode where she displays several different trans stereotypes as distinct characters (anarchist catgirl, for example) and creates comedy through the interaction and conflict these characters have when interacting with each other. While this content is just as stereotyped as Chapelle's jokes, the comedy isn't focused on demeaning the minority group but rather utilizing stereotypes to make commentary. Conversely, Chapelle has made some absolutely spectacular commentary on African American society which is much more in depth than some racist white comics who's taglines are often "lol black people steal stuff and talk funny" or some other demeaning depiction.

      20 votes
      1. [11]
        Adys
        Link Parent
        I just rewatched the episode since this all came up. I mean I know it by heart but I tried to keep a more open mind this time around. I'm left wondering if you're talking about Douglas or April in...

        There is absolutely no reason that they had to make this character as stereotypical as they did or to display them as one dimensional as they did.

        I just rewatched the episode since this all came up. I mean I know it by heart but I tried to keep a more open mind this time around.

        I'm left wondering if you're talking about Douglas or April in that quoted snippet. Douglas is definitely a stereotypical asshole-mysoginistic-boss, but April .. is not really stereotypical. She has scenes where she displays stereotypically manly behaviour (enjoying beer and football) and if anything that's more of a jab on dudes than on her.

        It's clearly showcased that physically she is stronger than douglas (she beats him up, and beats him arm wrestling too). That is as far as the stereotypes go, and I wouldn't really call them that.

        So like, are those what you would consider stereotypes? Because I mean .. they're nowhere near the class of stereotypes that are used throughout the show. Moss and Roy are stereotypical nerds. Moss is a stereotypical autist. The Work Outing is full of stereotypical gay-theater comedy. Throughout the show there's stereotypical feminists, jabs on religion stereotypes and way more. And all of these are WAY over the top. Moss counts staples, the work Outing has a song that literally goes "willies willies, I like willies"... You want offensive? How about the atrociously bad over-the-top french accent depicted in the tech support episode? There's a whole behind the scenes quip about it by the actor who was really sad he couldn't showcase his "real" french accent he had worked so hard on.

        April on the other hand has a pretty emotional scene where she is in tears and goes "Douglas, look at me. I am a woman. This is a woman in front of you. I am a woman!"

        Like, holy shit, IT Crowd doesn't have that many emotional plots (maybe Roy falling for Kimberley is up there). This probably one of the most poignant scenes throughout the entire series and it hugely normalizes being transgender: you get to see her struggle to be accepted by the person who falls in love with her and doesn't even realize she is trans until she has to tell him a second time.

        You say april was "painted ... in a negative light for 99% of the episode" and I'm left wondering: in what possible way? The only thing unusual pointed out about her is that she is stronger than douglas, and very good at sex. Did we watch the same thing? She seems like a fun girl through and through. I'd date her in a heartbeat.

        Sorry, I'm starting to have a bad taste in my mouth thinking about what an unfair treatment this episode is being given, especially since this is a sub-plot. It feels like there's this expectation that if it depicts a transgender person, it has to be absolutely perfect, make zero mistakes, otherwise it's hateful.

        People are also conflating the shitty things Linehan said with the episode itself and that is very sad, given that the only transphobia displayed in this episode is by the villain.

        I fear that a lot of people are piling on without even having given this a watch, or a serious moment of thought on whether this actually is transphobic, because it's easier to point and scream at a couple of shitty tweets by the show's creator than it is to watch and review an episode of TV in its full context.

        5 votes
        1. [10]
          kfwyre
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          I think part of this comes from the reality that trans people are not very widely represented in media at all (try to count the number of characters you know of who are trans men, for example)....

          It feels like there's this expectation that if it depicts a transgender person, it has to be absolutely perfect, make zero mistakes, otherwise it's hateful.

          I think part of this comes from the reality that trans people are not very widely represented in media at all (try to count the number of characters you know of who are trans men, for example). This has the unfortunate effect of making any trans characters who are written into stories far more "load-bearing" than they should be, as they effectively carry the weight of representing an entire identity on their shoulders -- whether intended to by the writers or not.

          The solution to this would be to have widespread and diverse representation of trans people in media, informed by the actual experiences of trans people themselves, so that they are portrayed with the full range of experiences, authenticity, and dignity that are available to characters of other identities. This then allows any flaws or character traits they exhibit to be seen as individual to that character rather than representative of an entire community.

          Also, just so you know, I'm not dodging the points in the rest of your comment -- I simply haven't seen the episode nor am I familiar with the show, so I don't really feel qualified to address the show's depiction of April. Based on what you're saying it sounds like it has some positive aspects, but many trans people have also said that that there are negative ones as well, including people here whose opinions I very much trust. I think it's worth considering the idea that these aren't necessarily in conflict, and it very well could be both. Even positive or sympathetic portrayals of characters can still be done in transphobic ways.

          6 votes
          1. [9]
            Adys
            Link Parent
            That is a perverse effect: events like these make it less likely for trans people to be added as characters, if any and all addition needs to be perfect. If there is a perception that you can be...

            I think part of this comes from the reality that trans people are not very widely represented in media at all […]

            That is a perverse effect: events like these make it less likely for trans people to be added as characters, if any and all addition needs to be perfect. If there is a perception that you can be metaphorically burned at the stake for making small mistakes (retroactively none the less), then:

            • Authors will be more reticent to include transgender people in what they produce
            • Editors, studios, etc will be more likely to straight up ask for removal if they perceive the content as being too much of a toxic "I don't want to get anywhere near that subject" kind of deal.

            So what you end up with is a depiction limited to productions that dedicate themselves to the issue entirely… and there is no path to normalization if you're limited to that, as it's then by definition fringe content.

            So if the solution is "widespread and diverse representation", then that is what should be encouraged.

            Based on what you're saying it sounds like it has some positive aspects, but many trans people have also said that that there are negative ones as well, including people here whose opinions I very much trust.

            Aye she's not perfect. And it remains my personal, non-trans opinion that her negatives are minor and easily dismissed as a product of their time. Still… she had a positive impact on me, and I'm saddened some people can't share that.

            3 votes
            1. [8]
              kfwyre
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              I don't want to remove your positive experience from you, and I'm genuinely happy that you had good takeaways from April's story. I think your final point is key though: it's sad that some people...

              I don't want to remove your positive experience from you, and I'm genuinely happy that you had good takeaways from April's story. I think your final point is key though: it's sad that some people can't share that. Your experience with this character isn't universal, as there are people who clearly had negative takeaways as well, and I don't think it's on us to say they are necessarily wrong for feeling that way.

              There's a documentary about trans representation in media called Disclosure where many trans people talk about their own conflicted responses to problematic characters. Many of them articulate the value of seeing someone like themselves on-screen, but they also talk about the damage done by negative portrayals -- both to their self-esteem and self-identity, and also as a part of the larger cultural conversation and understanding of trans people. You're not alone in identifying valuable elements of problematic portrayals of characters, but it's also worth reflecting on the gravity of the negative portions too.

              My final note is something that I've hesitated to type for fear of how it will come across. I want to speak honestly on this, but I don't want to put you off, as I appreciate that you're engaging in a difficult topic in good faith and I see you as a valuable member of the community here. I mean you no ill will when I say this, but the tone of your last comment isn't sitting right with me. I very much doubt it was your intention, but it comes across as a bit paternalistic -- dictating to trans people how they should best respond to their own representations.

              I think you intended your points to be pragmatic given the wider context, and I certainly see where that would come from, but as I'm reading it, it carries with it an air of "trans people should accept discrimination lest we stop depicting them at all". It mandates the response trans people should have to trans characters, but it doesn't address writers' and content creators' responsibilities in creating those characters in the first place, which I don't feel is fair.

              5 votes
              1. [7]
                Adys
                Link Parent
                Thanks for the documentary recommendation, I promise I'll give it a watch later this week. You won't, don't worry :) Nor will what anyone say about this take away my own personal positive...

                Thanks for the documentary recommendation, I promise I'll give it a watch later this week.

                I want to speak honestly on this, but I don't want to put you off

                You won't, don't worry :) Nor will what anyone say about this take away my own personal positive experience from the episode, I only wish to share it.

                My point is indeed one of pragmatism. I'm not a writer, or artistic content creator in any way, nor is it something that interests me to get into, so I'm unable to produce my own takes and representations, strive for better, etc. So I'm instead trying to engage in the conversation itself.

                And I really appreciate your candor (seriously). Of course, it's absolutely not my intention that it comes across that way… I'm very sorry that it did. I'll try to work on the tone, and you're welcome to call me out if something doesn't sit right with you (in reply or in DMs, I'll address it, you have my word).

                It's not my place to dictate any of this. And you'll find it doesn't affect me in any way: If there's more trans characters, and/or they're better represented, then yay but it has no impact on me. And if writers & studios decide to avoid the topic altogether because it's too toxic, my life is no different either. So I have no stake in the game, beyond an empathetic one. That probably makes me way softer on the issue.

                So, I want to ask you: What are your thoughts on the "perverse effect" I was talking about? Do you truly think that the backlash the episode is facing (not talking about GL himself) is a net positive for the cause? If so, in what way?

                3 votes
                1. [6]
                  kfwyre
                  (edited )
                  Link Parent
                  Thank you, Adys. I extend the same courtesy to you, by the way. Feel free to push back on any of my points/comments/tone as well. And no obligation on the documentary. I never want people to feel...
                  • Exemplary

                  Thank you, Adys. I extend the same courtesy to you, by the way. Feel free to push back on any of my points/comments/tone as well. And no obligation on the documentary. I never want people to feel like recommendations are mandatory, though I will say if you're interested in the topic of trans representation it's well worth the watch.

                  With regards to your question, I think it's genuinely hard to separate the things that Linehan has done and said with criticism of the episode itself. In fact, I think that the episode wouldn't be as under the microscope as it is currently if it weren't for his anti-trans actions elsewhere. In some ways the opinion of that episode has probably become sort of a referendum about Linehan himself, which is probably a big part of why, a full twelve years after its release, it's seeing backlash.

                  Now, that's probably an unsatisfying answer to you given that the whole time you've been wanting to know: what's so bad about the episode itself? After all, people had issues with it at the time of release, not just after the fact, so there's got to be something there, right?

                  Again, I'm not trans, so take my opinion with a giant cis boulder of salt. I also don't have the same impressive knowledge of the show as you, so I'm definitely missing a lot of the pieces that would help me interpret this in context. I don't have an active Netflix subscription either, so I couldn't stream it, but I was able to find a couple of clips from the episode on YouTube, including the break up scene.

                  This jumped out at me, as a giant, glaring red flag.

                  Now, to be fair, it does feature the "I'm a woman!" moment you mention which is genuinely poignant. I also think the joke with the man walking between them as she says "this is a woman in front of you" is also not just funny but thematically resonant as well: she's articulating the reality of her gender and the audience is reminded of what a man looks like in the process, just in case we needed a reminder. It's cheeky, funny, and smartly done.

                  However, it pretty much goes off the rails for me following this. It then features a knock-down, drag-out fight scene. I promise you that I understand that this was done for comedic reasons, but watching it made my heart sink.

                  One of the biggest focuses of trans advocacy is centered on violence, because trans people unfortunately face significant and widespread threats to their safety. In 2015 there was a study on transgender individuals done in the United States, and it captures the dark shadow of violence cast upon the trans community:

                  Respondents reported high levels of mistreatment, harassment, and violence in every aspect of life. One in ten (10%) of those who were out to their immediate family reported that a family member was violent towards them because they were transgender, and 8% were kicked out of the house because they were transgender.

                  The majority of respondents who were out or perceived as transgender while in school (K–12) experienced some form of mistreatment, including being verbally harassed (54%), physically attacked (24%), and sexually assaulted (13%) because they were transgender. Further, 17% experienced such severe mistreatment that they left a school as a result.

                  In the year prior to completing the survey, 30% of respondents who had a job reported being fired, denied a promotion, or experiencing some other form of mistreatment in the workplace due to their gender identity or expression, such as being verbally harassed or physically or sexually assaulted at work.

                  With that as a backdrop, seeing a trans woman on screen getting beat up -- even as a joke, even in a fight she started -- hits close to home in a very negative way for me. I'm not laughing at the absurdity of their relationship coming to blows but instead left to draw connections to the real-world violence that trans people, particularly trans women, face on a regular basis. The scene ends with her lying face down and unconscious, and Douglas yelling "it's over!" at her. The clip on YouTube cuts out, so maybe this is resolved with a punchline, but even if it is, that's still uncomfortably dark; uncomfortably reminiscent of real-world harms.

                  People are largely familar with Pride events, which are times for the LGBT community to get together and celebrate their freedoms and vibrancy, but a lesser known, but no less important, moment of LGBT solidarity is the far more solemn and somber Transgender Day of Remembrance: a memorial and vigil for transgender people who have lost their lives as a result of transphobia. Our community is continually and heartbreakingly defined by undeserved suffering and loss. This trauma of violence is something that still permeates LGBT culture, and trans culture specifically, and I think this can inform someone's experience with the episode in a powerfully negative way. I know it did for me, and I'm not even trans.

                  There's another lens we can take with this scene, particularly from a trope-y, media literacy viewpoint. Trans people are often depicted not as their identified gender but as still being representative of their biological sex "on the inside", and I think we see this play out in April and Douglas's fight, as there's a lot that codes her as masculine. She throws a punch instead of a slap (stereotypically masculine); Douglas calls her a "bastard" instead of a "bitch"; and the two enter into a mutual fight in which they both trade blows, which is highly unusual for men and women on-screen (usually this sort of thing would be two men fighting).

                  Again, from a comedic perspective, I get what they're doing, and the whole fight can be seen as a simple subversion of expectations, getting us to laugh at the unexpected image of a woman standing up to a man like this, along with doses of absurdity and attempts at physical comedy. On the other hand, I also think there's a fair reading of this scene that shows that April, when pushed to her breaking point, reveals her "true" gender as male through the framing and conduct of the fight itself -- a sharp contrast from moments before when she was assuring Douglas and the audience that she was a woman.

                  I don't think there's a fundamentally "correct" view on this, only that multiple readings are possible. In fact, the reason I brought up the need for diverse representation in the first place was because I believe that doing so has an insulating effect -- or, more accurate to this particular focus, its converse: a lack of diverse representation acts as a force multiplier.

                  I believe this is why your response to April was so positive. In a drought of trans characters, she was an oasis for you and helped you build empathy and understanding for trans people. I cannot express to you enough that I think this is a genuinely good thing, and I'm happy you experienced it. On the other hand, I encourage you to consider how a hypothetical trans woman, experiencing the exact same drought of trans representation as you, finally finds a character who is just like her, and that character's story ends with her being beaten -- pretty brutally, I might add -- and left unconscious by her former romantic partner during their breakup (and, all of this taking place in what is supposed to be a lighthearted comedy). That's already very dark on its own, but when coupled with the likelihood that she is living with a non-negligible fear of such an event taking place in the real world, I think it's easier to see how April's depiction can be considered genuinely, viscerally negative for some.

                  Because April has the undue burden of representing not just April on her own but an entire community by proxy, both the positive and negative aspects of her character land with more force than they should.

                  The reality is that, if we had widespread representation of trans people at the time this episode came out, your response would have likely been a lot less positive, simply because April's character would have been far less novel. Likewise, any negative aspects of her character or the storyline would have had less impact as well, because there would be plenty of other trans characters demonstrating different narratives, outcomes, and traits. So while I believe that some of what is transphobic about April exists within the episode itself, I also think we have to acknowledge that April exists as a character in media which is often transphobic by omission.

                  You said in your post that the existence of trans characters doesn't really affect you in any way, but I strongly encourage you to think about the revelatory effects April had for you and consider: what else have you been denied, simply because it hasn't been presented to you? Trans people's stories have been and in many ways still are absent from the mainstream, and that not only affects them but it also affects our understanding of them and of ourselves. April, a single minor character from a subplot of a single episode of a comedy show, taught you something significant about gender and about your own capability for romantic attraction. That's powerful! This is the kind of thing we talk about when we say representation matters! Trans stories matter not just to trans people but to us as well, and not just because we can learn from them, but because when they are included in the stories we see and hear and love, so too do we include them in what we see and hear and love. Representation helps to make room for them in our understanding of and appreciation for humanity -- room which they have been unfairly denied and and room for them which is long overdue.

                  I realize that this is ultimately a very long answer to your question, but you originally asked me not just about the episode but about the efficacy of the backlash: is it a net positive for the cause?

                  Ultimately, I believe that it is, but I believe that it's on us to listen and get at the root of that backlash. In another comment I talked about applying the principle of charity to Linehan's critics as well as him, and I think that's essential. This backlash is a tool for empathy, but we have to do a bit of work ourselves to see it for what it is.

                  Furthermore, regardless of where we land on the episode itself, it's pretty clear that Linehan himself holds some overtly transphobic views, and I ultimately believe that pushing back on those, even if it's in the form of pressure on this particular episode, helps to safeguard the dignity of trans people and insulate them from the harms those beliefs permit, especially when adopted at large.

                  In fact, I'm going to go so far as to say that I think there are a lot of prevailing cultural forces that try to paint criticism and critique against discrimination and oppression as overreactions or unjust, and I think those forces have primed us to miscalibrate our meters for justice so that we're more likely to side with discrimination and oppression.

                  For example: much of the discussion in this thread has focused on the injustice of April's episode potentially being unfairly flagged as transphobic, all while little scrutiny has been given to the injustice of Linehan's absolutely definite transphobia in the years since. We've zoomed in on a single episode of television and are treating it more empathetically than we are the targets of Linehan's hate speech. If we are concerned about an overreach of "transphobia" as it affects the fictional character April, shouldn't we have at least equal, if not far greater concern, for the real-world Aprils being told directly by Linehan himself that they're not women?

                  That's the real story to me here -- the discussion of the episode I feel is mostly a distraction, one that Linehan brought into focus himself by directly including it as a salvo in his culture war (the article that started all this discussion was his demand that the episode be reinstated on streaming, after all). This is ultimately why I feel we can't separate out criticism of the episode with criticism of Linehan, because he's re-throwing his weight behind it now, and even if we could argue that he wasn't transphobic at the time or the episode wasn't transphobic then, we can unequivocally say so now. I don't see this as an overrun of "guilt by association" because I believe Linehan is directly re-associating himself with this in the context of his current beliefs, which makes his guilt unignorable.

                  6 votes
                  1. [2]
                    tomf
                    Link Parent
                    hey, I'm loving this thread. For reference, here is the episode in three parts: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part three has the fight and part two has the first dinner date. I posted below about the...

                    hey, I'm loving this thread.

                    For reference, here is the episode in three parts:

                    Part three has the fight and part two has the first dinner date.

                    I posted below about the commentary track. If anyone is interested, I can also post the cuts with that.

                    6 votes
                    1. kfwyre
                      Link Parent
                      Thanks, tomf. I probably won't have time to sit down and watch this until the weekend, but I appreciate you making it available.

                      Thanks, tomf. I probably won't have time to sit down and watch this until the weekend, but I appreciate you making it available.

                      4 votes
                  2. [3]
                    Adys
                    (edited )
                    Link Parent
                    Wanted to thank you more formally for this answer, it's really way more than I could have asked for! Super insightful. Two parts stuck out: I hadn't thought about the fact that seeing the violence...

                    Wanted to thank you more formally for this answer, it's really way more than I could have asked for! Super insightful.

                    Two parts stuck out:

                    With that as a backdrop, seeing a trans woman on screen getting beat up -- even as a joke, even in a fight she started -- hits close to home in a very negative way for me. I'm not laughing at the absurdity of their relationship coming to blows but instead left to draw connections to the real-world violence that trans people, particularly trans women, face on a regular basis. The scene ends with her lying face down and unconscious, and Douglas yelling "it's over!" at her. The clip on YouTube cuts out, so maybe this is resolved with a punchline, but even if it is, that's still uncomfortably dark; uncomfortably reminiscent of real-world harms.

                    I hadn't thought about the fact that seeing the violence itself normalized can have a negative effect. It doesn't get resolved much more than what you saw, beyond douglas just ending up feeling very sad at the end.

                    I don't know if I would call it "transphobic" but it could be dangerous in the same sense that "13 reasons why" is often said to be dangerous by glorifying suicide.

                    The other thing that especially stuck out and wanted to address is April's manliness. She is a very feminine person, but clearly (for comedy purposes due to contrast with her physique and general attitude) exhibits some very manly traits such as darts, football, fistfights and arm wrestling. But I said before, I don't have a problem with that and I think it's super cool to see a woman comfortable with all this. If you've read some of my other posts you'll know I do figure skating; I often am the only man on the rink between 25+ women and I absolutely love being comfortable with that side of myself. I posted a picture of my new skate boots on facebook a while back and an acquaintance called me an "ice princess", clearly to tease me but I'm like, fuck yeah I am.

                    Over the past 5 years especially, I've realized how much more comfortable I am than before, with both men doing girly stuff, and women doing manly shit. I see April now and all I can think about is how much of a badass she is. She's the only person in the series to stand up to Douglas, y'know.

                    PS, there's too much in your post for me to address, but if you want a reply on something specific let me know :)

                    3 votes
                    1. [2]
                      kfwyre
                      Link Parent
                      Thanks for listening! I didn't set out to say as much as I did, but as I started typing I just kept uncovering more and more that I wanted to address, some of it directed at your comments and some...

                      Thanks for listening! I didn't set out to say as much as I did, but as I started typing I just kept uncovering more and more that I wanted to address, some of it directed at your comments and some of you at the wider issue in general. If you're familiar with my other posts here you'll know that long comments aren't exactly foreign to me, but they're usually top-level comments instead of replies and therefore less directly intimidating. By the time I was finished I was concerned that I was pretty much dropping a textbook on your head.

                      And yeah, I hear you on your reticence to use "transphobic" -- I have similar qualms about that and "homophobic" as terms. I think the -phobic ending in general primes people the wrong way, as it tends to be used often in a way that's akin to "hydrophobic" (something that repels/opposes water, regardless of intent) but it's often interpreted more as something like "arachnophobic" (a deep-seated, repulsive fear of or hatred towards, in this case, spiders). Something that's "homophobic" can simply be thought of as "something that puts off gay people", for example (even if it's a little thing and not a huge deal), but it often gets interpreted as "something that's outright malicious/defamatory towards gay people".

                      I don't think the latter interpretation is a wrong one for everything (there are certainly times it applies), I just don't think it covers all cases. When it comes to damaging beliefs and depictions there's a lot of different axes at play: intentional versus unintentional, degree of severity, the messaging's basis, its context and scope. Trying to lump very nuanced and complicated analyses under one term -- especially a term that tends to push people towards its most negative interpretations -- creates a lot of ambiguity that I think can erode discussion on these issues.

                      And as for April, you're absolutely right: there is nothing fundamentally wrong with a trans woman who likes manly things, and I think there is value in demonstrating that, just as there is value in demonstrating that there are men who like ice skating such as yourself (love your posts on that, by the way!). The problem is when those carry more weight than they should (e.g. they're the ONLY depiction) or they tie into larger cultural prejudices (e.g. trans women are "actually men on the inside"; ice skating is "for women").

                      I also love your "fuck yeah I am" attitude! It takes the wind out of the sails of someone trying to yuck your yum, and confidence is the best antidote to toxicity. Be the best damn ice princess you can be, as long as you want to and you're finding fulfillment while doing it! While I never advocate for revenge, I am absolutely a firm believer in living well as the best form of... counterprotest. :)

                      As for questions for you, I don't have anything specific other than I'm curious if you have anything you're wanting to say or convey to me about this. You have patiently listened to everything I've said here, so I want to return the favor! I'm content to pass the mic -- I see it as my turn to listen to you. No obligation though! Don't feel like you have to, only that I'm an open ear for anything you're wanting to share.

                      3 votes
                      1. Adys
                        Link Parent
                        Much love :) I'd love to take you up on your last offer but I'll lay off this thread now, I'm sure people are sick of seeing it bumped on the homepage ;) But I'll reach out / ping you if this...

                        Much love :) I'd love to take you up on your last offer but I'll lay off this thread now, I'm sure people are sick of seeing it bumped on the homepage ;)

                        But I'll reach out / ping you if this topic comes up again. <3

                        1 vote
    2. [4]
      Adys
      Link Parent
      I've seen the episode and it's an excellent summary of it, but like you, I never interpreted it as "transphobic". Douglas is a womanizing asshole and a terrible character, and the shtick has...

      I've seen the episode and it's an excellent summary of it, but like you, I never interpreted it as "transphobic".

      Douglas is a womanizing asshole and a terrible character, and the shtick has always been "he's funny because of how much of an asshole he is". Throughout the series, he calls Jen "sugartits" and "a hot piece of finger-licking chicken"; he illegally spies on his employees, he moves his office into the men's toilet "so he can be closer to the ladies' toilet", he gets a "shithead of the year award", etc. It's very unsurprising he would also be transphobic, and that's what makes it (positively) shocking when April says "I used to be a man" and Douglas responds (more or less) "I don't care. Anyway, let's bone?".

      People don't call Linehan sexist because he created a sexist character; nor is David X Cohen sexist for creating Zapp Brannigan. Calling this episode transphobic is a pretty weird take IMO.

      I agree with you some of the jokes haven't aged well; yes, it's very stereotyped, though IT crowd is full of stereotypes, all of them in good fun. April is certainly portrayed as very masculine, but there is no mistaking her, she is a woman in the role. I've known trans women who are happy to retain certain masculine traits, and I can't imagine it to be too uncommon (just like I'm very comfortable, as a guy, with my own more feminine traits).

      The episode is from 2006 and I watched it at its release. At the time, I was 15, and I remember it having a significant impact on me. The audience hugely empathizes with April as she and Douglas were clearly in love and having fun, and Douglas just dumps her because he's a shallow prick. I haven't thought much of it until I heard about this drama, but I'd definitely say this is one of the influences in my life which made me explicitly not care about people's biological gender but rather see them as who they are in the present.

      15 votes
      1. mat
        Link Parent
        I think you can make a reasonably legit reading of the episode as transphobic. I don't think it's as justifiable as the reading where it's not, but still. Bear in mind C4 really can't afford to...

        I think you can make a reasonably legit reading of the episode as transphobic. I don't think it's as justifiable as the reading where it's not, but still.

        Bear in mind C4 really can't afford to get on the end of an internet rage campaign for perceived support of transphobia. It's even possible they had so many complaints about the episode already that it was just easier to take it down than leave it up.

        4 votes
      2. [2]
        Macil
        Link Parent
        If Zapp Brannigan was a main character of Futurama, and the only women that showed up on the show were belittled and were never fleshed out as characters and only lost out in those situations...

        People don't call Linehan sexist because he created a sexist character; nor is David X Cohen sexist for creating Zapp Brannigan. Calling this episode transphobic is a pretty weird take IMO.

        If Zapp Brannigan was a main character of Futurama, and the only women that showed up on the show were belittled and were never fleshed out as characters and only lost out in those situations (being pushed out of the show included), then it would be a lot touchier and a lot likelier to age terribly.

        Back when I first watched the episode, I didn't have an understanding of what trans people were, and I felt a bit sympathetic like I learned about someone's struggle ... though really that feeling was counterbalanced a lot with the feeling of "Douglas met another weird character and their combined weirdness equaled comedy". In today's context, with the understanding that many people are knowledgeable of trans people and yet don't respect their struggles, including the very creator of that episode, it makes me really doubtful that the sympathetic part of the reaction is what most people get out of the episode or was intended.

        4 votes
        1. wervenyt
          Link Parent
          Having discussed this with a few friends in the wake of this debacle, the majority came away from the episode with that sympathetic lens. However, as you've mentioned, it's the only trans...

          Having discussed this with a few friends in the wake of this debacle, the majority came away from the episode with that sympathetic lens. However, as you've mentioned, it's the only trans character in the series, who is portrayed, to some extent, as a man with a vagina. Coupled with Linehan's views and actions in the years following, it definitely wasn't intended.

          2 votes
    3. mat
      Link Parent
      I agree that episde hasn't aged well (although nowhere near as badly as those awful "but I'm a laydee" Little Britain sketches) and I think that the story being told could be told better. But I...

      I agree that episde hasn't aged well (although nowhere near as badly as those awful "but I'm a laydee" Little Britain sketches) and I think that the story being told could be told better. But I also agree with your reading - regardless of Linehan's intent, which we don't know - where Douglas learns something about both himself and the nature of love. I don't think the way Douglas reacts is particularly out of character or troubling in and of itself. Some people are transphobic, and Douglas is famously not a very nice character already. He treats everyone badly. How it's portrayed could probably be handled better in an ideal world but as it stands it's fairly clear Douglas is the asshole.

      However. The situation is complicated somewhat because Linehan is an asshole himself. If he didn't have a personal history of transphobia it would be easier to read that episode as "of it's time". I can see where C4 are coming from and I can understand why they might not be prepared to move on the issue, where they might with someone else - to go back to Little Britain for a moment, both Lucas and Walliams have apologised for their trans-mocking sketches and I believe them both because they otherwise seem to be nice people. And let's be honest, even just ten years ago what was and wasn't acceptable regarding trans people was different. Obviously it was never right to be transphobic but it was more acceptable, socially.

      Ultimately Linehan's work has been going slowly downhill since Father Ted so frankly if he doesn't want to do more stuff for C4 that's fine with me. Also presumably other channels will work with him - he's still producing stuff for the BBC as far as I know.

      It is a tricky situation and I'm glad I'm not the person making a decision at C4.

      9 votes
    4. reifyresonance
      Link Parent
      One trans person's opinion, whatever that's worth: Based on your description of this episode, I would probably feel pretty shitty after watching it, if I made it through the whole thing. I might...

      One trans person's opinion, whatever that's worth:
      Based on your description of this episode, I would probably feel pretty shitty after watching it, if I made it through the whole thing. I might stop watching the show - I've done that before, for this reason (it was the second episode in the series like that though - I ended up crying, first because of "ah, that's how people see me", and then "damn I can't believe I let them get to me like this". But I digress.)

      If it's not removed, it should at least have a little warning beforehand - "hey, this episode has a trans character, and it hasn't aged well, here's the skip button".

      8 votes
    5. mrbig
      Link Parent
      I honestly think it’s a good episode with characteristic edgy humor and not transphobic in the slightest.

      I honestly think it’s a good episode with characteristic edgy humor and not transphobic in the slightest.

      4 votes
    6. balooga
      Link Parent
      Oh no, it's that episode? I've seen them all a ton of times but had forgotten which A- and B-plots went together. I don't have anything to add that hasn't been said already in this thread, except...

      Also I find it frustrating that this is just a subplot for the main story of Moss/Roy convincing Jen that a small box with a light on it is "the internet" and she uses it for show-and-tell at a shareholder speech. Like that's seriously some of the funniest comedy I've ever seen, but it's part of the April/Douglas episode, so it inherits that reputation.

      Oh no, it's that episode? I've seen them all a ton of times but had forgotten which A- and B-plots went together. I don't have anything to add that hasn't been said already in this thread, except that it's a travesty such a great moment in comedy has been canceled for reasons unrelated to itself. The Elders of the Internet are grieving its loss!

      4 votes
  2. [14]
    Grendel
    Link
    Genuine question: This goes beyond Douglas' actions, he was clearly being a jerk about things. Is it inherently trans-phobic to end a relationship based on transgender status? Assuming you are not...

    Genuine question:
    This goes beyond Douglas' actions, he was clearly being a jerk about things.
    Is it inherently trans-phobic to end a relationship based on transgender status? Assuming you are not an asshole about it, is it okay to have a preference for non-trans people?

    15 votes
    1. kfwyre
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      So, this is a pretty significant question. I'm going to try my best to do it justice, but keep in mind I'm just one cis dude speaking about my own experiences, and I don't want my words to carry...
      • Exemplary

      So, this is a pretty significant question. I'm going to try my best to do it justice, but keep in mind I'm just one cis dude speaking about my own experiences, and I don't want my words to carry any more weight than that. I definitely think this is an issue where the voices of trans people should be front and center.


      One of the persistent drumbeats of LGB liberation has been that we don't choose our attractions. You see this in the "nature vs. nurture" debates and the "born this way" rhetoric that has defined discussions of attraction for decades. For the longest time we had to continually assert that we weren't choosing a "lifestyle", and this aspect of our lives has become largely common knowledge and accepted as truth -- not that there is absolutely no choice or fluidity, mind you, but that, in general, attractions seem to exist as something that choose you to a far greater degree than you choose them.

      As a gay man, I know first-hand how immutable my preferences are. When I was growing up, deep in the closet in a deeply homophobic culture, I would have done anything to have been straight. I tried and tried. But, no matter what I did, changing that part of me was simply impossible. I was frustratingly, irrevocably attracted to men, not women, and seemingly nothing could change that. If someone were to come to me and say that my lack of attraction to women was misogynistic, I'd have a pretty hard time with that, because my opinions on and beliefs regarding women had no bearing on my lack of attraction to them.


      Now, contrary to what I've just said, I also don't think attraction exists independent of all other factors. It's a bit of a paradox that I'm not quite sure I fully understand myself, but it's been a truth of my experience. To talk about it I'm going to have to address some ideas that might put me a bit into the weeds, and I'm hoping I can do so in ways that maintain the honesty of my lived experiences but that also don't step on anyone else's dignity. If anything I say here deserves pushback or criticism, please let me know, either in the thread or by PM. The last thing I want to do is contribute to a hostile or derogatory environment for anyone here. I promise you I will listen, openly and non-defensively.


      A major event in my life was leaving my home state in the American south and moving to a place that was far more progressive. The homophobic torments of the place in which I lived were not something I wanted to deal with long-term, so I very much "got out" as soon as it was feasible for me to do so.

      The place that I originally lived was not very diverse at all -- it was very predominantly white. As such, the people I were interested in tended to be predominantly white. It was an aesthetic preference that I had and that was pretty much invisible to me. It wasn't until I moved to the new state, which was significantly more diverse, that I even realized it was "a thing". I noticed that I seemed to be almost exclusively interested in white men. They were the only ones who "pinged" on my radar.

      Did this make me racist?

      Well, I wasn't choosing to be interested in these people, and all my life I had lived under the paradigm that my attractions were immutable -- "you like who you like". So, no? I wasn't being racist, right?

      Except, I kind of was, but not in the way that you might expect.

      Part of my internalized preference for white people was exposure -- I had mostly been around white people -- but part of it was also an internalized racism regarding people of color. I didn't harbor any outright malice or ill-will towards them, but regardless of my feelings, my mind had other associations that it would jump to upon seeing men of color, largely informed by racist media depictions. The immediate and unconscious associations my brain was making for men of color had negative qualities -- a negativity that wasn't present in my brain's response to white men. Those negative associations helped to inhibit my potential attraction to men of color.

      I know this to be true because the longer I lived in my new state and integrated myself into the community, the more those associations started to break, and more positive and affirming ones started to take their place. I now had regular interactions with people of color, had them in my social circles, encountered them in my daily life, etc. This was a rarity in the place that I lived before which was so heavily white, but it was an everyday reality in the place I moved to because there wasn't a dominant ethnicity.

      The longer I lived there, the more I felt my attractions start to shift, and the more I started to find men of color attractive in ways that I hadn't before. It's not that I stopped being attracted to white men, but that my attraction expanded to include a greater set of people. It was demonstrating a malleability that I didn't even know was possible, because for the longest time I had assured everyone, including myself, that I absolutely couldn't change who I liked even if I wanted to! Now, granted, though my attractions changed, they never extended past men -- there was still a seemingly rigid barrier when it came to that characteristic. But I can say that, in hindsight, it's clear that at least some part of my attraction was influenced by external factors, and those external factors were, at least partially, rooted in systemic racism. Was preferring white men, as I did initially, racist? Labeling it as such outright can feel harsh, but if we instead phrase the question as "was my preference for white men a product of racism?" then I feel entirely comfortable saying "yes".


      I say all of this because I think there is a similar aspect when it comes to attraction and trans people. Negative depictions of trans people have been cultural tropes in mass media for a long time, with contrastingly few positive depictions (the documentary Disclosure is a fantastic overview of this, for anyone interested). Negative assumptions about and understandings of trans people are still widely held by many. Against this backdrop, I think it's easy to see how someone who holds what they feel is an innate preference for cis people might not feel that they're being transphobic, all while that preference might be being informed by transphobia.

      I've been through a bit of this myself. I've talked here about my immutable preference for men, and after I came out and integrated myself within the LGBT community, I remember thinking that, despite my overt support for them, I didn't think I could ever be personally attracted to trans men. I didn't say this out loud, as I understood how it made me look, but it felt true to me at the time internally. It was consistent with who I believed myself to be at a fundamental level.

      At the time, "FTM" (female-to-male) was the preferred terminology, and a lot of focus and emphasis was given to the first part of that: the female part. There was a strong cultural focus on the transition itself -- on one's starting gender and "biological reality" and whatnot. This had the effect of priming me not to see FTM people as male but as some altered configuration of female. As a gay male, it then followed that of course I wouldn't be interested them, because my fundamental belief about who they were wasn't in line with who I fundamentally believed myself to be interested in. It's obvious in hindsight, but it was invisible to me at the time. I didn't have the words or the framework to be able to do this kind of metacognition.

      As society has better developed its understanding of gender and I've learned all of the ways in which my past beliefs have been wrong, I too have found my attractions change. I no longer see trans men as a separate category that falls outside of my interests. I have met trans men that I have been attracted to, and were I not already married to a man I love, I could now see myself comfortably in a relationship with a trans man.


      I had a further step in the same direction as my worldview started to integrate non-binary people. Prior to this, I'd always viewed the world in very strict male/female terms, the kind of thing that defined our understanding of gender and was implicitly embedded in terminology like "MTF" and "FTM". Gender felt like a wall that you could stand on either side of, and which side you were on determined who you were. However, non-binary people outright broke that wall for me and forced me to adapt my understanding of myself. I'd always defined myself a gay man, which meant that I was interested in men. So what did it mean for who I was if I found an enby attractive? They, as well as trans men, helped me realize that much of what I find attractive isn't some innate quality of maleness that exists within someone -- which "side of the wall" they're on -- but more an aesthetic presentation of maleness that exists on someone's exterior -- for where they choose to stand. I could see myself comfortably in a relationship now with a more masculine/male-presenting enby, but I was only able to arrive at that conclusion because of how my mindsets have changed to account for them.


      If you'd asked me prior to all of these changes of heart I've had over the years, I probably would have identified that I did have a preference for cis people, and that was just "part of the deal" of being gay -- an aspect of my immutable interests. I wouldn't have considered myself openly transphobic, as I harbored no ill-will against trans people and considered them valuable friends, allies, and members of our community. I can't deny, however, that my attractions were, ultimately, influenced by transphobia, and it took changing my perspectives and understanding to undo some of the harm those beliefs embedded within me.

      It's not that trans or non-binary people have fundamentally changed and my attraction has responded to that -- it's that my understandings of them and associations applied to them have changed, and my attractions have followed from that. While some aspects of attraction genuinely do seem immutable, I believe that others have aesthetic and intellectual components that derive from our experiences and beliefs.

      So, in a very long answer to your question, I wouldn't immediately say that someone that has a preference for cis people is automatically transphobic. It feels like a strong character indictment for an attraction the person probably feels like they have little control over. With that said, however, I would strongly encourage that person to investigate whether that preference might be somewhat informed rather than innate. I can't speak for anyone besides myself, and my experiences are the smallest sample size -- one -- but I believe it to be true for me that negative beliefs about people's identity characteristics negatively impacted my capability for attraction to them. In this way, my preference for cis people ultimately was transphobic because its driving mechanism was transphobia.

      23 votes
    2. [4]
      TildeMan
      Link Parent
      I can't believe people are writing these long essays to answer the question. The simple answer is that you are never, under any circumstances, obligated to date someone. It can be because you...

      I can't believe people are writing these long essays to answer the question. The simple answer is that you are never, under any circumstances, obligated to date someone. It can be because you don't like their personality, you don't like the way they look, you don't like a member of their family, whatever. The decision of who to date is yours alone and absolutely nobody has the right to tell you that you must date someone, even if the reason you want to stop dating them is because they are trans.

      15 votes
      1. kfwyre
        Link Parent
        I agree that people are never obligated to date anyone, but it doesn't mean that the reasons someone chooses to stop dating someone, even if genuinely felt, aren't necessarily discriminatory...

        I agree that people are never obligated to date anyone, but it doesn't mean that the reasons someone chooses to stop dating someone, even if genuinely felt, aren't necessarily discriminatory either.

        For example: I used to know a man who had some difficulty dating women because his expectation was that they would be subservient and yielding to his authority to a degree that I, and many of the women he dated, considered outright misogynistic.

        13 votes
      2. mftrhu
        Link Parent
        You are not obligated to date anyone. You can stop dating them for any reason. That doesn't mean that those reasons can't be shallow and discriminatory, and I'm not sure why "is this X-phobic?" is...

        You are not obligated to date anyone. You can stop dating them for any reason. That doesn't mean that those reasons can't be shallow and discriminatory, and I'm not sure why "is this X-phobic?" is always answered with the non-sequitur "they can't force you to do it!"

        The answer to that question would be "yes, it'd be transphobic if you are only ending/refusing that relationship solely because of someone's transgender status". Refusing it for reasons that are not solely their transgender status - "I really want to have real children with them" - might not be transphobic, iff they are applied equally to trans and cis people from the get-go, but they can still be some other kind of X-phobic.

        You being allowed to do that, though, was never called into question.

        8 votes
      3. Qis
        Link Parent
        This is "trap" discourse 101! No one is obligating anyone to stay in a relationship they don't want. The question ought to be how does someone get into a whole-ass relationship with you without...

        This is "trap" discourse 101! No one is obligating anyone to stay in a relationship they don't want. The question ought to be how does someone get into a whole-ass relationship with you without bothering to understand this extremely essential aspect of your life?

        4 votes
    3. [6]
      Adys
      Link Parent
      Mmh… a can of worms, I love cans of worms… This is a pretty complicated question. And first you have to define "trans-phobic", as it's a pretty loaded term now and there's no consistency in what...

      Mmh… a can of worms, I love cans of worms…

      This is a pretty complicated question. And first you have to define "trans-phobic", as it's a pretty loaded term now and there's no consistency in what different people will expect it to mean. So I'll avoid that word in my answer.

      Let's imagine the situation in the episode, minus Douglas being an asshole: Man meets woman, woman is upfront about being trans. Man misunderstands her, has a happy & fulfilling relationship with the woman, and it is clarified down the line.

      My personal take is that it's wrong to end the relationship at that point because of this. The woman was not dishonest about her past self, but even though there was a misunderstanding, the relationship has proven itself successful. So it becomes you, breaking up because of an idea that, in your head, you are repulsed by the other person not because of who they are, but who they were.

      Would it be different if the woman hadn't said anything at first? Yeah. I mean, either way it's fair to break up with someone who hides you such a big part of their past, and as it is today this is something people would expect the other person to be upfront about.

      Now there's a parallel question: Is it wrong to refuse to start a relationship because the other person is trans? And this is where I'm pretty safely going to say that no, it's not wrong. Putting aside who the other person is, your perception of who they are will greatly affect your attraction towards them. You should never be or feel forced into a relationship, and "being trans" is just another attribute you may or may not be attracted to, or may ignore altogether. Just like "being vegetarian", "being a professional poker player", "being white/black/asian/latino/…", "being blonde/brunette/red-head/bald", "being slim/fat", etc.

      Additionally, unlike the more shallow attribute selection, there are extremely legitimate concerns that may put you off, including for mtf the ability to bear children. I don't think it's absurd, as a heterosexual male, to refuse to be with someone who can't bear your children, and even ignoring the transgender issue, it's not an uncommon cause of incompatibility. I also think it's reasonable to want to be with someone you feel sexual compatibility with in general.

      No matter which way you put it: Whether it's considered a physical or psychological trait, it's okay not to be attracted to someone because of it. It's okay to refuse to be in a relationship with someone you don't feel a connection with. And even if the reason behind that is shallow, that's still okay.

      For example: I'm short, and I don't like girls who are much taller than me. I am less attracted to them, and I find the sex to be less enjoyable. It's the definition of shallow. I don't have a problem with tall girls beyond that, and I count plenty of tall men and women as my friends (in fact, oNe oF mY bEsT FrIenDs iS TaLL). You can judge me all you want for it, but it doesn't make me a gigantasophobe. And given the prevalence of girls who aren't into short dudes and don't even hesitate to put "🚫 <1.78m" on their Tinder profile (seriously, what the fuck?), I think silent preferences are fine.

      So if there is an answer to your question, it's "Probably not, but it's most likely shallow".

      3 votes
      1. [5]
        Gaywallet
        Link Parent
        I think the only case in which this can be used as a defense, is when the person asks every potential partner whether they are fertile or not before choosing to start dating them. In my...

        I don't think it's absurd, as a heterosexual male, to refuse to be with someone who can't bear your children

        I think the only case in which this can be used as a defense, is when the person asks every potential partner whether they are fertile or not before choosing to start dating them. In my experience, essentially no one does this and this defense is often used to justify transphobia.

        Even then, there's the possibility of discovering that they are not fertile at a later point in time (as they may not know they are infertile) and the decision then being influenced by the existing relationship.

        It also ignores other avenues to be a parent such as adoption or the use of genetics or surrogacy or science to have a child through some other means

        4 votes
        1. [4]
          Adys
          Link Parent
          It generally comes up. I briefly dated someone who couldn't bear children for medical reasons. She made a point to tell me as soon as it became apparent that a potential relationship was forming....

          when the person asks every potential partner whether they are fertile or not

          It generally comes up. I briefly dated someone who couldn't bear children for medical reasons. She made a point to tell me as soon as it became apparent that a potential relationship was forming.

          And yes, people do sometimes break up because they find out their partner is infertile. Maybe it is shitty, but my view is that if one of the two people is not happy with the relationship, a break up is an acceptable outcome. I've always made a point to try to work things out with my partner but you can't be forced to stay in a relationship just because the factors leading to the break-up are outside of your partner's control.

          And I'm fully aware of other avenues. I didn't pre-emptively mention them in my comment because I felt it was not necessary to point out that some people simply want a biological child with their partner. I don't see why that wouldn't be an okay thing to want, when just about anything else is on the table.

          4 votes
          1. [3]
            Gaywallet
            Link Parent
            It's less an issue of what is okay and what's not, and more an issue of hypocritical behavior and reactionary responses to situations they likely have never and probably will never face. I'm...

            It's less an issue of what is okay and what's not, and more an issue of hypocritical behavior and reactionary responses to situations they likely have never and probably will never face. I'm calling it out because I see it often and it frankly shouldn't even be brought up.

            You can absolutely choose to be in a relationship or not with someone for any reason so lets not give the example of fertility and instead give an example that's unrelated such as not wanting to date people who are too tall or too short.

            2 votes
            1. [2]
              Adys
              Link Parent
              Right, hence why I did both. I get you that it can be hypocritical, and I'm sure plenty of people would use it as an excuse, but it doesn't invalidate the point that it can be a factor and I think...

              lets not give the example of fertility and instead give an example that's unrelated such as not wanting to date people who are too tall or too short.

              Right, hence why I did both.

              I get you that it can be hypocritical, and I'm sure plenty of people would use it as an excuse, but it doesn't invalidate the point that it can be a factor and I think you may be downplaying how much of a factor it can be. For a lot of heterosexuals, "finding a partner" is nearly entirely driven by instinct to mate and have kids. For you (IIRC you are gay and it's not just the nickname?), it's a subject you've already most likely fully thought through, but that doesn't apply to everyone, and for most, there is a conscious series of choices that have to be made to reach the conclusion of adoption/surrogacy. Note that "going through a conscious series of choices" is generally not something that happens when you casually start dating someone; a lot of it happens on feel.

              3 votes
              1. Gaywallet
                Link Parent
                I'm not downplaying it at all. I just pointed out that you can choose to date or not date someone for any reason or no reason at all, so let's not focus on the specifics, especially when the...

                I think you may be downplaying how much of a factor it can be.

                I'm not downplaying it at all. I just pointed out that you can choose to date or not date someone for any reason or no reason at all, so let's not focus on the specifics, especially when the specifics can be used to justify inequitable behavior that is disguised as authenticity.

                3 votes
    4. [2]
      Qis
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Yes, that's very literally transphobic. It sounds like you're imagining a scenario where you're already in a relationship when you discover that your partner falls afoul of a standard you hold?...

      Yes, that's very literally transphobic. It sounds like you're imagining a scenario where you're already in a relationship when you discover that your partner falls afoul of a standard you hold? Honesty is important in relationships. A romantic engagement should involve an appropriate degree of disclosure from all parties and that could include gender status - but self-knowledge of a strong preference like you know you might disqualify a partner for being trans sounds like a situation where you should have communicated much sooner. It's not okay to start relationships pending that kind of judgmental condition.

      2 votes
      1. [2]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. Grzmot
          Link Parent
          Bearing you walking into LGBT spaces, even meeting a trans person in public is exceptionally rare. The German anti discriminatory service quotes advocate groups for trans and intersex people...

          Bearing you walking into LGBT spaces, even meeting a trans person in public is exceptionally rare. The German anti discriminatory service quotes advocate groups for trans and intersex people estimating (and I'm quoting the upper limit here) at 100k trans people in Germany. And those are estimates from advocate groups, where you can assume that they know what they are talking about (and may or may not be biased to put it higher). A simple calculation later, that makes 0,12% of the German population trans.

          You'd have to first meet a trans person, get into a relationship with them and then also have the bad luck to find that one person who will lie to you about it. We are talking of cosmically rare percentages here.

          6 votes
  3. [20]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. [19]
      JXM
      Link Parent
      If the creator of the show didn’t have a history of transphobic statements, I could see your reading making sense...but given his background, I’m inclined to view it in a different light. This...

      If the creator of the show didn’t have a history of transphobic statements, I could see your reading making sense...but given his background, I’m inclined to view it in a different light.

      This comment has a good summary and I mostly agree with their interpretation of it.

      6 votes
      1. [19]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. hamstergeddon
          Link Parent
          Idk where you're getting that from. He wrote/directed the entire series. IT Crowd is absolutely his creation. It's well documented. He even got banned from twitter for repeated violations of their...
          • Exemplary

          according to Wikipedia at least, he didn't even get involved until after this episode aired

          Idk where you're getting that from. He wrote/directed the entire series. IT Crowd is absolutely his creation.

          I'm hesitant to just accept any "he's transphobic" claims without proper vetting

          It's well documented. He even got banned from twitter for repeated violations of their rules against hate speech.

          But like I said Linehan's person feelings don't really matter; Fawlty Towers got in to similar problems by making fun of the Major in a very similar way by making him say racist things as a way to make fun of these old racist coots who still think the British Empire is a thing.

          They do though. John Cleese was deliberately trying to make an anti-racist point using a racist character. The VHS copy of Fawlty Towers has a 10 minute monologue of him explaining what he was trying to do there (and again for anti-german sentiment found in "The German"). We don't have that with Linehan. We just have his tweets, interviews, etc. suggesting he's a transphobic asshole.

          I'm the OP and my novel of a comment wasn't meant to suggest that the episode of IT Crowd means Linehan's transphobic. When I first watched the episode I took it to be anti-transphobic social commentary, but I later found out about Linehan's transphobia and now the episode leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

          I'm not even saying "let's cancel IT Crowd". Fuck no, I love that show. I've literally watched it all the way through dozens of times and will continue to do so. It's honestly one of the funniest shows ever made. I'm just saying that this one episode was kinda transphobic, especially in light of Linehan being a dick about transgendered people.

          17 votes
        2. [17]
          JXM
          Link Parent
          How are the creator, writer and director of the show’s past transphobic statements not relevant to how we understand an episode that can be interpreted as transphobic? That makes no sense to me.

          How are the creator, writer and director of the show’s past transphobic statements not relevant to how we understand an episode that can be interpreted as transphobic? That makes no sense to me.

          6 votes
          1. [11]
            Comment deleted by author
            Link Parent
            1. [5]
              Gaywallet
              Link Parent
              Transsexuality is an outdated and incorrect term that is often used as a dogwhistle. I can't speak to your intentions, but if you wish to engage in good faith conversations about gender, do not...

              he's not one of those guys campaigning against the very idea of transsexuality.

              Transsexuality is an outdated and incorrect term that is often used as a dogwhistle. I can't speak to your intentions, but if you wish to engage in good faith conversations about gender, do not use this term unless someone specifically asks you to - the correct term is transgender.

              The episode, taken at face value, strikes me as being an innocent joke and I see no reason to think it's part of some grand plot to encourage transphobia.

              Of course that's how you see it, you have no skin in the game. What's being portrayed is not you and if anything is portrayed in a bad light it won't matter.

              I've seen this a bunch of times, where even very small and innocent things are seen as part of some cabal against trans people by some. It's pretty tiring.

              It's pretty tiring to hear it portrayed in this manner, too. I hear arguments like this all the time about literally every minority group. If you don't like it, don't participate in the discussion. It's really not all that hard to avoid discussing minorities without treating them as subhuman or worthy of derision.

              You can dislike Linehan's view on treatment against trans children, and at the same time also accept that he has nothing against trans people

              And yet we have literal proof that he does? How can you even make such a statement after reading the article linked? Here, let me grab the quote that makes this painfully obvious

              "Transwomen are women’ is a statement of belief, which I do not share. Channel 4 are behaving disgracefully by participating in this insult to women. I won’t work for them again until the episode is reinstated.”

              I don't know how you can view this as anything but transphobic.

              Words like transphobia, racism, sexism, islamophobia, etc. are far too often used in these kind of disagreements. I don't like it; it's just an insult and personal attack.

              The fact that your takeaway from discussions on clearly phobic behavior is 'it's an insult and personal attack' should have you reconsidering why you are participating in these discussions at all. It's being pointed out because it's important context. Someone who believes that trans women are not women will not present trans people in a positive light - they are inherently biased and the opinion they express will be tainted by this bias. To argue that they can is completely ignorant of regular human behavior.

              you've "won the argument"

              Why do you think anyone is here to "win" an argument? We're discussing a topic and an important part of discussing a topic that involves someone's creation is to understand the creators intent.

              but chucking everyone who holds views you disagree with (even when phrased inflammatory) in a single group isn't helping matters

              And yet this is exactly what's been working for the black lives matter movement. You may be uncomfortable with the idea that you are transphobic or racist, but that doesn't stop it from being true. In fact, it's entirely possible to be a genuinely good person who wants both transgender and black people in America to do better and yet still be transphobic or racist because you grew up in an environment that contributed to racism and transphobia.

              The reason it gets pointed out is so that you can be aware of and change your behavior in the future.

              And here is where I am going to plea to you - please change you behavior. This comment, and many others like it in this thread have been incredibly frustrating to see. I have pretty thick skin and I generally don't let things like this bother me, but I can tell you that I have spoken to many transgender individuals on Tildes about these kinds of discussions happening with increasing frequency and I can assure you that it's getting to everyone. I've seen people begin to flee this platform and start taking breaks. I've been in DMs with people trying to reassure them and comfort them.

              If you truly care about transgender people and want them to be on this platform and be accepted, you need to stop and think critically about your behavior. I'm begging you to stop defending these positions. Spend less time making your opinion known and more time listening to the opinion of the transgender individuals.

              7 votes
              1. [5]
                Comment deleted by author
                Link Parent
                1. [4]
                  Gaywallet
                  (edited )
                  Link Parent
                  Science already figured this out, woman refers to gender and gender is self identified. It's incredibly simple. If you want to refer to biological sex you are welcome to, and the term is female....

                  The second question is a trickier: "what defines a women?" This one doesn't have an easy answer; should we look at biology and reproductive systems? Brain chemistry? XX/XY chromosomes? Self-identification? Something else?

                  Science already figured this out, woman refers to gender and gender is self identified. It's incredibly simple.

                  If you want to refer to biological sex you are welcome to, and the term is female.

                  When you go on a rant on twitter about transgender women not being women you are both factually incorrect and make yourself look like like a hateful, pathetic human being.

                  whether "is a male-to-female person a women?" seems quite a more complex question, and it doesn't strike me as a terrible thing to have a conversation about.

                  First, the correct term is transgender woman, not "male-to-female person". This conversation has been happening for over forty years. If you are still uneducated, please go educate yourself - it's not hard to find a plethora of scientific books on this subject.

                  you're telling me what my opinion should be

                  No, I'm not telling you what your opinion should be. You are welcome to have any opinion you would like. I have merely come here to help you understand the very people you are talking about.

                  if you come from a viewpoint of asymmetric reproduction in biology

                  We're discussing gender, not biology.

                  This doesn't automatically imply that you also think "trans people are sub-human" or that they shouldn't be allowed to in whatever toilet they want or whatever.

                  You can spin your words however you want to, but these people are asking you to treat them as women. To say that they aren't women is disrespectful of their wishes, and implies at the very least that you don't respect them enough to use words in their appropriate manner because you have some hookup on what 'woman' means to you, regardless of what the field of science has decided it means.

                  I find myself in the rather curious position of "defending" someone I don't especially agree with. But what I also don't like is painting everyone's views you don't like as "transphobic" and all sorts of other insults.

                  Then maybe stop doing it or assuming that people will do it to individuals who are not transphobic? This man made a statement that was objectively transphobic. He said trans women are not women. I really don't know what else to say here.


                  There are 3 billion people on the internet and ... sometimes some people find other people's views upsetting. That's unfortunate and I try to avoid that whenever possible, but it's quite impossible to completely avoid that if you want foster reasonable, open discussions about these kind of topics.

                  I think you need to change your idea of a 'reasonable, open discussion'.

                  It's one thing to jump into a thread with your opinion and to reply to those who reply to you.

                  It's an entirely different thing to start replying to everyone in an entire thread who has a differing opinion. I'm not accusing you or any specific person of this behavior, but there's a clear pattern that happens in topics like these and people who have very strong opinions that they want to be known.

                  I've heard your point, and have heard the point of others in this thread. That wasn't the problem. The problem was that the discussion wasn't balanced. I didn't even know this thread existed until a trans person I know pinged me on discord because they were upset about what was happening in here - a bunch of cis people came into the thread to talk about whether something was transphobic or not. That's akin to a bunch of white folk talking about whether something is racist to black people. Really stop and think about that for a second.

                  A bunch of white people talking about whether something is racist to black people.

                  Does that sit right with you? It shouldn't, because it doesn't matter how educated the white people are - they simply cannot experience what black individuals are experiencing and to come in and argue with black people about their perceived experience is upsetting.

                  I don't think this should be a safe space for trans people (or anyone else) where they will never hear any dissent or scepticism. Of course, outright hateful comments shouldn't be allowed (and they're not), and the entire conversation is about what is or isn't transphobia, which strikes me as a worthwhile topic to have a conversation about.

                  I'm going to say this as nicely as I have the capability of doing right now because frankly this sounds like concern trolling and I want to give you the benefit of the doubt - go educate yourself on what transphobia means. This sounds an awful lot like white people complaining about 2nd and 3rd degree racism because people interpret 2nd and 3rd degree racism as intentional rather than structural.

                  If you find this so upsetting that you're going to leave then this is very unfortunate and certainly not my intent (nor anyone else's, I think), but that's your own responsibility and not mine. You can't raise these issues on a public forum and then expect everyone to agree with you and then ask them stop posting on these kind of issues if they don't.

                  Do you want a diverse site or do you want only people who share your same mindset here? Because what you're saying and what you're doing are two different things. If you truly value a diversity of opinion, you have to be willing to listen to the feedback of others, especially when you're in a thread which contains comments which were deleted because of their hateful nature.

                  And do you think I'm more inclined to come back to Tildes after this? Really, this works both ways. What I dislike especially about this conversation is not that people disagree (I expected as much, and this is fine, even welcome), but that people are saying I'm argueing in bad faith, or that I must be ignorant, or that I don't listen enough, or that I treat people as sub-human.

                  I'm sorry that's how you've felt, but I can't speak on behalf of other commenters. I jumped into the conversation you were having in this thread because I had a message I wanted to share about how transgender people feel seeing many comments like the one you made here.

                  I never accused you, specifically, of anything (I did use 'you' instead of 'one' in the final section and I apologize for any confusion this may have caused) but I also can understand why people may have used more powerful words in response to what you and other commenters have said in here.

                  The reality is the discussion around transphobia hasn't focused on the episode - it's expanded quite a bit into the personal lives of individuals and questions which are adequately answered already in scientific literature and discussions elsewhere. But perhaps most importantly, the questions being asked are specifically dehumanizing to transgender individuals. Is it really so surprising that they are so viscerally upset? This is not the first time a very public individual has caught flak for transphobic nonsense this year and it's certainly not the first time this very discussion has happened on this platform. Many transgender individuals are sick and tired of having to justify their existence in a way which privileged individuals simply aren't and are justifiably upset.

                  9 votes
                  1. [2]
                    cfabbro
                    (edited )
                    Link Parent
                    I just want to highlight that part in particular, since it's a really important point. All of the users conflating gender and sex, arguing against transitioning, etc. in topics like this are...

                    That's akin to a bunch of white folk talking about whether something is racist to black people. Really stop and think about that for a second.

                    A bunch of white people talking about whether something is racist to black people.

                    Does that sit right with you? It shouldn't, because it doesn't matter how educated the white people are - they simply cannot experience what black individuals are experiencing and to come in and argue with black people about their perceived experience is upsetting.

                    I just want to highlight that part in particular, since it's a really important point. All of the users conflating gender and sex, arguing against transitioning, etc. in topics like this are perpetuating misinformation and outdated science (whether intentional or not), and worst of all, they are often getting exemplary labels for it!!! (likely by other users just as uninformed on this subject as they are, and yet despite being uninformed they still felt so strongly about this issue to exemplary all those comments merely because they confirmed their biases).

                    That is incredibly disheartening to see, even from my cisish pan perspective, so I can't even imagine how incredibly frustrating and exhausting it must feel to our transgender members. This shit honestly needs to stop, because I know for a fact that as a result of it several transgender Tildes members have already stopped using the fucking site due to how frequently shit like this keeps reoccurring here!!!

                    p.s. Thank you for continuing to fight the good fight, @gaywallet. Because frankly, I just don't have the energy for it anymore. :(

                    7 votes
                    1. cfabbro
                      (edited )
                      Link Parent
                      Just as an addendum; I feel like a lot of this problem lies with the fact that Tildes simply isn't big enough yet, so still feels like one unified community as a result. At least on reddit, when...
                      • Exemplary

                      Just as an addendum; I feel like a lot of this problem lies with the fact that Tildes simply isn't big enough yet, so still feels like one unified community as a result. At least on reddit, when us LGBT+ people don't want to deal with recurring "debates" like this, we can retreat to the LGBT+ friendly subreddits where they aren't allowed. Whereas on Tildes, there doesn't really feel like there are many places for us to hide when we get frustrated by them, and get tired of feeling like we need to defend ourselves from people who lack knowledge about, or experience with, these issues, but still have strong opinions they want to express (and support via votes and exemplaries) about them regardless.

                      7 votes
                  2. [2]
                    Comment deleted by author
                    Link Parent
                    1. Gaywallet
                      Link Parent
                      I'm just pointing out that the terms are defined. If you want to use language improperly, you're absolutely welcome to do so and it is a completely regular thing. But we need to draw a distinction...

                      Well, you can define your own terms and then be pedantic if someone doesn't follow those terms exactly, but that's a rather boring way to have a discussion.

                      I'm just pointing out that the terms are defined. If you want to use language improperly, you're absolutely welcome to do so and it is a completely regular thing. But we need to draw a distinction between when it's important to use the correct terms and when it's not.

                      If we're talking about something scientific, academic, or otherwise related to human knowledge we absolutely need to nitpick about every single word because the goal is to put an abstract thought into words that are as precise as possible. For the sake of clarity, we cannot leave open the ability to interpret something incorrectly (at least as much as is possible through the means of language).

                      If we're talking about anything that is not scientific such as someone's thoughts or feelings on a matter then I absolutely agree. But what's happened repeatedly in this thread is a subtle crossing of these lines to make points about people's feelings of how things should be, but using scientific words. This kind of confusing messaging can make people, especially those who are uneducated, believe that these are scientific and evidence-backed claims. They are not, and that's why I've been very careful about choosing my words in here and drawing a strong stance.

                      I do support the right of everyone to be whatever they want to be; for example by changing their ID cards or whatnot

                      I just want to point this out because I disagree with the idea of having either sex or gender be on any ID cards. It's entirely irrelevant and unnecessary.

                      I just don't think we need to play word games to do that, much less come up with rather curious notions about sex/gender which are convenient politically to support that point

                      First I want to point out that even mentioning that they are 'convenient politically' is either bad faith (which could be unintentional) or you do not believe in the merits of science. These terms were not created by politicians, they were created by scientists and they were not created to be used politically. Whether they are political or not has nothing to do with whether they are true or not, and politics is not what we are discussing here.

                      These 'curious notions' are how we do science. Everything new starts out as a curious notion, as people who are extremely educated in a specific niche category do their best to use the limits of language to classify and specify, with precision, what differences and similarities exist.

                      As an aside, this is also why I hate classification in general, especially when it comes to humans. These kinds of groups have historically been problematic. Do you think society would be the same if we never created the notion of race or ethnicity? Something to think about.

                      I have the impression people are afraid of conversations about "what is a women?" because they fear it will lead to discrimination. This is actually not a completely unjustified fear, but I don't think it needs to lead to discrimination. What's needed most of all is normalisation, and that's just a matter of exposure, and everything else strikes me as something you can academically disagree about without rejecting people's rights.

                      This exact same argument has been used to fight civil rights movements time and time again. I'm not going to go into specifics here because I don't want to imply that you are intentionally xenophobic, gynephobic, or transphobic because I don't believe that you are, but the 'fear' of something, while a valid motivator, is not a valid excuse, especially when you are accusing a group that is objectively already discriminated against. A bigots fear of being fired for expressing an opinion that is unintentionally bigoted (such as 2nd or 3rd degree racism/xenophobia) simply does not stack up against a minority group suffering from bigotry expressing their feelings and directing their frustrations at individuals who are not acting in their best interests.

                      A few specific points:

                      Apologies, I tried to make it as clear as possible that I wasn't referring to you in specific, but rather something I was seeing in this thread.

                      I reject the notion that not being part of the group excludes you from talking about it or criticise ideas from a group.

                      You're right, I didn't say you couldn't participate in the discussion. I pointed it out because it is something that people need to take into consideration, especially when we are talking about privilege and platform. It is relatively easy for someone of privilege to enter a conversation or to have a conversation and we need to be cognizant of the audience they can reach. A celebrity's word can reach a lot more people than a villager in Africa, and therefore they have more responsibility to pay attention to what they are saying, but perhaps more importantly they need to pay attention to who doesn't have an input. There's a reason you saw many people stepping aside to hear the voices of black individuals during the recent black lives matter protests, despite many extremely educated individuals (including people who are world experts in the fields of racial equality) who are not black having some very good points to make. They elevated other people's experiences because these people don't have the same privilege to speak and can't reach the same audiences under normal circumstances.

                      If a black person would say that they felt racially disadvantaged because of the prevalence of red cars (just to name something silly) then their feelings would be valid, but his opinion about red cars would probably be quite misguided.

                      I understand why you are bringing this up, but can you point out somewhere in this thread where a transgender individual is doing this? Because this is another time where I feel like we're crossing the line between personal feeling and objective science. You're painting a picture that could, in theory, happen. However, I don't see this happening in this thread, at all and by even implying that it could happen you are calling into doubt everything being said by trans individuals in this thread. You're also unintentionally implying that only transgender individuals can do this by not throwing in a counter example of how someone not of the minority group could make an equally absurd point.

                      you can't hold me responsible for other people's words or actions

                      I can, because I hold everyone with any privilege to the same standard. Part of the responsibility of being privileged is to pay attention to the discussion and to use your privilege to protect those who are not. In the same way that remaining silent when others are being bigoted makes you complicit in that bigotry, it's your responsibility to pay attention to a discussion and decide when it's correct to voice your opinion, when you should elevate the voice of others, and when you should remain silent because your voice has already been voiced adequately.

                      I feel this kind of thinking is dangerous, because what if someone has a valid and reasonable point but also adds some hateful comment at the end? Obviously, engaging with that person in particular is probably not useful, but the valid point or topic should remain debatable without having the hateful words of others reflect badly on the positions of people who aren't hateful

                      I strongly disagree with this. It's very easy to not add that hateful comment and we should hold these individuals responsible to come to a discussion in good faith, especially when these individuals expressing hateful opinions are often already privileged. Furthermore, a point which includes intolerance is not reasonable and therefore not valid.

                      As an aside, Tildes has a very strong stance on not tolerating intolerance. Hateful behavior is not allowed in any context or to any extent.

                      4 votes
            2. [2]
              kfwyre
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              You are offering Linehan the principle of charity, and I think doing so is a noble thing and is very much in the spirit of this site. I say this because I think there are some boundaries on that...

              You are offering Linehan the principle of charity, and I think doing so is a noble thing and is very much in the spirit of this site. I say this because I think there are some boundaries on that principle that you might be hitting, and I hope I can make them more clearly visible to you. To address this I'm going to pull from specific points in your post, but I promise you I'm not trying to litigate you word by word or line by line. I think you're approaching this topic out of a genuine frustration and are trying to grapple with complex topics with nuance, which I very much appreciate, and I hope my response comes across as helpful rather than condemning.

              If I'm reading your replies in this thread correctly (and please let me know if I'm not!), you see accusations of transphobia as having a significant "taint" to it, which ends discussions due to the guilt and wrongdoing it implies. In this, you hold against people what you see as indiscriminate uses of this term, used to describe people who, like Linehan, you feel don't necessarily fit its more damning indictments.

              I get that, but I encourage you to consider how Linehan does something very similar to this that you accept under the principle of charity. You bring up that he compares medical care for trans people as comparable to Nazi eugenics, and you say that you're willing to look past the inflammatory language to get at the heart of his message. I encourage you to see how a trans person might see this Nazi comparison as having a significant "taint" to it as well, ending discussion and implying significant guilt and wrongdoing. I also encourage you to see how it's possible to look past someone accusing another of transphobia, even when you feel it's unfounded. The principle of charity asks us to consider that they might have legitimate basis for that, and to look past the surface to assess what they really mean.

              I'm not saying that we should just necessarily outright condemn Linehan (especially because I don't know a whole lot about him). Again, I think offering the principle of charity is a genuinely valuable thing. It's more that I think that if we are willing to look at him in the best possible light and give him the benefit of the doubt, I think we also have to do so for people criticizing him as well. We have to ask ourselves: what if what they're saying comes from a genuine place as well? Furthermore, if we do indict his critics for the inflammatory nature or the overreach of their responses, I think it's only fair that offer the same level of scrutiny to Linehan, as few things are more inflammatory than Nazi comparisons, for example.

              7 votes
              1. [2]
                Comment deleted by author
                Link Parent
                1. kfwyre
                  (edited )
                  Link Parent
                  Thank you for explaining -- that helps me better understand where you're coming from. Your "transphobia ranking" framing is especially valuable, and I struggle myself with the same thing. I'm gay...

                  Thank you for explaining -- that helps me better understand where you're coming from.

                  Your "transphobia ranking" framing is especially valuable, and I struggle myself with the same thing. I'm gay and have had to deal with homophobia my whole life, and there's definitely a range that the term itself, being very binary and quite negative, doesn't capture well. There have definitely been times that I feel that people's reactions to things lower on the spectrum have been disproportionate: a 1 or a 2 event generates a response I feel would only be deserved by a 9 or a 10, for example.

                  I think it's easy to see examples like that and feel that the people doing the pushback are in the wrong, and I will readily say that sometimes they are -- especially when the tactics they use are outright abusive, which I believe to be fundamentally wrong even when they support an outcome which I agree with or believe in. I wrote about this idea specifically a bit more here, if you're interested in seeing where I'm coming from.

                  Now, with this in mind, I think it's important to point out that this framework of disproportionality is easily exploitable, and not every example of "overreaction" actually is one. People who promote things like homophobia and transphobia utilize this loophole all the time in order to force the situation to their advantage. Let's say I'm someone who was a 9 or a 10 homophobe internally: I'm at a level where I have overt animus towards gay people (obviously this is hypothetical). I know for a fact that I will get pushback and probably abuse lobbed my way should I operate at that level, so what I can do is insulate and characterize my positions by trying to drop my public comments to something more akin to a 1 or a 2. That way, if someone does respond disproportionately, it makes them look like they're in the wrong!

                  This is the entire basis for arguing in bad faith, and online discussions of nearly any controversial topic are rife with it. One of the things you keep coming back to for Linehan has been his concern for youth, which you feel to be a genuine academic question of significant import. I don't know Linehan, and I can't speak about this whole situation directly (I didn't know who he was prior to this thread, and I haven't seen the episode in question, which is why I've refrained from talking about those here, since they're very much out of my lane), but I will say that "concern for children" has been a homophobic and transphobic cover story for decades. People often cling to it not out of any genuine concern for kids but because it makes their actual positions more palatable and less assailable. Pretty much every modern right and comfort I now enjoy as a gay person has been argued against under the framework of "concern for children", for example.

                  This asymmetry of intention to outcome is why it's possible for us to look at a situation and see what looks like 1 or 2 on the scale, while others, especially those directly harmed my the aforementioned phobias, can look at that same situation and see that it's quietly or sometimes even overtly indicative of a 9 or a 10, and respond in kind.

                  I haven't focused much on Linehan, but this situation strikes me as a bit like that, and his Nazi comments are one of the indicators that he's not actually operating at a 1 or a 2 level himself. Furthermore, the reason I brought them up wasn't to say anything about Linehan himself, but it was to actually point out two parallel lines of thought I saw in your response:

                  • "Transphobia", as levied by Linehan's critics, is an overreaction and a mischaracterization and people should be criticized for wielding it imprecisely.

                  • "Nazi eugenics", as levied by Linehan, is an overreaction and a mischaracterization and people should overlook it to get at the heart of the message.

                  You're willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Linehan, but not to his critics, and I'm saying this not as an indictment of you but to genuinely ask: why? Why shouldn't they get the same courtesy as well? You say that Linehan can be right and still be an ass, but what if some of his critics are also right and are, well, kind of asses about it? Why do they deserve more scorn than him for what's functionally the same behavior?

                  The final point I'll bring up has been covered by others here as well, but I think it's essential. I don't think it's enough that we just look at behavior or projections of good/bad faith argument, because ultimately we can't know someone's intentions and we can't just say "well, both sides are asses so everybody sucks". At some point, the framework on which one of the sides is standing is more shoddy and less supported. That's why I think it's important that we consider the following: what would make it such that Linehan's opinion of trans issues supersedes the opinions of his critics, many of whom are trans and speak from deep experience and expertise regarding these issues?

                  I'm a firm believer that who you are doesn't simply determine whether you're right about something, but I do believe that lived experiences often yield earned authority, and most trans people I know have far more earned authority on trans experiences and issues than most cis people I know. Thus, when I look at this whole situation with Linehan, the asymmetry that comes to mind for me is this one: why should I trust his disclosure over that of others -- especially those who live this day in and day out? What makes him an expert on this, and how has he demonstrated that expertise? Based on the admittedly little I know about this situation, Linehan thus far comes across to me more as someone who has demonstrated his prejudice on this topic rather than his expertise, and I'm inclined to think that his critics, even if some of them are being asses about it, have much more of a platform to stand on than he does.

                  4 votes
            3. [2]
              eladnarra
              Link Parent
              But... Trans kids grow up to be trans adults. When "skeptical" groups of people claim to be concerned for the well being of children, they're basically saying they know better than doctors, kids,...

              You can dislike Linehan's view on treatment against trans children, and at the same time also accept that he has nothing against trans people.

              But... Trans kids grow up to be trans adults. When "skeptical" groups of people claim to be concerned for the well being of children, they're basically saying they know better than doctors, kids, and their parents. And even if they're supposedly fine with trans adults, they're still telling them "I don't think you should have had medically appropriate treatment when you were a kid, and I think trans kids (like you were once) should be denied support and transition care, regardless of the mental health and physical consequences."

              I'm not trans, but if I was I'd assume anyone that said stuff like that hated me and who I am.

              4 votes
              1. [2]
                Comment deleted by author
                Link Parent
                1. eladnarra
                  Link Parent
                  CW: discussion of transphobic talking points in detail He opposes any medical treatment. From an article/interview, not a compilation of tweets: The problem with having a debate on the ethics of...

                  CW: discussion of transphobic talking points in detail

                  He opposes any medical treatment. From an article/interview, not a compilation of tweets:

                  Regarding early transgender intervention for children he says: “Adults can do what they want,” but “it is dangerous to offer surgery and drugs therapy to young teenagers going through puberty who are gender non-conforming.

                  The problem with having a debate on the ethics of medical treatment of trans kids is that many people pretend to be concerned about kids, but when you look deeper they have no concerns at all about the mental health impacts on trans kids caused by delayed medical care and lack of support. It's an acceptable way to hate trans people and make their lives harder, because people will be sympathetic to "think of the kids!" But all medical treatments involve risk, and treatment plans for anything should be individualized for teens based on their input and what doctors think is appropriate. It's a matter of weighing risks. When we give kids with cancer chemotherapy, it's because the risk of death is worse than any side effects of treatment. When we prescribe anyone antidepressants, it's because the risk of side effects is worth it (if they help). Etc.

                  Reading further in the article I linked, Linehan puts forth a very common "concern" that I see a lot from TERFs and anti-trans people - that "activists" are pushing kids into treatments they shouldn't get. I think this is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I've seen trans folks fighting for, which is simply greater acceptance and support for kids going through what they did. (This particular argument feels very close to the "gay recruitment" panic we saw in the past, and makes my skin crawl.) They also tie this into the existence of "detransitioners" - people who for whatever reason "go back" - as proof that many kids are pushed into inappropriate treatment. This is disingenuous because basically every drug or medical procedure has people who regret it. The thing that matters is 1) how many people regret something vs how many people benefit (and how many people would be harmed if access to treatment was limited/removed), 2) why they regret it (some studies suggest some folks detransition because of lack of acceptance and discrimination), and 3) making sure we're doing the research to better identify people who will be helped and reduce the people who will regret it (which is being done).

                  4 votes
            4. mftrhu
              Link Parent
              I beg to differ. Chunking transphobes into a single group, not pandering to the people who would reduce years of dogwhistling and of more overt transphobia to "a mere difference of opinions", is...

              chucking everyone who holds views you disagree with

              I beg to differ. Chunking transphobes into a single group, not pandering to the people who would reduce years of dogwhistling and of more overt transphobia to "a mere difference of opinions", is hurting precisely nothing.

              The people who get upset because of this "political correctness run amok" did not bother to look into the issue, are having a knee-jerk reaction - possibly at the idea that they, also, could be attributed the same label - and I'm not sure why their vagueing on this should matter.

              2 votes
          2. [7]
            Comment deleted by author
            Link Parent
            1. [5]
              Gaywallet
              Link Parent
              There's two ways to understand intent. First is from the medium itself, and second is from context. In many cases it's hard to derive intent from the content directly. Things may be phrased in a...

              should I now change my opinion of the episode just because information about something completely unrelated to the episode itself was released?

              There's two ways to understand intent. First is from the medium itself, and second is from context.

              In many cases it's hard to derive intent from the content directly. Things may be phrased in a way which makes it appear to be unbiased to the uneducated observer. A good example of this is dog whistling. An otherwise benign passage may ever so slightly tip people towards a particular inclination under the guise of presenting a balanced opinion but with the goal of influencing the readers psychology and tip them in the direction of the writer. Often times these texts have dog whistles within them to signal to others who have the same ideology that they are on the same side, and that they should spread this material in order to influence others.

              When we learn of context through other means, such as the discovery that a writer holds hate in their heart, we can now know to avoid this writers depictions of the group they are marginalizing or spreading hate about. It's one of many tools in our disposal to fight malicious ideologies.

              The art is created by the human to spread a message. Understanding what this person's beliefs are allows us to interpret the message better. It is impossible to divorce the message from the human because they are the messenger. To believe that a message can be interpreted by its content alone shows a fundamental lack of understanding of language. Language is not perfect - language is a concrete representation of an abstract idea. Any time you are converting from abstract to concrete and back you will lose some fidelity and introduce confusion. Context is the key which allows us to understand what is lost in translation.

              7 votes
              1. [5]
                Comment deleted by author
                Link Parent
                1. [4]
                  Gaywallet
                  Link Parent
                  While this is theoretically possible, I believe it is naive or narcissistic to believe that one can purely detach oneself from bias.

                  On the other hand, there could be an antisemitic author who wrote books that had no discernable antisemitic tendencies. Then I would read those books and appreciate them for what they are, and not for what the author is.

                  While this is theoretically possible, I believe it is naive or narcissistic to believe that one can purely detach oneself from bias.

                  3 votes
                  1. [4]
                    Comment deleted by author
                    Link Parent
                    1. [3]
                      Gaywallet
                      Link Parent
                      I'm merely pointing out that no one can write something absent their own bias. An antisemite will by definition write a book that is antisemetic, because they are colored by their own biases,...

                      I'm merely pointing out that no one can write something absent their own bias. An antisemite will by definition write a book that is antisemetic, because they are colored by their own biases, regardless of how well they hide it.

                      2 votes
                      1. [3]
                        Comment deleted by author
                        Link Parent
                        1. [2]
                          mftrhu
                          Link Parent
                          Written before the author became anti-semitic, or before the author - who grew up steeped in an anti-semitic society, one in the process of (slowly) leaving its anti-semitism behind - became...

                          How about a text written before the author became antisemitic?

                          Written before the author became anti-semitic, or before the author - who grew up steeped in an anti-semitic society, one in the process of (slowly) leaving its anti-semitism behind - became noticeably anti-semitic?

                          1 vote
                          1. [2]
                            Comment deleted by author
                            Link Parent
                            1. mftrhu
                              Link Parent
                              And yet the author is not unaware of the Jews, and he did not come from a time before the Jews existed. They existed, and he knew about them, if in a shallow manner. He might not have hated them,...

                              And yet the author is not unaware of the Jews, and he did not come from a time before the Jews existed. They existed, and he knew about them, if in a shallow manner. He might not have hated them, not more than what was normal for the time he grew in, but he didn't hold them in high esteem, making them into a punchline.

                              It doesn't really matter, simply "before the author became antisemitic".

                              The author grew up in a society where anti-semitism - and misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia - was pervasive. It's much more likely that he learned that as a child, when surrounded by peers who enabled him, rather than after some criticism he received for the anti-semitism in his work he supposedly had yet to learn.

                              1 vote
            2. JXM
              Link Parent
              Because the episode isn't just the content itself. Context matters for these types of things. That's why when we teach the work of Leni Riefenstahl, D.W. Griffith, even someone as acclaimed as...

              Why not judge the episode by its content? Why should a transphobe get to decide if a piece of art is transphobic or not?

              Because the episode isn't just the content itself. Context matters for these types of things. That's why when we teach the work of Leni Riefenstahl, D.W. Griffith, even someone as acclaimed as Mark Twain, we give context to the works they created. They are important pieces of work and should be taught, but their works also contain things that need contextualizing so we can fully understand them.

              When I watched the episode I didn't think it was transphobic (and other comments have explained how they thought it wasn't), should I now change my opinion of the episode just because information about something completely unrelated to the episode itself was released?

              Yes, you can change your opinion because of something that happened after an episode was released (setting aside the fact that the comments are 100% related to the episode itself).

              I didn't think it was transphobic when I originally watched it, but as I said, his comments since then have made me re-evaluate the episode from a different perspective. I think the argument can be made both ways, but his comments since then make me much more likely to believe it wasn't the innocent joke I thought it was originally.

              Opinions about things can change over time, as you learn more about them. Just to use another British sitcom as an example. I've always loved Are You Being Served?, which ran from 1972-85. Recently I watched a Christmas episode and about halfway through one of the characters showed up in blackface. It might (even then blackface was frowned upon) have been acceptable in the 1970s, but now it isn't. Does that make me reconsider the episode as a whole? Absolutely.

              4 votes
  4. tomf
    Link
    Personally, I'm all for the preservation of everything -- regardless of who is offended, etc. I'm not opposed to disclaimers, but I think that old media marks our society's progress. But with this...

    Personally, I'm all for the preservation of everything -- regardless of who is offended, etc. I'm not opposed to disclaimers, but I think that old media marks our society's progress. But with this specific case, I am largely neutral. I like this episode and I never viewed it as being transphobic or anything against anyone but Douglas' character.

    I figured that it'd be good to go through the commentary track for this episode. The commentary tracks for this series is pretty great, actually -- but this is off-topic. If you're interested in the technical side of a sitcom, you'd like them.

    In the commentary, Graham says that this is his favorite episode of the season and he notes that Douglas' story is loosely based on a biography (or something along those lines.)

    Here are the three parts where he discusses this storyline. I cut a little out because a lot of it was normal commentary stuff -- but I kept in the relevant bits.

    This actually brings me to one of the reasons I wrote this episode. This is based on a biography that a woman who used to be a man wrote where she went to dinner with a famous sports presenter, who I probably shouldn't name, just in case there are any legal problems, but during the dinner she said, 'listen, you should know that I used to be a man.' And the sports presenter said, 'what?' And the author would always tell me that story and I would always find it very funny and I thought, 'it'd be great to use that some how' -- so it ended up here. And it was quite late in the day where I came up with the idea that he misheard her and he thought she said, 'Iran..'

    ... and he goes on. My guess is that there's a lot more to the story he was told by the author that he isn't getting into.

    The next bit he mentions how he got an email or a forum post complaining about the fight scene. They compiled a list of all of the transgendered people who had been either beaten or murdered in the previous year,

    '... and it was from America, of course, where there's a pressure group for every joke.'

    How can you look at this episode and think that this is a serious kind of thing about transgender people. Lucy is so obviously never been a man, that it just seems like an incredibly strange thing to waste your time doing.

    He barely touches on this point, but he seems to come from the view that there's a pressure group for every joke -- so he, in my view, just doesn't worry about it so much. He also mentions that Father Ted isn't aired in Boston since they view the series as anti-Catholic.

    And the last bit from the commentary:

    I find all this [Douglas' storyline] quite sad, actually. The way I feel about Douglas and April is that she is the only one he will ever love and he's just not man enough to accept her for what she is, and its Douglas' tragedy.

    ... and that about sums up everything from the commentary track.

    If Graham is transphobic, then I don't agree with his views. I don't know his full history and I don't really give a shit about him enough to do so. However, if I were basing this ban solely on his views expressed in the episode, I don't think anything here suggests that he wrote the story out of anger or anything negative. To me it sounds like he heard a story from a trans-woman who was in a similar situation and decided to play it out to the extreme as a way to shed some more light on Douglas' character.

    Anyway, I thought this might add a little older context to the story. Of course his views can change... but this does speak to his intentions while writing the episode in question.

    7 votes
  5. [5]
    mrbig
    Link
    This must be one of the most unreadable ad-ridden website I ever had the displeasures to open.

    This must be one of the most unreadable ad-ridden website I ever had the displeasures to open.

    3 votes
    1. [4]
      balooga
      Link Parent
      Yikes. I just turned off uBlock Origin and you weren't kidding. It's obnoxious! I've been to The Independent's site countless times and had no idea they were serving up that nonsense to...

      Yikes. I just turned off uBlock Origin and you weren't kidding. It's obnoxious! I've been to The Independent's site countless times and had no idea they were serving up that nonsense to unsuspecting readers. I highly recommend you install uBlock Origin as well; not only will it restore some sanity to your surfing, it will also help you protect your privacy against trackers and protect you against malvertising threat vectors. The plugin is available free for most browsers and requires zero configuration to get working.

      2 votes
      1. [3]
        mrbig
        Link Parent
        Thanks! I block ads on the desktop but sadly the iPhone doesn’t give me the same freedom. At least on my browser of choice.

        Thanks!

        I block ads on the desktop but sadly the iPhone doesn’t give me the same freedom. At least on my browser of choice.

        1 vote
        1. [2]
          balooga
          Link Parent
          I'm not sure what browser you're using but you might want to take a look at 1Blocker. I've been very impressed by the exhaustiveness of its blocklists, though (I think) there's no way to customize...

          I'm not sure what browser you're using but you might want to take a look at 1Blocker. I've been very impressed by the exhaustiveness of its blocklists, though (I think) there's no way to customize them. It works pretty well out of the box though. It doesn't come near the power of uBlock Origin, but it's still a lot better than nothing on an iPhone. I was pleased to see my mobile data usage drop significantly after I installed it.

          1 vote
          1. mrbig
            Link Parent
            It seems to work on Safari. Not my favorite browser. Oh, well.

            It seems to work on Safari. Not my favorite browser. Oh, well.