And now, as promised, a special comment.

[Blayne]

No, can't I respect the style of a post and disagree with the assertions made wherein? Just as how if someone makes a joke at your expense you can still laugh and say "That's a good one" while plotting revenge.

[eion]

No, can't I respect the style of a post and disagree with the assertions made wherein? Just as how if someone makes a joke at your expense you can still laugh and say "That's a good one" while plotting revenge.

That's really not how it came across.

"Olberman isn't a bigot, except y'know in paragraph form and substantiated."

parsed for me as

"He isn't a bigot, except when someone gives me some very good reasons why he is."

You granted the OPs argument without condition right after you denied it; that's confusing.

[Blayne]

Ah, I put the comma in the wrong place, I tend to write the way I speak so I put a pause where I would usually place one if I were speaking that is just bad grammar on my part not my argument.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I dont think that what he said was a slight against transsexuals. I think it was making a convenient attack against Ann Coulter, in a way that would hurt her, because she loudly defends positions that are typically held by male ultra conservative WASPS. To be frank, Ann Coulter is a homophobic misogynist religious conservative nutbag. She holds positions counter to her interests as a woman, and it is disgusting.

It is in the same vein as me calling an anti-gay street preacher a cocksucker.

And what he said, implied that he feels that being transsexual is itself enough of a dishonor and enough of a shame to have the mere implication of being transsexual be a grave insult to someone's credibility. That he was doing so in response to a transphobic statement made by Coulter about him further indicates that he believes that this is so. So yes, I think I am perfectly justified in calling him out on that.

No. What he said implied that being a transsexual person who actively works against their own best interests, and the best interests of those who share their character state, is a shameful dishonor. The two are entirely different things. It is no worse than making fun of an anti-gay republican senator for utilizing the gay bathroom code to have anonymous gay sex in airport bathrooms. I have been hatecrimed, sexually assaulted, and discriminated against in the workplace, and not ever do i think that making fun of those individuals as a slight against the gay community. I have a sense of humor, and it is something you need to develop.

It had nothing at all to do with transsexuals, and everything to do with her being a woman who takes positions that actively work against the best interests of every woman that history has ever seen... almost as if she was in fact a white male conservative protestant interested in preserving the patriarchy. He was making fun of her intrinsic hypocrisy, not transsexuals.

[Bakustra]

Okay, but in this case the joke relies on prejudicial language (although that is likely because his audience is unfamiliar with the proper terminology, and so I can forgive it). But here's a hypothetical situation. Olbermann makes a joke that relies on the assumptions of black mental inferiority about why Michael Steele heads the RNC. Now, is this less acceptable? More acceptable? As acceptable? Please note that I don't think that Olbermann intended to be transphobic.

It depends on the wording and on the target. It is a bit hard to define from my point without hearing or seeing the joke.

Okay, that's how I view it too.

Also, do jokes on the Holocaust rely on anti-Semitic stereotypes?

Some do. Heck, Jon Stewart regularly makes fun about anti-Semitic stereotypes.

I agree partially, but how much of his audience are familiar with the falsity of anti-Semitic stereotypes, as opposed to the falsity of transgendered stereotypes.

Because there are jokes that can be made about transsexuality, or race, or sex, or sexual orientation, that don't have to rely on prejudicial language to be funny or to make their point. Most of the jokes that do are told in situations where the audience are primarily of the group affected and are aware that the person in question isn't at all serious. This isn't really one of those situations.

I can easily imagine this joke on the daily show. Maybe it is just me and I have a somewhat thick skin, but I do not think what Olbermann did was so offensive.

Well, I don't think that it was incredibly offensive (though in poor taste) either, but I'm being all devil's advocaty here, seeing as this turned quickly into "pile on La Maupin". The difference, as I see it, is that Olbermann presented the trans stereotype, namely, that it is a choice, not as something false and to be mocked, as Stewart would do with anti-Semitic, or racial, or gay stereotypes. Of course, this is most likely a problem of ignorance rather than malice, but still.

[Vendetta]

I dont think that what he said was a slight against transsexuals.

Being associated with Ann Coulter isn't a slight?

[salm]

To me it looks like he´s calling out her hypocracy. He´s not bashing trans people. It´s kind of like poking around in the history of a KKK member and pointing out that his great-great-grandfather was black. That wouldn´t be a jab against black people either it would be a "Ha ha, you´re a dumbass who condemns himself!".

[Thanas]

Well, I don't think that it was incredibly offensive (though in poor taste) either, but I'm being all devil's advocaty here

Well then, make a positive argument then.

, seeing as this turned quickly into "pile on La Maupin".

So why do you feel the need to argue with me, seeing as how I was the first who responded and therefore am hardly part of a dogpile?

The difference, as I see it, is that Olbermann presented the trans stereotype, namely, that it is a choice, not as something false and to be mocked, as Stewart would do with anti-Semitic, or racial, or gay stereotypes. Of course, this is most likely a problem of ignorance rather than malice, but still.

What is your evidence of that? Olbermann said: "If this guy wants to live his life as a woman, I'm going to back his choice up 100%". That is one comment that to me does not equal a treatise on transpeople or something else. It is no different than saying "Hey, if that ***** wants to live in poverty, I am going to back his choice up 100%". It is a single line that says nothing about Olbermann's attitudes.

[Bakustra]

Well, I don't think that it was incredibly offensive (though in poor taste) either, but I'm being all devil's advocaty here

Well then, make a positive argument then.

, seeing as this turned quickly into "pile on La Maupin".

So why do you feel the need to argue with me, seeing as how I was the first who responded and therefore am hardly part of a dogpile?

Because you were the person who responded to me first.

The difference, as I see it, is that Olbermann presented the trans stereotype, namely, that it is a choice, not as something false and to be mocked, as Stewart would do with anti-Semitic, or racial, or gay stereotypes. Of course, this is most likely a problem of ignorance rather than malice, but still.

What is your evidence of that? Olbermann said: "If this guy wants to live his life as a woman, I'm going to back his choice up 100%". That is one comment that to me does not equal a treatise on transpeople or something else. It is no different than saying "Hey, if that ***** wants to live in poverty, I am going to back his choice up 100%". It is a single line that says nothing about Olbermann's attitudes.

I'm not saying that this is what Olbermann actually believes, but that it is implicit in his joke. I don't necessarily think it's a significant problem, but I can see how people might be offended by it.

[La Maupin]

Well, I don't think that it was incredibly offensive (though in poor taste) either, but I'm being all devil's advocaty here

Well then, make a positive argument then.

, seeing as this turned quickly into "pile on La Maupin".

So why do you feel the need to argue with me, seeing as how I was the first who responded and therefore am hardly part of a dogpile?

The difference, as I see it, is that Olbermann presented the trans stereotype, namely, that it is a choice, not as something false and to be mocked, as Stewart would do with anti-Semitic, or racial, or gay stereotypes. Of course, this is most likely a problem of ignorance rather than malice, but still.

What is your evidence of that? Olbermann said: "If this guy wants to live his life as a woman, I'm going to back his choice up 100%". That is one comment that to me does not equal a treatise on transpeople or something else. It is no different than saying "Hey, if that ***** wants to live in poverty, I am going to back his choice up 100%". It is a single line that says nothing about Olbermann's attitudes.

If this was the one isolated comment, I would have certainly let it slide. Marina's wild accusations aside, I am not the kind of person to go to town on somebody for one isolated comment.

The problem is, it's not one isolated comment. In the time I've been watching Olbermann on the air, he's used sarcastically belittling commentary about trans people as ways of making political points against no fewer people than (mind you, I haven't seen every episode of his during this stretch, though probably 80-90%) Carrie Prejean (twice), Bill O'Reilly (also twice) and Ann Coulter (at least twice). During the same time he has carried no trans-positive coverage (again, admittedly I haven't seen every episode but I only have 20-30 episodes out of the past two years with blue dots in iTunes - and that's over 500 episodes in that period).

I will give credit because I am a fan under most circumstances. Olbermann is incredibly erudite, incredibly intelligent. In my estimation he is only surpassed on television in either by his colleague, Dr. Maddow. He has a great deal of compassion for most oppressed minorities, which is good because he's a wealthy white male and it would probably be very easy for him to be a total dick. Except when it comes to transgendered people, when he backs away into his privilege and turns into the stereotype of the caveman-jock sportscaster. Which depresses me no end, because I agree with him 90% of the time otherwise, and can at least see where he's coming from the rest of the time.

[Thanas]

I'm not saying that this is what Olbermann actually believes, but that it is implicit in his joke. I don't necessarily think it's a significant problem, but I can see how people might be offended by it.

Jokes about a certain group of people always carry some implicit insult within them. Otherwise they will not work. Does that mean we should now protest against every joke which might offend someone?

If this was the one isolated comment, I would have certainly let it slide. Marina's wild accusations aside, I am not the kind of person to go to town on somebody for one isolated comment.

Your behaviour in this thread suggests otherwise.

The problem is, it's not one isolated comment. In the time I've been watching Olbermann on the air, he's used sarcastically belittling commentary about trans people as ways of making political points against no fewer people than (mind you, I haven't seen every episode of his during this stretch, though probably 80-90%) Carrie Prejean (twice), Bill O'Reilly (also twice) and Ann Coulter (at least twice).

Well then provide evidence. IIRC MSNBC has an extensive archive, so why not quote him directly. with context?

[JCady]

As Kitty pointed out, this might have been let side if it was a "one time clueless" from someone who has otherwise been a consistent supporter of trans rights. Olbermann is not such a person -- his record, like the record of just about every prominent liberal media figure save Rachel Maddow, is "moderate supporter of gay rights, completely apathetic to trans rights". As far as I'm aware -- and I keep track of these things --Olbermann has never mentioned trans people in any context other than deriding various right-wing figures (Carrie Prejean, Ann Coulter, Bill Reilly) by accusing them of being closet transsexuals. On the surface level those jokes might be about hypocrisy, sure, but given that the sheer number of trans people who are forced to be in the closet for their own protection, there's nothing funny about "stealth tranny" jokes even if you read them that way.

In the end, this seems to come down to gays yelling, "But he's on OUR side! Friendly fire!". Sorry, guys, he may be on your side but he's definitely he's never been on our side in any real way. If you feel he's entitled to get a pass on being insensitive to gays because he's fought for gay rights, that's all well and good, but he sure as hell hasn't earned a pass from us -- and you are certainly not entitled to give him one.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

As Kitty pointed out, this might have been let side if it was a "one time clueless" from someone who has otherwise been a consistent supporter of trans rights. Olbermann is not such a person -- his record, like the record of just about every prominent liberal media figure save Rachel Maddow, is "moderate supporter of gay rights, completely apathetic to trans rights". As far as I'm aware -- and I keep track of these things --Olbermann has never mentioned trans people in any context other than deriding various right-wing figures (Carrie Prejean, Ann Coulter, Bill Reilly) by accusing them of being closet transsexuals. On the surface level those jokes might be about hypocrisy, sure, but given that the sheer number of trans people who are forced to be in the closet for their own protection, there's nothing funny about "stealth tranny" jokes even if you read them that way.

In the end, this seems to come down to gays yelling, "But he's on OUR side! Friendly fire!". Sorry, guys, he may be on your side but he's definitely he's never been on our side in any real way. If you feel he's entitled to get a pass on being insensitive to gays because he's fought for gay rights, that's all well and good, but he sure as hell hasn't earned a pass from us -- and you are certainly not entitled to give him one.

Do not write posts like you somehow speak for all transwomen on the planet. You in no way shape or form represent my views on the subject of humour, and your pompous "us" is completely undeserved unless you explicitly mean merely yourself and Katie.

[Bakustra]

I'm not saying that this is what Olbermann actually believes, but that it is implicit in his joke. I don't necessarily think it's a significant problem, but I can see how people might be offended by it.

Jokes about a certain group of people always carry some implicit insult within them. Otherwise they will not work. Does that mean we should now protest against every joke which might offend someone?

No, I wouldn't say that. What I'm saying is that his joke relies on the assumption that trans-status is a choice. This isn't a major part of his joke, nor should it be a major problem, but it is potentially offensive.

[Thanas]

As Kitty pointed out, this might have been let side if it was a "one time clueless" from someone who has otherwise been a consistent supporter of trans rights. Olbermann is not such a person -- his record, like the record of just about every prominent liberal media figure save Rachel Maddow, is "moderate supporter of gay rights, completely apathetic to trans rights". As far as I'm aware -- and I keep track of these things --Olbermann has never mentioned trans people in any context other than deriding various right-wing figures (Carrie Prejean, Ann Coulter, Bill Reilly) by accusing them of being closet transsexuals. On the surface level those jokes might be about hypocrisy, sure, but given that the sheer number of trans people who are forced to be in the closet for their own protection, there's nothing funny about "stealth tranny" jokes even if you read them that way.

Yes, let us all ignore the context. link, and even more with context.

What is this? Is it let's-all-rage-against-Olbermann-day or what?

In the end, this seems to come down to gays yelling, "But he's on OUR side! Friendly fire!".

How does this apply to the majority of comments in this thread?

No, I wouldn't say that. What I'm saying is that his joke relies on the assumption that trans-status is a choice. This isn't a major part of his joke, nor should it be a major problem, but it is potentially offensive.

No, is relies on the assumption that Ann Coulter specifically made the choice. It does not in any way mention other people. All it mentions is Ann-freaking-coulter and if you'll read the content provided by me, well then I think you'll know the backstory behind this.

[Bakustra]

No, I wouldn't say that. What I'm saying is that his joke relies on the assumption that trans-status is a choice. This isn't a major part of his joke, nor should it be a major problem, but it is potentially offensive.

No, is relies on the assumption that Ann Coulter specifically made the choice. It does not in any way mention other people. All it mentions is Ann-freaking-coulter and if you'll read the content provided by me, well then I think you'll know the backstory behind this.

Okay, knowing about Coulter's column removes any objections that I have in this case. Conceded.

[Knife]

Indeed. There has been two or three flare ups like this before on the board, where this particular segment of the population rages against the machine and against their allies who have sympathy for their cause. While I do think Shep goes over board, at the very least he has a semblance of a point deep down in his rhetoric, in that this particular segment of the population does seem to scream the loudest and does seem to attack any target around them. Now granted, they do get a lot of hate spilled their way, and sometimes I wonder if they can even distinguish between the hate and the quizzical stares anymore after all the shit someone from this minority group goes through. Because frankly, this flare up after calling a horrible woman, who just accused him of being a pansy in his recently dead mothers house coat, a hypocrite because she herself takes on the very attributes she was trying to jab him with just reeks of the same misplaced anger.

I think most people get that the trans-gender community thinks their cause is something above and beyond the homosexual communities problems, but I also now that the rank and file people don't see it that way and lump it all together, for better or worse, as a sexual orientation issue. Even worse, I've seen the trans-gender community fight amongst the homosexual community for primacy in a movement, the movement, whatever you wish to call it. Put bluntly, though, there comes a time when you stamp your feet and yell at those who would support you enough that they actually lose interest in actively fighting for you and you lose those friends. Why should they, if all they get is grief over the situation.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Indeed. There has been two or three flare ups like this before on the board, where this particular segment of the population rages against the machine and against their allies who have sympathy for their cause. While I do think Shep goes over board, at the very least he has a semblance of a point deep down in his rhetoric, in that this particular segment of the population does seem to scream the loudest and does seem to attack any target around them. Now granted, they do get a lot of hate spilled their way, and sometimes I wonder if they can even distinguish between the hate and the quizzical stares anymore after all the shit someone from this minority group goes through. Because frankly, this flare up after calling a horrible woman, who just accused him of being a pansy in his recently dead mothers house coat, a hypocrite because she herself takes on the very attributes she was trying to jab him with just reeks of the same misplaced anger.

I think most people get that the trans-gender community thinks their cause is something above and beyond the homosexual communities problems, but I also now that the rank and file people don't see it that way and lump it all together, for better or worse, as a sexual orientation issue. Even worse, I've seen the trans-gender community fight amongst the homosexual community for primacy in a movement, the movement, whatever you wish to call it. Put bluntly, though, there comes a time when you stamp your feet and yell at those who would support you enough that they actually lose interest in actively fighting for you and you lose those friends. Why should they, if all they get is grief over the situation.

Quite, and I feel bad for having done so in the past, though at least I always managed a sense of humour about it, which Jacie and Katie particularly and peculiarly lack.

Anyway, I am quite willing to put the following groups ahead of me in the line:

1. Those with developmental disabilities reducing their intelligence;
2. The blind;
3. The deaf;
4. Quadraplegics and paraplegics;
5. People with any degenerative neuromusculature condition;
6. The dumb (those who cannot speak);
7. Individuals with degenerative brain conditions causing loss of mental function;
8. Amputees who have lost one or more hands or one or more of their legs above the knee (below the knee is a synch for the prosthetics we've developed today, so no dice there).

In no particular actual order.

However, all of those people are already covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and I'm not, which renders Shep's argument pretty specious and more or less a "kick under the bus" sort of manoeuvre that refuses to recognize that we have it nearly as bad. Definitely better than those eight groups of people; but still pretty damned bad.

[Mr. Coffee]

Marina ain't bullshitting about the sense of humor. She actually thinks the term "dick girl" is hilarious. Which led to an interesting debate on what the proper term for a person born a girl that should have been a guy should be called, but I digress. Marina's my homegirl...

But yeah, some of y'all in the "T" section of the GLBT set need to chill a bit and learn to treat things with a bit of humor. Not everything is an actual attack on you.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Marina ain't bullshitting about the sense of humor. She actually thinks the term "dick girl" is hilarious. Which led to an interesting debate on what the proper term for a person born a girl that should have been a guy should be called, but I digress. Marina's my homegirl...

But yeah, some of y'all in the "T" section of the GLBT set need to chill a bit and learn to treat things with a bit of humor. Not everything is an actual attack on you.

Seriously. General advice for this thread: Pop a valium, put on some music, lay down, relax. Your life sucks enough, so you don't need a heart attack at 40 on top of everything else because you spent 15 years screaming at Keith-fricking-Olbermann for making a joke on TV.

...Would really like an answer out of Shep, though.

[Steve]

Humor is vital to staying sane in a world with prejudices, biases, and ideas intended to drive anyone insane, but I think the reaction to a well-worded response that was itself a knee-jerk reaction is becoming a bit heavy. HoSing? Titling? Over one thread? Seriously? There are far more deserving targets.

[Knife]

Personal preferences put aside, no pun intended, I think it has to do with two sides to the issue. Sure, I will gladly support sexual orientation and even gender issues in legal protection legislation; however, when it comes to a more subjective issue of tolerance and acceptance, it is harder to quantify. I can be totally willing to accept your right to be who you are and to marry whom you wish, but if I'm walking down the street and see something out of my norm, I may do a double take. To some, this is unacceptable.

[Darth Wong]

So let me get this straight: if I used a typical Republican's hyperventilating rage about sexual preference as an opportunity to joke that the Republican himself is probably a closeted homosexual, this somehow means I hate homosexuals? Because that seems to be the exact logic in play in the OP.

[JCady]

Even worse, I've seen the trans-gender community fight amongst the homosexual community for primacy in a movement, the movement, whatever you wish to call it.

It's not "fighting for primacy" when trans people object to gay supremacists who argue that the LGBTI movement should work solely and exclusively for gay rights. Or did you miss the entire ENDA debacle? It's fighting for being included at all, in a movement which was STARTED by drag queens and trans women at a time when "nice" assimilationist gay men were doing JACK SHIT.

[JCady]

As Kitty pointed out, this might have been let side if it was a "one time clueless" from someone who has otherwise been a consistent supporter of trans rights. Olbermann is not such a person -- his record, like the record of just about every prominent liberal media figure save Rachel Maddow, is "moderate supporter of gay rights, completely apathetic to trans rights". As far as I'm aware -- and I keep track of these things --Olbermann has never mentioned trans people in any context other than deriding various right-wing figures (Carrie Prejean, Ann Coulter, Bill Reilly) by accusing them of being closet transsexuals. On the surface level those jokes might be about hypocrisy, sure, but given that the sheer number of trans people who are forced to be in the closet for their own protection, there's nothing funny about "stealth tranny" jokes even if you read them that way.

In the end, this seems to come down to gays yelling, "But he's on OUR side! Friendly fire!". Sorry, guys, he may be on your side but he's definitely he's never been on our side in any real way. If you feel he's entitled to get a pass on being insensitive to gays because he's fought for gay rights, that's all well and good, but he sure as hell hasn't earned a pass from us -- and you are certainly not entitled to give him one.

Do not write posts like you somehow speak for all transwomen on the planet. You in no way shape or form represent my views on the subject of humour, and your pompous "us" is completely undeserved unless you explicitly mean merely yourself and Katie.

In a context where it's freaking obvious that groups aren't monolithic, I don't really see a need to preface every thing I say with "in my opinion". Especially since you don't do that either.