And now, as promised, a special comment.

[Darth Wong]

So if someone does not make a point of mentioning trans rights, then you dislike him? I never even thought about trans rights because the group is so small that their particular problems never came to mind, but when confronted with the issue I immediately sympathized. Why do you think such an attitude is so terrible?

[Broomstick]

Let's see...

Some cissexual men think I'm being overblown, irrational and florid.

Transsexual women think I'm hitting the nail right on the head (hint: this is not the first place I've posted this).

How about a cissexual woman who gets your point about entrenched attitudes and slurs, but also thinks that Olberman's remarks really were directed wholly at Ann Coulter and not at transsexuals? He could have accused her of being a bull dyke instead, which would have still been offensive to lesbians yet still directed wholly at Ann Coulter. He could have accused her of fucking goats, which some afficiandos of goats and PeTA would no doubt find insulting. The point here was to insult Ann Coulter, which he did. I read it as no different than calling a man "girly" or "sissy" though yes, the language he used could easily be unintentionally hurtful to some groups.

Part of the problem is that some groups are so crushed by society's unwritten rules that indifference can be harmful and not just outright hostility. Few people knowingly have experience in dealing with transsexuals, most never think of or consider the group, and thus will spout stuff they absorbed by osmosis from society without ever having had to think about it. That doesn't make them bad people, or the enemies of transsexuals. It does mean they're ignorant and thoughtless, indifferent to what they're saying on the matter, and as likely to cause unintentional harm as to not do so.

I have a friend who uses the expression "to jew him down" when haggling for a better price on something. This is, without question, an offensive term, but it's what he grew up using and hearing all around him (it is distressingly common where I live), it's a habit that's hard to break when everyone around him is using it. When he slips and uses it in front of me he apologizes and is embarrassed. I don't take offense because I know why a man whose actions show he harbors no prejudice towards Jews would, after a half century of bad habit, unthinkingly use the phrase in front of someone of Jewish descent. Maybe over my lifetime I've learned some tolerance for the fact that no one is perfect, that we all have "junk in the trunk" from our past and the bullshit society spews at us from the day we're born. It's not right, but given the context it shouldn't be criminal, either.

So, look at Olberman's actions as much as his words. Society is undergoing a paradigm shift in regards to gender issues and those of use born before the tide turned (and Olberman would be in that group) will have to spend the rest of our lives unlearning habits acquired in our youth when the world was a different and less tolerant place.

Self-centered whiny cunt screeching about how the world discriminates against them based on the choices they made? Check.

Call back when you were born with a disability that closes off major avenues to you, like the military, police, fire dept, space program, airline pilot, etc etc

Oh, look - self-centered whining asshole who, even apart from being deaf, has cut himself off from those avenues by his own felonious actions. Or did you think the military, police, etc. were in the habit of hiring ex-cons? Disability sucks, but being deaf is hardly the worst of many alternatives, nor does it compell you to commit a crime. YOU did that, of your own free will, and your own bad actions were more of a life choice than transsexuality is, and more stunting of potential careers than either gender identity or deafness could be.

[JCady]

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.

There's a big difference between someone who has earned a degree of credibility with the community in question making that kind of joke, and some random person off the street making that kind of joke. As I said, Olbermann *may* have earned "on our side so we'll let it slide" credit with gays, but he sure as hell hasn't earned it with trans folk.

[JCady]

So if someone does not make a point of mentioning trans rights, then you dislike him?

I think there's a very big difference between someone who has not brought up trans issues and someone who does bring up trans issues, but only ever does so in the context of using alleged transness as an insult against bigots.

I never even thought about trans rights because the group is so small that their particular problems never came to mind, but when confronted with the issue I immediately sympathized. Why do you think such an attitude is so terrible?

I think that's as reasonable an attitude as can be expected out of the general population, actually, and there would be a lot fewer problems with transphobia if there were more people like you.

[Steve]

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.

I think the logic was rather that it's not hating the group being used in the joke, but underlying and reinforcing a mindset that regards said group as freakish joke fodder and therefore helps to dehumanize them. Hence the last bit about the sportscaster who, to save her job, stopped transition and ended up committing suicide.

It was, ultimately, a joke that was about throwing Coulter's brutish behavior back in her face, so railing about it - especially from a liberal fellow like Olbermann - is obviously going too far, but given the particular situations for transsexuals, particularly transwomen, I can understand why some can hear the joke and see it not as just a joke but as an insult made by an ally and another sign of just how low society ranks them and their plight.

It doesn't mean that Katie and Jacie are right, it doesn't mean they're not acting more on emotion than reason, and it doesn't mean you're wrong for disagreeing, but I think it does mean that this dogpile and some of the remarks in it (yet again, the whole "HoS the thread" and "Title Katie" thing) are going in the wrong direction.

Jacie, Katie, this is not the battlefield you should be seeking. You need to do your part in stopping this honestly-fratricidal argument so we can all go back to looking at the common goal, which includes the affirmation of your rights.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So if someone does not make a point of mentioning trans rights, then you dislike him? I never even thought about trans rights because the group is so small that their particular problems never came to mind, but when confronted with the issue I immediately sympathized. Why do you think such an attitude is so terrible?

It's perfectly reasonable, Mike, but Katie and Jacie simply refuse to see it that way because they're utterly convinced that for society to be equitable and just they must eliminate even these "structural" forms of "discrimination", i.e., even if you don't mean it that way, daring to say something about a particular group creates a social consensus to demean them. Which is utterly retarded, but a lot of people believe this. I think it's sort of a legacy of the most unfortunate aspect of feminist theory from the 1970s, which is that somehow all forms of masculinity in society have to be eliminated for there to be true equality.

Which is, and was, a load of bullshit--women form their own social groups and men form their's and when there's crossover between the two, someone has to learn to deal with the different standards of the behaviour. I figured out pretty early on that no matter how much damage being forcibly immersed in male culture played to my psyche that I still need to crack jokes with the best of them to be accepted and respected in a predominantly male workplace or educational environment, and I learned how to do so without damaging psyche because any normal woman would have to do the exact same thing to function there. And I dealt with it, and I moved on. Katie and Jacie however seem convinced that they must normalize all of "cissexual" (the most retarded word ever) society to their own standards for true equality to be reached, which is not merely absurd but more damningly, utterly impossible.

This becomes the central driving force of their apopletic reaction to Olbermann, whereas when I heard about it I just snickered, because Ann Coulter does look like a crossdresser, one of those guys in their 40's that parades around in heels and a microskirt, and that has nothing to do with transsexualism. And nor was the word "transsexual" ever even mentioned in what Olbermann said.

The simple fact I think is that Katie and Jacie have just been so isolated from real society that they lack any sense of proportion. I would really like to see them have to work as safety inspectors or something down on the Portland docks for a year and see how they handle that with sticks so far up their asses.

[Broomstick]

So if someone does not make a point of mentioning trans rights, then you dislike him? I never even thought about trans rights because the group is so small that their particular problems never came to mind, but when confronted with the issue I immediately sympathized. Why do you think such an attitude is so terrible?

^ This is a case in point - I recall Mike was surprised when Marina came out of the closet, and being a little surprised at how many other transsexuals were on SD.net (which is still more than people think - I know of at least one more that still hasn't made her status as such public and is still posting as a male on this board. Needless to say, her secret is safe with me until such time she is ready to reveal it.) Since that day, though, he has made a point to consider them as much a part of SD.net as any other group, with the same protections (or lack thereof) as any other sub-group here such as homosexuals or women. If he didn't think of the circumstances of transsexuals before that point it's not because he was hostile to them, it's because they weren't even on his radar.

The same is true for myself - my first contacts with transsexuals were on the internet, and prior to that I thought about them not at all, not ever. It wasn't hostility, it was because they had about the same degree of connection to me as, say, someone living as a hunter-gatherer in the middle of the Kalahari. I was aware of them in some dim way, knew they were fellow human beings, but they just didn't exist on my radar. That has changed, and it forced me not so much to rethink as to have the initial think on my position in regards to them.

Transsexuals are a small minority - which is probably for the best, as I can't imagine anyone would wish that state on anyone. Given the enormous hurt so many endure it is understandable why one or several would have the impulse to lash out, and would not see such a situation as humorous. But not every slur and hurtful word is an attack. Sometimes, it really is just carelessness.

[JCady]

Let's see...

Some cissexual men think I'm being overblown, irrational and florid.

Transsexual women think I'm hitting the nail right on the head (hint: this is not the first place I've posted this).

How about a cissexual woman who gets your point about entrenched attitudes and slurs, but also thinks that Olberman's remarks really were directed wholly at Ann Coulter and not at transsexuals? He could have accused her of being a bull dyke instead, which would have still been offensive to lesbians yet still directed wholly at Ann Coulter. He could have accused her of fucking goats, which some afficiandos of goats and PeTA would no doubt find insulting. The point here was to insult Ann Coulter, which he did. I read it as no different than calling a man "girly" or "sissy" though yes, the language he used could easily be unintentionally hurtful to some groups.

I don't think Olbermann was being intentionally hurtful; I think he's clueless. The point is, that sort of cluelessness isn't okay, especially from someone who makes it a point to be clueful about everything else. To adapt a line from "A Few Good Men", "We use these words to define our identities, our very lives. You use them as a punch line."

[Broomstick]

Clueless, though, is without hostility. Seems to me you get further "You probably didn't mean to be offensive, but your choice of words hurt me" than the OP's essay. As I said, I understand the impulse to lash out. I don't in any way condemn her for doing so. I also do not agree with what she said, either.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Part of the sheer gall of the thread, though, is the way Katie chose to suggest that, I don't know, as if speaking out to Olbermann, as if Olbermann endorsing transwomen on the air, would somehow make it less likely for her to get murdered, considering the way she signed off. The fact is that people who listen to Olbermann are unlikely to murder transwomen to start with and that was the comment that really made it completely over the top histrionic. Really, sheesh, a quick hand with a Makarov is a waaay better defence than screaming at a comedian. By going around with an attitude like that you are just making yourself a target, anyway.

[Thanas]

I don't think Olbermann was being intentionally hurtful; I think he's clueless. The point is, that soft of cluelessness isn't okay, especially from someone who makes it a point to be clueful about everything else. To adapt a line from "A Few Good Men", "We use these words to define our identities, our very lives. You use them as a punch line."

Are you being purposefully obstinate or are just that dumb? The guy just lost his mother. Then Coulter, being the idiot she is, makes fun of that by using crass and insensitive wording. Olbermann takes that wording and throws it back at her. That is what happened here. If there is anyone who deserves sympathy in this case it sure is not you, because not only does the guy have to contend with a vicious part of the media gunning with him every freaking day and having lost his mother, no, now some holier-than-thou persons on the internet decide to take an obvious joke out of context and proceed to nail him with it. I am sure you never have said anything offensive in your entire life.

Oh nooo, blame Olbermann for not knowing everything that might hurt your damn sensibilities. Yeah sure, damn him for not knowing everything and not reconsider every single piece of his sarcasm. It is his job to be clueful, but excuse me, who do you well damn expect? A living saint? I am sure you will now screech at Jon Stewart next because he too used some slurs in his career. What makes you decide to take the words of someone, who has never done anything to hurt you in his life, automatically in the worst possible meaning?

I rarely get angry, but this dumb and pig-headed arrogance takes the cake. Grow up. Nobody took it this way except you two, who so far seem to have missed the point of his words but instead latched on the "HE'S A DAMN BIGOT"-train. As I said - screw you and the horse you rode in on. What makes you more special than any other victim of past or present oppression?

[Steve]

Marina, sometimes people get upset, and they get mad, and they write things without entirely thinking the issue through. So I must ask: why are you determined to rake Katie over the coals on this? She felt betrayed and reacted on the issue. Tell her you think she's wrong, explain it, and let it go.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Marina, sometimes people get upset, and they get mad, and they write things without entirely thinking the issue through. So I must ask: why are you determined to rake Katie over the coals on this? She felt betrayed and reacted on the issue. Tell her you think she's wrong, explain it, and let it go.

Dumb, pig-headed arrogance, exactly like Thanas said.

[JCady]

I don't think Olbermann was being intentionally hurtful; I think he's clueless. The point is, that soft of cluelessness isn't okay, especially from someone who makes it a point to be clueful about everything else. To adapt a line from "A Few Good Men", "We use these words to define our identities, our very lives. You use them as a punch line."

Are you being purposefully obstinate or are just that dumb? The guy just lost his mother. Then Coulter, being the idiot she is, makes fun of that by using crass and insensitive wording. Olbermann takes that wording and throws it back at her. That is what happened here.

The thing is, this is by no means the first or only time Olbermann has made this sort of joke -- he's thrown the exact same thing at Carrie Prejean and at Bill O'Reilly on previous occasions. What Coulter said was indefensible, but that doesn't entitle Olbermann to a free pass on inadvertently smearing trans people in order to get back at her.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't think Olbermann was being intentionally hurtful; I think he's clueless. The point is, that soft of cluelessness isn't okay, especially from someone who makes it a point to be clueful about everything else. To adapt a line from "A Few Good Men", "We use these words to define our identities, our very lives. You use them as a punch line."

Are you being purposefully obstinate or are just that dumb? The guy just lost his mother. Then Coulter, being the idiot she is, makes fun of that by using crass and insensitive wording. Olbermann takes that wording and throws it back at her. That is what happened here.

The thing is, this is by no means the first or only time Olbermann has made this sort of joke -- he's thrown the exact same thing at Carrie Prejean and at Bill O'Reilly on previous occasions. What Coulter said was indefensible, but that doesn't entitle Olbermann to a free pass on inadvertently smearing trans people in order to get back at her.

So his humour is getting a bit stale. So what? Carlos Mencia has been using the same three jokes for the past decade.

[Steve]

Marina, sometimes people get upset, and they get mad, and they write things without entirely thinking the issue through. So I must ask: why are you determined to rake Katie over the coals on this? She felt betrayed and reacted on the issue. Tell her you think she's wrong, explain it, and let it go.

Dumb, pig-headed arrogance, exactly like Thanas said.

Fine. It's harsh, but you've said your peace. Now, please, let it go. This subject as it stands is not worth the grief and tension it's generating.

Jacie, Katie, I ask the same of you. You've said your peace, you've made your point. People disagree. You're not going to convince them that they're wrong and you're right on this issue. Please, agree to disagree and let's get things back to normal. You feel passionately on this issue, but this confrontation is not in your interest, you have to know that. Please, let it go.

[Thanas]

The thing is, this is by no means the first or only time Olbermann has made this sort of joke -- he's thrown the exact same thing at Carrie Prejean and at Bill O'Reilly on previous occasions. What Coulter said was indefensible, but that doesn't entitle Olbermann to a free pass on inadvertently smearing trans people in order to get back at her.

You know, I have asked you before to please provide evidence for this and the context in which it was made, because I am sure as hell not going to take your biased word for it. In fact, if anything has been made clear to me throughout this thread it is that I better doublecheck everything you say when it comes to perception, because yours seems to be way off.

Unless you can show me that he meant to slight transpeople with every one of those instances, what the heck is the relevance of this?

If you want to make an argument about whether language needs to be changed in the news, feel free to do so. But this was not what this was about - in fact, it was about the OP directly accusing Olbermann of cowardice, bigotry and even condoning witch hunts against transpeople.

[MKSheppard]

YOU did that, of your own free will, and your own bad actions were more of a life choice than transsexuality is, and more stunting of potential careers than either gender identity or deafness could be.

And how often do you hear me complain about that? I don't mention it much on the board; and when I do, it's in the usual sob story thread that gets posted about someone who was fucked over blah blah, and I point out that being convicted of something is not the end of their life that these stories paint it as. It causes a lot more hard work and grief to fall upon you.

Anyway, don't you have a multi-page post backed up by inveterate googling to post on some completely random subject like the breeding habits of German Shepherds elsewhere on the Forum?

Don't worry, I won't hold you.

[Serafina]

Could someone please explain to me what all this fuzz is about?
This perhaps? (youtube video of the "incident").

Seriously, i don't see any insults in there.
Yes, it contains the common misconception that transwomen are men who want to live as women.
But that's not an insult.
Yes, i would love it if no one would think it is like that, because it's wrong. But he did nothing to attack us, he did not say a single derogatory word about us...so what's the frigging fuzz all about?

[eion]

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.

The Mattachine Society

It was organized like the communist party, in small independent cells, designed to spread and operate independently on multiple levels, and it was founded nearly 20 years before Stonewall.

We can argue about their tenacity, but they were organized, they protested, and they fought unfair prosecution.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Could someone please explain to me what all this fuzz is about?
This perhaps? (youtube video of the "incident").

Seriously, i don't see any insults in there.
Yes, it contains the common misconception that transwomen are men who want to live as women.
But that's not an insult.
Yes, i would love it if no one would think it is like that, because it's wrong. But he did nothing to attack us, he did not say a single derogatory word about us...so what's the frigging fuzz all about?

If anything he was remarking on how Coulter is an angry self-loathing transman.

[Darth Wong]

The thing is, this is by no means the first or only time Olbermann has made this sort of joke -- he's thrown the exact same thing at Carrie Prejean and at Bill O'Reilly on previous occasions. What Coulter said was indefensible, but that doesn't entitle Olbermann to a free pass on inadvertently smearing trans people in order to get back at her.

To be honest, the comment "If this guy wants to live his life as a woman, I'm going to back his choice up 100%" does not necessarily mention transpeople at all. Instead, it suggests that Ann Coulter is a transvestite, at least to me.

Also, it's possible to assail someone as being a closeted gay without necessarily meaning or even implying that all gays are warped. We do it to anti-gay Republicans all the time. So why should the same not apply to transpeople? Let's suppose that we seriously think someone is crusading for the importance of fixed gender identity because he or she is a closeted self-loathing transperson. Does this mean we hate transpeople, or think they're all fucked in the head? No, it just means we think this particular transperson is fucked in the head because he or she can't accept what he or she is.

[Broomstick]

YOU did that, of your own free will, and your own bad actions were more of a life choice than transsexuality is, and more stunting of potential careers than either gender identity or deafness could be.

And how often do you hear me complain about that?

Not very damn often, which is to your credit, but even IF transsexuality was a choice (and I remind everyone that that is strictly hypothetical) that doesn't mean the people making such a choice aren't subjected to bigotry, or that disadvantages they suffer because of it aren't unfair.

I don't mention it much on the board; and when I do, it's in the usual sob story thread that gets posted about someone who was fucked over blah blah, and I point out that being convicted of something is not the end of their life that these stories paint it as. It causes a lot more hard work and grief to fall upon you.

Right - so instead of calling someone a whining cunt why don't you point out to them that they aren't the only sub-group subjected to the vitriol and prejudice of society, and that having one or several strikes against you is not excuse for giving up. You still have to get up in the morning, find work, support yourself, live your life, and learn to deal with the shit that gets dumped on your head.

You are capable of taking the high road, Shep. What I can't figure out is why you so often opt not to do so.

Anyway, don't you have a multi-page post backed up by inveterate googling to post on some completely random subject like the breeding habits of German Shepherds elsewhere on the Forum?

This week I think it will be deer mice, actually.

[Anguirus]

So if there's any chance of something productive coming out of this thread, perhaps it would be for a significant revision of this letter to be sent to Olbermann himself. Who knows if he'll read it, but you have at least a chance of "getting on his radar" as Mike said.

Mind you, I said a significant revision. However, the fact that his rhetoric offended people who weren't remotely his target might in fact be something he's unaware of.

Now as far as Shep's cute little "overboard" rant, frankly, I'm amazed that Duchess and others have responded as well and as calmly as they have. The first time I read this thread I left the computer before I posted something extremely angry and counter-productive. Trying to decode his logic, transsexuals (pre- or post-op) are physically more capable than deaf people, and thus despite the extremely negative consequences that are actively visited upon them by society, we should therefore not give a flying shit about them.

Essentially, he's treating bigotry as a force of nature, rather than something people DO. It is regrettable that the deaf cannot serve in the military, but it is also regrettable that openly transsexual people (let ALONE openly gay people) cannot serve, not for any physical reason, but simply because many soldiers and policymakers are bigots.

[Havok]

You guys are fucking idiots. Shep is purposefully trolling for reactions and being purposely hurtful. It's what he does. And while I don't agree with The Duchess in her assessment that is somehow aimed at or because of her, he knows he is getting under peoples skin and he loves the fact that he can do it with no repercussions just skirting what is considered acceptable.