And now, as promised, a special comment.

[La Maupin]

Prejudice and bias are seldom expressed as book-length prejudicial and discriminatory screeds. Normally they are simply the small comments, the everyday actions that express bias against a particular group that one finds particularly unlike oneself. Nobody says "I hate the black people and here's why," these biases simply become part of everyday expressions like the word "gyp," a slur against the heavily oppressed Roma people, being used to express disgust at a financial cheat.

On the February 18, 2010 edition of Countdown, you said of Ann Coulter, "Coulter's continuing self-revelatory obsession with sexual identity really suggests a hell of a backstory in her own life, but ... All I have to say about Ann Coulter is this: If this guy wants to live his life as a woman, I'm going to back his choice up 100%."

It is always difficult to understand why someone behaves hypocritically. The behavior of someone who says one thing and does the other is difficult to comprehend. Mr. Olbermann, sir, you are that hypocrite. You passionately defend black people, gay men, lesbian women, and other groups who deal with discrimination and oppression every day on your show. Three days prior to this outburst, you eloquently and correctly called out the racism of the tea party movement. Your special comment on Proposition 8 remains in my mind a high point of your show. So your hate speech against transsexual women is simply indefensible. It's such a frequent slur, these days, to say that a woman who dresses more masculinely than the viewer would prefer, or one who displays aggressive opinions, especially opinions with which you disagree, is transsexual. Of course she's aggressive. Of course you disagree with her. Of course she doesn't dress the way you'd like her to dress. She's a man, baby! It's so easy for people who have never had to deal with settling the difficult questions of gender when your brain says one thing and the rest of your body says the other, to dismiss transsexuality as a lark.

In fact, the association of women, and of things feminine with weakness, with moral suspectness, with second-class citizenship, and especially with liberalism, is part of the culture of worship of all things male and macho. In the feminist world this culture is referred to as the patriarchy.

Just as it is unacceptable to call Ann Coulter a transsexual woman to deride her credibility, it is just as unacceptable for people to explain away Ann Coulter's rage and her conservative opinions and her anger and her lies and her slander by calling her a lesbian, closeted or otherwise. Absolutely unacceptable, and it does psychological violence to the many, many lesbian women who are courageous progressives and disagree VEHEMENTLY with Coulter's male-centric politics and attitude of utter contempt for anything that has even the slightest aura of femininity or feminism. Imagine, sir, the pain that would be suffered by your many gay colleagues and friends, were you to instead of calling Ann Coulter, or Carrie Prejean, transsexuals, calling them men, to discredit their often vile points, were to call them lesbians, and imply that their rage and frankly their evil were because they were gay.

I fail to understand why, in the year 2010, sir, this kind of unthinking prejudice is acceptable against transsexual people, and particularly against transsexual women, when it is so clearly not acceptable against Jews, or Roma, or Black people, or even Gays and Lesbians. There is public outrage against the Ugandan "Kill the Gays" bill. Where would be the public outrage if the Ugandans were crafting a "Kill the Trannies" bill? Would we see it? Or would our self-appointed media guardians simply point and laugh at those freaks who want us to think they're women. I guess it's okay, because everybody in the media knows someone who is gay. But transsexuals? They're those weird people over there. We don't want to have anything to do with them. When conservative self-appointed moral guardians scream that giving transsexual people the basic legal tools they need to live lives of dignity, to fight back against unwarranted discrimination that hounds them out of good jobs and comfortable, safe homes, into selling their bodies on the streets and taking whatever poor habitation will accept their presence, is tantamount to allowing perverted men to rape little girls in public restrooms; you and your kind stand silent against them. Perhaps reassured that this other is distracting their attention from YOU. You are buying your safety with the lives of innocent women.

Because it IS women who are being hurt, and killed, by these horrific acts, by these bigoted words. In the time I have written these words, it is entirely possible that another transsexual woman has been horribly bludgeoned to death by a man who will defend himself by saying, "I panicked when I found out it was really a man." And the newspapers will back up the evil of those actions by describing these victims using the wrong names, the wrong pronouns. One transsexual woman is murdered, BECAUSE she was a transsexual woman, every three days. It is said, in tones of fear and dread, that transsexual women do not get dumped, they get dumped in the river. And that's just the ones we know about. I write this on Friday afternoon. By Monday afternoon this fearful possibility will become an actuality, and another innocent human being will have been wiped off the face of the planet for the crime of being herself.

Sir, by your own commentary your sight, and possibly your life, was saved by Renee Richards, herself a transsexual woman. But if that doesn't matter, perhaps this will: Approximately three months ago, one of your colleagues took her own life, because the transphobic and homophobic pressures in her life as a sports journalist were too great for her to live as a transsexual woman and still have a professional career as a sportswriter. In the months and weeks and days leading up to her death, even after she had detransitioned into her original male persona, she insisted to her close friends, and her minister, that she was still her female self, no matter what. This woman died because you and others like you could not keep your big macho masculine mouths shut and respect someone else for the difficult and painful road that she had been forced to walk because of a hormonal variation that took place before she was even born. She had said it was transition or die. Eventually, because of pressures to great to bear, she returned to her previous identity, to be able to eat. And die she did. Stripped of the ability to live as she chose, she resolved the dichotomy between her female brain and her male body by destroying her brain; she killed herself with a gunshot to the head. Her name was Christine Daniels. Her blood is on your hands, and the hands of everybody else who belittled who she was, what she had to do, what we all have to do, in order to feel comfortable in her body.

Sir, your belittling and thoughtless choice of slurs and of language and of destructive, vile, sexist speech hurts me, as much as the N-word hurts black people; as much as the F-word (that other F-word) hurts gay men.

Because, Mr. Keith Olbermann, fifty-one year old white man, I am a transsexual woman.

And perhaps the next murder victim... might be me.

Good night, and good luck.

[Thanas]

I am not sure what you are so angry about, really. Unless you have some other kind of evidence that Olbermann is a bigot - which I find hard - then he really just made a crass joke. It may be offensive to you, but I do not think there was malice behind it.

And really, accusing Olbermann of buying his freedom by condoning anti-transsexual slurs is not only just as offensive, it is also stupid and off the deep end.

[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.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Your post seems to be filled with lots of anger and emotion rather than actual thought. Olbermann's statement was not well thought out, but it was hardly malicious and it was hardly an attack against transsexual women. In fact, he makes his feelings regarding transsexuals very clear. He supports those rights 100%.

This joke made me think that Olbermann was drawing a parallel of homophobic persons that are hiding their own homosexuality and hoping their outrage over homosexuality hides who they really are.

[La Maupin]

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.

[Thanas]

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.

It was a joke, you are blowing it out of proportion and you have got nothing to justify that he is a bigot and thinks transsexuals are an abomination, nor have you got anything to justify your earlier accusation that Olbermann is happily going along with the witchhunters to cover his own skin.

Please provide proof for either accusation.

[Steve]

If I might contemplate the issue, I don't think La Maupin's issue is with the telling of a joke, but that it underlines and reinforces existing concepts and prejudices about transwomen who, as a group, are vulnerable to not only the stripping of rights but to violence and murder as well. I can therefore understand the reaction to it.

Such thinking is endemic, of course. It comes automatically without the restraint of thought and jokes such as this reinforce it in the minds of those reading or watching it. Agree with Maupin or not, that is your discretion, but at least let her remarks make you think about it.

Ultimately, fighting such unthinking prejudice is the work of generations, each building upon the work of the prior to bring the desired result. La Maupin is attempting to help lay what may just be the foundation of a long, painful struggle.

*looks back over post*

Um, heh, hope I didn't overdo the flowery rhetoric.

[Thanas]

Ultimately, fighting such unthinking prejudice is the work of generations, each building upon the work of the prior to bring the desired result. La Maupin is attempting to help lay what may just be the foundation of a long, painful struggle.

You do not start a dialogue by stabbing one of your best supporters in the back and accusing him of being the second coming of the Mitläufer.

EDIT: Even worse, accusing him of condoning the murder, rape, ostracization etc. of transpeople. That takes a special kind of gall.

[Kamakazie Sith]

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.

Again, you are taking this as a jab against transsexuals instead of a jab against Coulter. Not really because Coulter looks like a man, but because she acts like a sexist white male.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If I might contemplate the issue, I don't think La Maupin's issue is with the telling of a joke, but that it underlines and reinforces existing concepts and prejudices about transwomen who, as a group, are vulnerable to not only the stripping of rights but to violence and murder as well. I can therefore understand the reaction to it.

Such thinking is endemic, of course. It comes automatically without the restraint of thought and jokes such as this reinforce it in the minds of those reading or watching it. Agree with Maupin or not, that is your discretion, but at least let her remarks make you think about it.

Ultimately, fighting such unthinking prejudice is the work of generations, each building upon the work of the prior to bring the desired result. La Maupin is attempting to help lay what may just be the foundation of a long, painful struggle.

*looks back over post*

Um, heh, hope I didn't overdo the flowery rhetoric.

I did learn something from her post, and it also reinforced things that I had already learned from other transsexual members of this board. However, that doesn't excuse irrational behavior and it never should. Irrational behavior is a poison, and it should be placed in check. That's one of the best functions of this board. We're all passionate about something, and it is a good thing to have that passion questioned.

[La Maupin]

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).

Hmm, who should I trust? Who on EARTH's judgment should I consider more valid over whether the idea that a transsexual female identity is a de facto injury to somebody's credibility is in fact an insult.

I wonder.

This is a really hard call.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Let's see...

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).

Hmm, who should I trust? Who on EARTH's judgment should I consider more valid over whether the idea that a transsexual female identity is a de facto injury to somebody's credibility is in fact an insult.

I wonder.

This is a really hard call.

It should be a hard call. You're saying that other transsexuals share your same opinion. That's not a big surprise, and it certainly doesn't mean that you are right and that those of us who think you're being overblown, irrational and florid are wrong. It's all about the strength of your argument. Thanas asked you to produce evidence of your accusations against Olbermann, but so far all you have is a poorly thought out joke on Olbermann's part, and it seems like you aren't considering the other possibility of his joke and eliminating those.

[Bakustra]

Let's see...

Cissexual men think I'm being overblown 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).

Hmm, who should I trust? Who on EARTH's judgment should I consider more valid over whether the idea that a transsexual female identity is a de facto injury to somebody's credibility is in fact an insult.

I wonder.

This is a really hard call.

You know, while I'm sympathetic to your case and feel that Olbermann was out of line with his joke, you really do not help your case by making statements like these. Of course, then again, perhaps the best way to convince people to support you is to deride and mock them when they disagree with you, and a hundred thousand years of human behavior are all wrong. I mean, it's not like people could simply lack experience with what is and is not considered offensive in this case, and therefore should be, perhaps, educated. Nope! That's all a waste of effort!

[Highlord Laan]

Olbermann wasn't taking a shot at Transsexuals, and least, it didn't come across that way to me. Seemed more to be an entirely justified dig at Mann Coulter's completely asinine, brain-damaged stances on pretty much everything.

[Highlord Laan]

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.

Only to idiots like Coulter. I hope the idiot jumps at the bait, really.

[FSTargetDrone]

"Cissexual"? That's new to me.

[Thanas]

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).

Hmm, who should I trust? Who on EARTH's judgment should I consider more valid over whether the idea that a transsexual female identity is a de facto injury to somebody's credibility is in fact an insult.

I wonder.

This is a really hard call.

Okay, now you are just simply trolling.

Let me draw a little analogy for you: I bet you too have called someone a retard in your life. By doing it, you have therefore condoned and encouraged discrimination against disabled persons, no matter all your other actions. It might even be that you are in fact a great supporter for the rights of disabled people, but that does not matter at all because you once called someone a retard. People are entirely justified in calling you a supporter of eugenics or a bigot.

That is the argument you make. So get off the high horse you rode in on and try to make an argument that has at least some semblance of facts, logic or intelligence in it. I suspect you'll next try to label me as some kind of bigot if you have not already done so in your mind, before you do so send a PM to serafina or Marina.

[Bakustra]

Olbermann wasn't taking a shot at Transsexuals, and least, it didn't come across that way to me. Seemed more to be an entirely justified dig at Mann Coulter's completely asinine, brain-damaged stances on pretty much everything.

To take the devil's advocate position, would it have been acceptable to make a similar joke involving Michael Steele and race? Or Ann Coulter and sex? Or any given Log Cabin Republican and sexual orientation?

"Cissexual"? That's new to me.

Non-transgendered. Think back to basic organic chemistry and you'll get it. I think it's clever, at least.

[Thanas]

To take the devil's advocate position, would it have been acceptable to make a similar joke involving Michael Steele and race? Or Ann Coulter and sex? Or any given Log Cabin Republican and sexual orientation?

Depends on the degree of the joke and the audience, doesn't it?

EDIT: Heck, people are joking about the holocaust or Stalin's purges all day long, so I do not see how sexual orientation is somehow more protected than the memories of six million dead and the victims of the most organized mass slaughter in history.

[Bakustra]

To take the devil's advocate position, would it have been acceptable to make a similar joke involving Michael Steele and race? Or Ann Coulter and sex? Or any given Log Cabin Republican and sexual orientation?

Depends on the degree of the joke and the audience, doesn't it?

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.

Also, do jokes on the Holocaust rely on anti-Semitic 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.

[Dragon Angel]

Hmm... Well, here is my take on it:

I will begin by saying that, yes, Olbermann DID word (and present) his joke very poorly in that comment. From the vantage point of someone involved in this (screw it, from the vantage of point of someone IN this), I can definitely see where the trans community comes from here: Olbermann used gender identity as a retort insult, and further reinforced that impression with his sarcastic tone at the end. THIS is where the viewed controversy lies.

Having said that, however, I personally took it as more of a forced statement of irony, given Ann Coulter's sordid past. I know, for sure, that Olbermann was not targeting transsexuals, but instead Coulter's strange writing (which in itself can deride gender identity - consider this, La Maupin). I am also well aware that Olbermann has made statements supporting the queer community in the past. This does not excuse Olbermann's poor joke, though. He should have chosen another means to express his outrage against Coulter.

FSTargetDrone: Cissexual is the term for being polar opposite of transsexual; that is, being comfortable with one's gender identity.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I have to admit, this is one of the most self-centred and pompous original posts someone has ever put into the news section. I've made jokes about Ann Coulter MYSELF, before. Take a valium, dear. You'll never survive being trans without a sense of humour, anyway.

[VT-16]

Having finally seen the segment on Youtube, the joke was basically a retort at Coulter's obsession with mocking people affiliated with Olbermann based on gender identity. It's not the most well-thought out response, but Olbermann was at least defending them against her remarks. And then I scrolled down and saw a million gender identity-based slurs directed at Rachel Maddow, so I guess the point is moot.

[MKSheppard]

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 WAIT. Can I just perform a deaf-ectomy with a rusty railroad spike on both of your ears?

Fucking whiny bitch cunt.

[Thanas]

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.

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

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


EDIT: Shep, WTF? Transsexuality does indeed close pretty much off all the things you just listed and it is in a lot of cases (depending what study you believe) based on genetics.