Women's College Cancels The Vagina Monologues So Transgenders Won't Be Offended- Page 3

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/27/15 at 12:36am

it's getting harder to make certain kinds of jokes because people have grown so terrified of insulting certain socially disadvantaged segments of the populace (whether they actually are insulted or not).

So you're saying the powerful, the people who have the platform, are "uncomfortable" because they might be saying things that are hurtful to people in the room with them, or outside the room with them, and so... what?  I mean, I can't work up a lot of sympathy for that.

But then again, I was the guy who went out on the limb about Joan Rivers doing that all the time. And frankly, Joan Rivers is dead.

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 7/27/15 at 1:00am

This from the forum that panicked over a black Annie.

[hork]

Posted: 7/27/15 at 12:13pm

Namo: So ... are you saying it's okay to make fun of straight white men, but no one else? I'm just saying comedy should be an equal opportunity offender, and comedians shouldn't have to feel like they have to censor themselves on the chance that they might offend someone. Offending people is part of the job description.

Besides, there's a difference between making jokes about a group of people and intentionally insulting or hurting members of that group. If you can't laugh at yourself, maybe you should avoid circumstances in which you might be called upon to do so, instead of verbally attacking the guy who's just doing his job and ruining it for the people who are there because they do find him funny and just want to laugh.

[Kad]

Posted: 7/27/15 at 12:16pm

"Just doing his job"? He's not a grocery store cashier that someone is yelling at for not giving correct change. He is a creator of content and a cultural icon.

[hork]

Posted: 7/27/15 at 12:27pm

""Just doing his job"? He's not a grocery store cashier that someone is yelling at for not giving correct change. He is a creator of content and a cultural icon. "

 ... whose job is to tell jokes. Why must we make such distinctions?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/27/15 at 12:33pm

Besides, there's a difference between making jokes about a group of people and intentionally insulting or hurting members of that group.

 

Actually, some jokes by their very nature are designed to intentionally insult or hurt members of a specific group.  

[Kad]

Posted: 7/27/15 at 12:54pm

"""Just doing his job"? He's not a grocery store cashier that someone is yelling at for not giving correct change. He is a creator of content and a cultural icon. "


... whose job is to tell jokes. Why must we make such distinctions?"

Seinfeld is not reading off a script or following chain of command. He's doing and saying what he wants with the end result of getting a laugh. Do you think that since a comedian's job and goal is to earn a laugh, they are in the right to do and say whatever they want to get that laugh? If people laugh, then does it matter what was said?

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 7/27/15 at 2:25pm

"... whose job is to tell jokes. Why must we make such distinctions?"

Seinfeld is not reading off a script or following chain of command. He's doing and saying what he wants with the end result of getting a laugh. Do you think that since a comedian's job and goal is to earn a laugh, they are in the right to do and say whatever they want to get that laugh? If people laugh, then does it matter what was said? "

 

"Then she wouldn't look JEWISH at all!"
[wild, roaring laughter]

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 7/27/15 at 3:21pm

^ That's actually a very funny, cute and clever moment of the show. 

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/27/15 at 3:21pm

Cabaret couldn't even be done today because of the PC Police.  

[hork]

Posted: 7/27/15 at 6:48pm

""""Just doing his job"? He's not a grocery store cashier that someone is yelling at for not giving correct change. He is a creator of content and a cultural icon. "


... whose job is to tell jokes. Why must we make such distinctions?"

Seinfeld is not reading off a script or following chain of command. He's doing and saying what he wants with the end result of getting a laugh. Do you think that since a comedian's job and goal is to earn a laugh, they are in the right to do and say whatever they want to get that laugh? If people laugh, then does it matter what was said? "

Yes, I do. And no, it doesn't.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/27/15 at 7:08pm

One thing we haven't mentioned is that Seinfeld's joke was not only lazy, it was historically inaccurate. The mannerisms he was attributing to the "gay French king" were actually the foppish, courtly manners associated with the court of Louis XIV and may or may not have had anything to do with sexuality.

So he was revealing his ignorance as well as general laziness. IMO, colleges are better off without him--and not because I was offended by the joke, which I found relatively innocuous.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/27/15 at 7:31pm

"I really didn't want to add anything more to this thread, but unfortunately some of the stuff you are saying is making me quite uncomfortable. First off: "transgendered." There's nothing offensive about that word, but grammatically it makes no sense. The word is transgender. Transgender is not a verb; it is an adjective. You cannot have "transgendered." Not a big deal, but a little niggling issue that gets on my nerves a bit. Second: I really do not want to ever hear/see anybody use the word "tr*nny" ever again, and yes, I am censoring it because it makes me highly uncomfortable. It has a long history of transphobia, specifically transmisogyny, and to see a person using it so flippantly truthfully makes me feel unsafe! 
And Gaveston, I'll take a stab at one of your questions: "Finally, if gender refers to behavior and sex refers to biology, why do those who surgically and chemically alter their biology want to be called "transgendered" rather than "transsexual"? Is it just our general cultural discomfort with the syllable "sex"?"
First, gender doesn't refer to behavior--it refers to one's connate mental identity. There's no real reason, in my opinion, to distinguish between trans people who have undergone surgery and/or taken hormones and those who have not. So that's one reason I would think those who have had operations would not want to identify separately. Another thing is cis people often make "trans-ness" so focused on genitals and surgery and so on, which of course most trans folk find offensive, annoying and invasive. So not many people would be inclined to identify based on the state of their biology. And also, being trans is about gender. It's about your understanding of your own gender not aligning with the gender you were assigned at birth, so whether a person alters their body or not, it all has to do with their gender. 
I hope that all made sense and I didn't come off as snippy or anything..."

(Emphasis added.) Beautifully and clearly written, acekatharine, and not in the least snippy. Bears repeating, which is why I am quoting it here.

You are correct: I should not have phrased my remark on gender as if I were speaking for anyone's subjective experience.

I'm not accustomed to using the "t word" anyway, but I certainly won't use it in the future, now that I understand that it evokes a strong aversion.

I bolded one sentence because I found it particularly striking. You are right: what difference does it make to me whether someone else takes hormones or has had surgery? I have at least one transgender relative (an in-law, but we are on good terms as the "queers" of the clan) and it wouldn't occur to me to even ask her what surgery, if any, she has had or what hormones, if any, she takes. No more than I would ask a cousin how big his penis is. So why do I need different labels to identify attributes I'll probably never know about?

Thanks again for your help in educating me.

[hork]

Posted: 7/27/15 at 8:35pm

"One thing we haven't mentioned is that Seinfeld's joke was not only lazy, it was historically inaccurate. The mannerisms he was attributing to the "gay French king" were actually the foppish, courtly manners associated with the court of Louis XIV and may or may not have had anything to do with sexuality.
So he was revealing his ignorance as well as general laziness. IMO, colleges are better off without him--and not because I was offended by the joke, which I found relatively innocuous."

I'm confused. Louis XIV was a French king, was he not? So a gay French king would be even more foppish. It's not a very funny joke, but it's comedically and historically sound.

Why are we still talking about Jerry Seinfeld?!

 

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/27/15 at 8:43pm

Because some dipsh:t brought him up.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/27/15 at 9:03pm

You can say that again.

[hork]

Posted: 7/27/15 at 11:44pm

"Because some dipsh:t brought him up."

What the hell is your problem?

 

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/27/15 at 11:59pm

Shhh, you've monopolized the grown-ups long enough. 

[hork]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 12:06am

Says the woman who thinks Jerry Seinfeld is a reactionary.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 12:41am

Night night, close your eyes, baby goes to sleep now.  

[AHLiebross]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 1:33am

My head is reeling reading through this thread.

I am a cisgendered straight female who is 60 years old, meaning that I grew up at a time when prejudices ran rampant against all who weren't straight and cisgendered, and I shared those prejudices until relatively recently. Although being gay is now a big shrug for most people, there are still issues society has to work through regarding transgender people. For example, if trans people are trapped in the wrong body, should we as a society try to develop better surgical or medical "cures" to make a transition easier and more complete on the assumption that women are "supposed" to have ovaries, uteruses and vaginas and be able to bear children and men are "supposed" to have testes and penises and be able to impregnate women? If someone who is comfortable in his or her body nonetheless identifies as a straight person of the opposite gender and wants to date and marry according to his or her gender, are that person's prospective partners bigots if they say, "I'm straight and I'm not having a relationship with a person of my SEX even if they're of the opposite GENDER?" These questions are only the tip of the iceberg.

Frankly, cis women should not have to stop discussing the annoyance of getting their period at an inconvenient time for fear of offending their trans sisters, any more than Jewish people should have to abandon the idea that being European Jewish is an ethnicity as well as a member of a religion. I actually read a piece once where someone said that he couldn't bring himself to convert even though he likes practicing Judaism because he doesn't believe that synagogues are being welcoming by emphasizing lox and bagels! By the same token, if a trans woman says that cis women should not discuss their common physical experiences because that is offensive to women who don't experience them, I would answer with a similar response that I would make to the man who objected to bagels: "If we can't talk about this among ourselves, when CAN we talk about it?"

We cis women will learn NOT to assume that all women have female biology. However, untransitioned trans women will have to assume that cis women will continue to crack jokes about the annoyance of gynecological exams.

[acekatherineplumber2]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 2:08am

Thank you for your very kind reply, Gaveston. And you're very welcome!

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 5:01am

Another stupid question: is "cis" exclusively opposed to "trans" or to "queer" in general? I.e., am I a "cis gay man" because I identify as male? (I don't mind, either way. I came out as a teenager because I swore I would not spend one more second worrying about what name I was called or whether I was "straight acting" or not.)

I'm going to bow to community consensus and resist discussing Seinfeld further, except to add that if one really thinks about it, his "joke" is not so benign. I don't mind most effeminate homosexual stereotypes now that we have all kinds of representations of gay people. But can the same be said of Seinfeld's humor? Or does he, as I suspect, haul out the word "gay" only to indicate overly theatrical flourishes, thereby implying that gay people are not serious in the way straight people are? It's a way of demeaning gay men and women and, God knows, transgender persons that is harmful to everyone.

***

I see no reason why cis women shouldn't talk about their experiences; nor do I think a transgender woman need be offended by such talk (except in very specific contexts such as a trans support group).

I certainly don't expect straight men (not even straight comics) to stop talking about whatever interests them, though the constant objectification of females gets just as boring after awhile as gay men who speak only in double entendres or quotes from show tunes.

Updated On: 7/28/15 at 05:01 AM

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 6:32am

""Because some dipsh:t brought him up."
What the hell is your problem?
 "

Anything goes in comedy, remember? I mean I laughed, so it's ok, right?

[AHLiebross]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 7:40am

Gaveston writes:  "[T]he constant objectification of females gets just as boring after awhile as gay men who speak only in double entendres or quotes from show tunes."

Amen on the objectification of women. Question: is a gay man's quoting from a show tune, which I often do even though I am neither gay nor a man, is that a gay stereotype? I know that gay men frequently joke about their platonic interest in certain characters (e.g., Dolly from "Hello Dolly" or the Bea Arthur character from "Golden Girls"), but I'm not sure why they select particular characters.