#transphobia in media

[fromchaostocosmos]

IGN did a review of Hogwarts Legacy.

It was praise for the game.

Then a little aside about JKR "comments" about trans people and not a single word on the blood libel and other antisemitism in the game.

To sum up the horrible danger she has put trans people in and harm she has caused that community, the murderous people she has platformed, the rhetoric she has spewed, the dog-piling she participated in, and the hate organizations she has given money to as simply comments is disgusting.

It severely downplays the reality of what is going and the harm done to trans community.

Furthermore to not say a single word about the antisemitism that the very plot is hinged upon is absurd. How can you not talk about the racism that makes up the entire fucking story.

[dragynkeep]

Friendly reminder RWBY fans actively told a trans women that if she left RWBY she would be ruining the company with her exist... Even though Tyrion is BARELY important to the series. Jessie Grelle left RWBY and RT cause the transphobia disgusted her so much. No other reason. She left because she couldn't actively support them, which is very good for her.

it's so disgusting. they threw two trans women under the bus then decided to cry that rwby was so "progressive" & "trans friendly!" & even straight up lied to say that rwby was made by trans people which. bitch.

i wish jessie all the best in her career, she was fantastic as tyrian & i know that she'll excel elsewhere.

[this-world-of-beautiful-monsters]

I think we need to spend less time worrying about defending or attacking problematic faves in media and more time focused on the fact that some people who are paid to write/storyboard these characters are very, very bad at their jobs. 

[prokopetz]

You know, historically, one of the big reasons that centralised social media was able to eclipse self-hosted forums so readily is that people wanted to get away from the constant Damoclean peril of the local boy-king flipping his shit and going on a banning spree every time someone mildly criticised him. When folks wax nostalgic for Web 1.0, I'm reasonably certain this isn't what they mean!

[brinconvenient]

I’m sorry... WHAT?!

Seriously: When do you ever just sit and think about the fact that Ian Katz of the Guardian (recently boycotted for its transphobia) and the BBC (routinely protested for its transphobia) was married to Justine Roberts of Mumsnet (a primary radicalizing hub for UK transphobia) for twenty-five years? Most people don’t! I didn’t, until I heard it from the poet Roz Kaveney during an interview. It got trimmed from that piece, and I have been trying to wedge it into different pieces ever since, to no avail. Sometimes, when I talk to other trans people, I will mention that a top Guardian and/or BBC editor was married to the founder of Mumsnet; almost always, when I mention this, I will find out that they didn’t know.

Here’s something else that happens when I tell a trans person that Ian Katz (Channel 4, BBC Newsnight, the Guardian) was married to Justine Roberts (Mumsnet) for 25 years. They will, without fail, make the following noise: Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Then they’ll inhale a little, and then they’ll do a controlled little exhale. Then they’ll say yeah, that explains it. Or, yeah. That makes total sense.

[spartanlocke]

every time i say tumblr staff (and tumblr itself let's be real) made social media worse by never punishing harassment, allowing people to get comfortable pushing cancel and callout culture so they could harass and dehumanize anyone (especially minorities) they want without ever having to worry about consequences, an attitude they brought with them to other websites like tiktok and twitter after the 2018 porn ban....

This is what I'm talking about. tumblr staff doesn't give a shit if you're stalked and harassed, but if you're a trans woman posting selfies? instant ban.

tumblr staff has NEVER done anything to protect its users, but now they're actively participating in doing the harm.

[anghraine]

Is there a good post outlining all the evidence against Gaiman? I know the podcast has it and that's what people pointed to me, but considering it has been days I was wondering if someone had gathered it all into seperate post so one does not have to listen to someone advertising their work every few minutes in order to listen to the important parts.

Belatedly (given that at least three other women have accused him since my post), there are some. The best of the original ones is probably "Manufacturing Consent" by Annabel Ross, but there are also transcriptions of the original accusations that, iirc, weed out some of the editorializing and focus on the raw material (which is, just be warned, very raw).

This (long) thread provides the important links in terms of the accusations conveyed by Tortoise, I think (a more to-the-point list is here at muccamukk's Dreamwidth account). I included the long thread because I'm in strong agreement with the final person in the chain that, Tortoise's many failings notwithstanding, they provided enough evidence for the SF/F community to judge and respond more appropriately than with a collective blanket of silence punctuated by occasional cavalier or desperate dismissals of the accusers, before the other accusations broke.

In all honesty, I'm pretty appalled by the idea that, well, now there's enough to start talking about it with a modicum of decency and respect but wasn't before, because apparently it was okay to use trans people (who had nothing to do with any of this) to justify defending a cis guy beloved of fandom from very thorough rape accusations.

I particularly feel this way about the parts of the community dedicated to publicizing news and major ongoing discussions that simply said and did nothing. Scalzi's "I'm horrified, might take awhile to process, here's a link to RAINN" personal statement was fine (Vernon's wasn't), and I don't think every random author was obligated to make their own statement as such. But spaces that exist specifically for covering ongoing discussions and news in the SF/F community not saying anything at all—even that the allegations existed—was far worse and really disheartening. So I wanted to link to a discussion that acknowledges how very few people lived up to their stated principles when there was solid evidence against an influential, popular man in their own circles who knows the right catchphrases and terminology.

I was particularly unimpressed with Mike Glyer's handling of discussion at File 770 and, as far as I could tell, Tor only acknowledging the whole thing on their German-language site. The German article seems to be very good, but ... they're based in NYC and Gaiman is an English-language writer, why was their only commentary for weeks shunted away from the English site? US law should absolutely cover acknowledging the existence of the accusations.

There was, let's say, a lot of disappointment to go around, so I'm also grateful for the other women who kept the ball rolling, awful as it is that they a) had similar experiences and b) had to reveal those to get the whole thing taken seriously.

[ilovebeingaturtle]

Why do the gender roles for characters have to be changed? Can’t you just be satisfied that they’re (The Turtles and Shredder) are males? Why change what the creators worked so hard to make? Wouldn’t you be angry if someone called your Turtles lizards or something?

Okay so I’ve been getting these transphobic bait asks for a few months now and normally I just block and move on but this. This is killing me. “Wouldn’t you be angry if someone called your turtles lizards”. Incredible. Listen if Raphael TMNT walked up to me one day and told me he identifies as a lizard now I’d be like fuck yeah. Because lizards are fucking awesome. I think the only one mad about any of this is you buddy

[martinblackwooddisliker]

it feels like there's been such a change recently in like general internet culture to just a lack of empathy and an increase in blatantly dismissing people, like the whole "womp womp" trend that, like, it was funny but like there's a limit ?? And the like "So sorry this happened to you! Can I use it for my oc lore? <3" copypasta on posts of people that were expressing genuine problems or traumas, also with how incredibly prevalent and normalised fatphobia and those sorts of jokes are in a way that feels so much more recent in online spaces?

Like people like to joke about 2020 and cancel culture and everything, and sure, like, it had its problems, but it also felt genuinely supportive and welcoming, and not so afraid to be genuine or nice or atleast polite and not openly rude to people??

[probablyasocialecologist]

In 2018, then-PM Theresa May published an LGBT action plan that included the protection and expansion of transgender rights. “We can be proud that the UK is a world leader in advancing LGBT rights,” she said, as she promised to make the gender recognition process less intrusive, acknowledged the existence of non-binary people and condemned transphobic bullying in schools. “Everyone in this country should feel safe and happy to be who they are,” added Penny Mordaunt, the equalities minister at the time, “and to love who they love, without judgement or fear.”

Just four years later, their action plan reads like something from a parallel universe.

[...]

One survey in 2022 showed that two-thirds of Brits simply don’t pay any attention to trans issues, with only 35% actually showing any interest. Those who show more interest in trans issues are far more likely to hold favourable views of trans people. Meanwhile, those who pay no attention more often hold negative views. It seems clear, therefore, that the hardening in public opinion against trans rights has been driven almost entirely by people with no real knowledge or interest in trans issues.

As with so many issues, the split is also stratified by age. Among older voters, only 24% actually pay attention to trans rights; among younger voters, this figure is as high as 50%.

We know that older people are far more likely to get their news from newspapers and broadcast media. Their opinions, therefore, are more likely to be influenced by the mainstream media than by, say, personal experience or social media.

Research by trans rights activist MimmyMum suggests that UK media has published an average of 154 articles on trans issues every single month over the past seven years. That’s a total of 13,500 articles focusing on a minority group that makes up just 0.1% of the population.

Britain’s most-read newspaper, the Daily Mail, has certainly dramatically increased its coverage over the past few years. Comparing the first month of each year shows a rise from six articles in January 2013 to a jaw-dropping 115 articles in January 2023 (+1817%).

[truth-has-a-liberal-bias]

From the article:

While speaking at an event put on by the extremist group Moms for Liberty, Trump spread a baseless conspiracy theory that “your kid goes to school and comes home a few days later with an operation,” referring to transition-related surgeries for trans people. In their write-up of the event, a glowing piece about how Trump “charmed” this group of “conservative moms,” the Times didn’t even mention the moment where he blathered on and on about a crazy conspiracy that has and will never happen.

This “sanewashing” of Trump’s statements isn’t just poor journalism; it’s a form of misinformation that poses a threat to democracy. By continually reframing Trump’s incoherent and often dangerous rhetoric as conventional political discourse, major news outlets are failing in their duty to inform the public and are instead providing cover for increasingly erratic behavior from a former—and potentially future—president. [...]

[roman-roy-apologist]

yeah ok i get it you don’t think transandrophobia exists but you do realize that it’s still bad to be shitty to transmascs right? you get that right?

[blusical]

Idk how to properly explain it, but the amount of attacks against Imane Khelif aren't only misogynistic, racist and transphobic, but they also *reek* of intersexism. (Also, comparing a woman with high testosterone levels throwing a punch in boxing to literal domestic abuse is fucking weirdo behavior)

[swordsonnet]

tories will do their damnedest to legislate trans people out of existence, but the second someone tells them to shut up they act like it's a grievous violation of their human rights

[whereserpentswalk]

It’s fascinating that you think trans people’s names come to them like wands in Harry Potter, you can’t just culturally appropriate bc you’re trans

Ok, this is about comments I made like a year ago on a comedy bit. While I stand by my feelings that the bit was bad and transphobic, my reasons why are a lot diffrent.

When I first wrote the comments my arguments were very thermian. I treated the story the comic was telling as if it was real and objective. Which feels right for most people, because stand up comedy is often presented like conversation, where we do treat stories like that as real things. But that's not how comedy works, comedians don't tell stories the way we do in conversation, they're creatives, the stories they tell are basically fictional, the art form might look like real conversations but it's not.

Comedians want to make you laugh, and sometimes want to send a message or make you think about things in a new way, but they have no reason to want to portray events accurately. They might be basing some things off of real experiences, but that's true for everyone, Tolkien might have chosen to explore his experience in world war one in lord of things, that doesn't mean we have to argue about orcs as if they're real entities when we're talking about if those books were racist.

So let's actually look at the skit, and analyze its outlook on trans people keeping in mind its a story that a cis man is telling, and not actual events: So the summery of the skit is that a white trans man comes out to his to his family, and he picked a name you'd expect a black person to have. He has older black relatives (who are implied to fully accept him, which would make him possibly the only trans person on earth with a fully accepting family) who refuse to use this name, and instead call him "the boy". The sketch ends with the comedian saying he should pick a name like Kevin, because even if he's trans he's not interesting (keep your thoughts on that last one).

Now, ignoring how this would play out in real life, what does this as a peice of fiction say about trans people:

First off: it's creating a plausible but unlikely situation where the woke thing to do is to not respect a trans person's identity. A lot of political humor exists to call ideas into question with hypotheticals, and the idea being questioned here is the idea that trans people's identities deserve respect.

Second off: it's creating a situation where a trans person is entitled and arogent for wanting his identity respected. In the fiction this trans person is that. But it's promoting the idea that they are in real life. Transphobes will show you a lot of spooky examples of trans identities that are unreasonable to respect, but that's not useally ever what it's like in real life. (An otherkin robotgirl isn't going to demand you communicate with her through beeps and boops, she probably just wants you not to laugh at her.)

Third off: it's pitting minorities agaisnt eachother. Conservatives love this, but it's super common when people try to convince progressives to a specific group from their advocacy. It shows us a world where trans rights and poc rights are at odds with eachother, in the real world they aren't, in the real world they're part of one larger struggle and diminishing one is diminishing the other. A lot of people do this with different identities, lgb types do it with gayness, terfs do it with womanhood, class reductionists do it with class, trscum do it between trans people. But it doesn't help one oppressed group when you shit on a diffrent oppressed group in their name. It's white conservatives who love it the most when trans people and poc at pit agaisnt eachother, and it's trans poc who suffer the most.

Fourth off: it's feeds into a very old myth amoung queerphobic progressives, which is the idea that queer people are privileged people looking to pose as the marginalized to get special rights. This is a myth we really have to get over, because its been internalized by a lot of people, and we get these hunts for fake minorities. This is why the "you're not interesting" line sticks out to me. Most trans people don't give themselves appropriative names, but trans people as a group constantly get accused of trying to steal other people's struggles. This is a myth that preys on the fact that white skined white colar queer people are more visible, and its one that is based on treating that disparity in visibility as a fact. We have to cut this out, nobody fakes minority status to get privileges because minorities aren't privileged. It's not true for queer people, even the queer people other queer people hate like bi people and ace people. It's not true about mentally ill and ND people, or converts to non Christian religions, or East Asian people, or anyone who gets accused of this. Stop it dearly.

Fifth off: this entire sketch is based in the idea that families can accept their trans kids, but only conditionally, only if they prove themselves to be doing it for the right reasons, and they please their family's whims. This is a transphobic idea, it's a transphobic idea most neolibs hold. Comedy bits are a lot like story books (no shade at either) where a problem is presented at the beginning, and a solution at the end, that the audience is expected to take for their own problems. And the solution here is a form of transphobia, the idea that trans people aren't owned acceptance, they need to earn it. I've seen a lot of trans people tormented by their families over that idea. And when a person of color goes and stage and wraps that idea in racial justice, it's young trans poc who get hurt by it the most.

Sixth off: not a huge point, but I feel like a cis black man, of all cis people, should be the most likely to understand that calling a trans man a boy is dehumanizing and insulting. I guess this goes to show he's not interested in thinking about how trans people's struggles are like his, he stands alongside a lot of marginalized trans people there.

Finally I kind of don't know how to end this. This is long. Really long. I don't know whose going to read this, because its a lot. Hopefully you got a bit of media literacy from reading all of this. Early on in my tumblr career, when I had just moved from Brooklyn to Manhattan, I had read an essay by @wifelinkmtg about a concept called the ditch. The idea was we often argue about media wrong, talking about things in hyper literal cannon obsessed terms, and that was the ditch, the ditch we dig for ourselves when we ignore things like themes and audience experiences. Hopefully this series of words dug less of a ditch than my words did a year ago. Sorry I don't have the actual sketch on hand. Mabye I'm wrong, but if someone wants to prove me wrong I'd rather they do it outside of a ditch. Mabye the ask wasn't even about that post. Mabye I'm tired. Maybe you should be tired too.

Sorry for the long post. Media literacy matters. Black trans lives matter. Goodbye, enjoy your night well.

[sleepy-seal]

okay, i'm going to explain this as gently as possible. because i feel like some people are confused. yes, there's nobody stopping you from making characters - who canonically go by it/its or they/them - go by she/her and he/him as well. but i invite you to ask yourself why you insist on adding these pronouns to the character. the characters already had a gender before, so why add these pronouns at all?

the thing is, by adding he/him or she/her to a character that doesn't use those in the text, you (maybe unconsciously) give off the idea that the gender the character had before was insufficient. the pronouns they/it had was not enough. now i don't need to describe to you how treating they/them it/its pronouns as secondary options a demoralizing thing. to treat it as an Option that can be ignored and not a fact.

again you can do whatever you want, but i ask you this: what does it serve to give the character these pronouns? what are you reflecting in the character by using these pronouns? why these pronouns specifically?