Did 'Glee' Cross The Line With 'Tranny'?
Gay rights group up in arms, but is this much ado about nothing?
I really like the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. But at the same time, I'm glad the organization is only 25 years old.
I can only imagine how many ulcers its public policy people would've had in the 1970s if the group was older, especially when "All in the Family" ruled the airwaves.
Good old Archie Bunker. He was a racist, a bigot, a homophobe -- pretty much the opposite of the whole Star Trek philosophy of infinite diversity in infinite combinations. Yet, the character was loved -- not because of his hatred, but because of the way he exposed the hatred in others.
Think about that. Watching how ugly hatred is in other people, especially on television, forces us to look not just at those around us, but inward as well. As much as viewers tuned in to see Archie Bunker -- played by the late Carol O'Connor -- each week, they knew that the last thing they wanted to be was Archie Bunker.
Of course, Archie always had a foil, typically in the form of Meathead, played by Rob Reiner. But did we necessarily have to have our hands held to get the message?
Maybe so. But there are so many television options now, that we don't have to have every program holding our hands. They can make us laugh without the need for a live studio audience. They can make us think without preaching. It's television made by the savvy for the savvy, and "Glee" is definitely one of those programs.
It's sophisticated and fun, but you almost always walk away thinking about some message the show is trying to share.
This past week, it was the "Rocky Horror Picture Show." I'll be honest, I'm not that big of a Rocky Horror fan. But I am a big "Glee" fan. And I watched the episode because of my love for the characters, stories, songs and message that "Glee" provides.
When Harry Shum Jr.'s character of Michael Chang expressed the fact that he couldn't play Dr. Frank-N-Furter because his parents didn't want him playing a role portraying a "tranny," GLAAD got up in arms.
Of course, they didn't get up in arms last year when "Glee" used the terms "faggy" and "fag," only because it resulted in an on-screen rebuke by a straight character that many suspected in the beginning would be not-too-crazy about his son's sexuality. However, since Mr. Schuester didn't call in Chang's parents and lecture them about accepting diversity and using words that are not demeaning to whole population segments, GLAAD got angry, and earned some free press to go with it.
Seriously, why would "Glee" be expected to hold viewers' hands through something like this? I watched the episode. The word "tranny" didn't affect me. What affected me was the fact that Chang couldn't take on a role he seemed very interested in playing because of the hateful nature of his parents -- a grim reality. If you see Chang in the later scenes, sitting alone in the audience while the others rehearse, you can tell that he is not happy at all.
Just because the message was subtle doesn't mean there wasn't a message. The reason why I like this level of sophistication in shows because it forces us as viewers to read deeper into what's going on, instead of looking simply at the surface. I didn't get hung up on the use of "tranny," but instead, realized exactly what Ryan Murphy was trying to share.
We don't have to point fingers at everything and everyone to share a message. We don't need to have everything spelled out for us. What we really need is the ability to look closer, as one of my favorite movies of all time -- "American Beauty" -- tells us. And when we do, what we find is absolutely beautiful.
About the Author
by Autumn59 | Fri, 11/05/2010 - 09:56 #1
I'm a transsexual who identifies as transgender; Trans people like me can identify words that are offensive to our community.
We wouldn't be asking if the n-word is offensive to African-Americans; we wouldn't be asking if the c-word is offensive to women; we wouldn't be asking if the other-f-word up is offensive to gays. Somehow though, Inside Blip believes phrasing the headline, essentially asking if a antitransgender term is really offensive when used in a television show -- and in the article adding that it's not the responsibility of Glee to point out that the term is seen by many trans people as offensive, is somehow appropriate.
The word "tranny" didn't effect you, Michael, but as a transgender-identified transsexual woman, use of the pejorative without identifying the term as a pejorative did effect me.
You're disowning the responsibility of Glee's producers, and to extent are disowning your own responsibility. No matter what, none of this is 's producers or your fault – nothing said was that was really all that hurtful, offensive, bigoted or discriminatory, and apparently no one is really to blame here. This is because tra**y was used in innocence to send a message -- a message that went over the head of much of the show's audience. After all, what reason have Glee's producers or you ever had to examine thiers or yours ingrained prejudices, or have GLAAD -- and organization whose mission is in part to point out when lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender are defamed -- point these ingrained prejudices out without indicating GLAAD or transgender-identified people may actually really be offended when an antitransgender pejorative is uses? Why should Glee's producers or you start consider that now when you haven't considered it previously?
So, apparenlty you want transgender people to know this is how Glee's producers and you feel, and that you really believe the responsibility for the offense is really the fault of trans people like me, and an organization defending us. Everything would be a lot more pleasant if trans people weren't looking so hard for offence -- a lot more pleasant for Glee's producers and you.
Holy crap, Michael, it's as if you're telling my trans peers and me that we really enjoy facing discrimination and prejduice, and it's no big deal when we do.
by mhinman | Sat, 11/06/2010 - 23:01 #2
Hi, Autumn!
You expressed some very powerful thoughts, and I hope you don't mind if I respond directly to your points. :)
I'm a transsexual who identifies as transgender; Trans people like me can identify words that are offensive to our community.
Let me stop you for a moment on this. The last part of this statement was "offensive to our community" and not "offensive to me." While I understand there are a lot of similarities that bring a group of people together, I find too much that some people find words or actions offensive only because the larger whole does.
That kind of groupthink scares me, and it's a reason why mainstream society still has issues dealing with the simplest of requests the GLBT community makes -- you know, the simple things like equal rights. Martha Smith in Tacoma really doesn't have anything against gay people or even transgendered people, but she doesn't really know any, and the overall groupthink is that she should be offended by it, and speak out against it, so she does. It's offensive to the COMMUNITY, and thus, it must be offensive to her.
If we are trying to eliminate groupthink, why would we then lash out at it on behalf of groupthink?
I don't mind being a part of community, but I am not going to take issue with something simply because my "community" thinks it's offensive. I am going to take issue because I think it's offensive.
Maybe that's what you meant to say ... but as you can see, words are a powerful thing, and we really have to use them correctly.
We wouldn't be asking if the n-word is offensive to African-Americans; we wouldn't be asking if the c-word is offensive to women; we wouldn't be asking if the other-f-word up is offensive to gays. Somehow though, Inside Blip believes phrasing the headline, essentially asking if a antitransgender term is really offensive when used in a television show -- and in the article adding that it's not the responsibility of Glee to point out that the term is seen by many trans people as offensive, is somehow appropriate.
Except that's not what the headline in this column asks. It's not asking if "tranny" is offensive. It's asking if the USE of "tranny" in a line of dialogue on a television show in this specific instance was crossing the line. It's already clear that there are people in various communities -- especially transgendered ones -- who feel that way. We didn't ask that question in the headline. But what we were asking is if the use of it on "Glee" was crossing a line.
The word "fag" was used last season. There is no question that it is an offensive word to various people, but if there had been an issue by GLAAD or some other organization about how it was used, we would once again have every right to ask if "Glee" had crossed the line or not.
It's not whether "tranny" is offensive if it's used in a television show. I was simply adding context to its usage. If we had just said that "Glee" said "fag" and left out the context, would that be a fair thing to do? The same was done here. We pointed out there was context -- it may not have been spoken, but we all know that storytelling is not just done with words, but with actions as well. Because if it was just done with words, we wouldn't even need the visual element.
This is because tra**y was used in innocence to send a message -- a message that went over the head of much of the show's audience.
I don't think it did go over the head of most of the audience. I caught it, and I was only half paying attention to this particular episode, because as I mentioned, not a big Rocky Horror fan. And whether it went over people's heads or not, that is not the SOLE responsibility of Glee or its producers.
There are two sides in communication. You have the transmitter and the receiver. The transmitter should work hard to make sure it's message is clear. But the receiver needs to make sure it's properly tuned to receive the message. Sometimes the message gets garbled, but we can't simply lash out at the transmitter because of it. We sometimes have to lay some blame on the receiver.
Maybe "Glee" should've held our hands a bit more to make sure it didn't go over people's heads. But then again, why would the audience that "Glee" attracts -- the typical sophisticated audience -- want to have their hands held? That makes no sense to me.
After all, what reason have Glee's producers or you ever had to examine thiers or yours ingrained prejudices, or have GLAAD -- and organization whose mission is in part to point out when lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender are defamed -- point these ingrained prejudices out without indicating GLAAD or transgender-identified people may actually really be offended when an antitransgender pejorative is uses? Why should Glee's producers or you start consider that now when you haven't considered it previously?
First, please don't ever make any assumptions about me. Just because I avoid the groupthink doesn't mean that there aren't thing that affect me. I'm a huge supported of GLAAD, but even as a supporter, I feel it's my place when they may go too far on something, or maybe had simply misinterpreted something.
In my analysis of how the storytelling went in this particular episode, the word was used in a way that showed how others' prejudices -- and use of derogatory terms to express those prejudices -- could have negative effects on people, as it did with Michael Chang. So, even if a word was being used to point out how hurtful it was, it still shouldn't be used? Then how will people even know it was hurtful?
Imagine the scene last year between Finn and Curt when Finn referred to Curt's "faggy" interior decoration of their shared bedroom. Would the message have really come across if "faggy" was replaced with a word that wasn't derogatory? I don't think it would.
So, apparenlty you want transgender people to know this is how Glee's producers and you feel, and that you really believe the responsibility for the offense is really the fault of trans people like me, and an organization defending us
I don't believe I said that at all. I simply stated that I felt that some people were not considering all the variables, and allowing pure emotion to get in the way, missing a much larger point that was trying to be expressed.
Everything would be a lot more pleasant if trans people weren't looking so hard for offence -- a lot more pleasant for Glee's producers and you.
No, not saying that at all. But I can tell you that if you jump at every thing that happens out there, and not choose the most effective battles -- and ones where you have more of a legitimate beef -- it's going to hurt your overall message.
That is one thing I don't like about GLAAD sometimes, is that the fight and the message can become diluted because of things that were misinterpreted, or over-interpreted.
Gay groups had an issue several years back with a kid who responded to a classmate in a high school wearing a "gay pride" shirt by wearing one that said "straight pride." The kid wearing "gay pride" was expressing diversity, yet the "straight pride" kid must be expressing hate.
Huh? If "straight pride" is hate, then "gay pride" is hate. Why is one OK, and the other isn't? Why can't someone be proud to be straight if someone can be proud to be gay?
It irks me when anti-gay groups say the GLBT community is looking for special treatment, but when we speak out on issues like that without thinking, it DOES look like it wants special treatment. "It's OK if we have pride, but it's not OK if you have pride." That's special treatment.
If the kid wore a shirt that said "I hate gays," I'd be with ya. That's hate. But if a kid wore a shirt that said "I hate straights," that would be hate as well.
Holy crap, Michael, it's as if you're telling my trans peers and me that we really enjoy facing discrimination and prejduice, and it's no big deal when we do.
Want to talk about discrimination and prejudice? I'm a straight-acting gay Jew. The gay and Jew parts are already obvious, but being straight-acting in the gay community? Even my "peers" have issues with that. Go figure.