GenderLife Forum: The Information Exchange

OK let's take this a bit further. First watch the clip again very carefully. It ends with Letterman saying "somebody needs to talk to him after the show" (or something like that) in reference to the guy that charged off the stage. Then the obligatory extended canned laughter. I kinda got the impression that the whole thing was intended to infer that the one who threw the tantrum had met Amanda but didn't know about her until Letterman told him she was transgendered. My point is that we tend to view such "skits" through our own frames of reference and our frames of reference can be a bit skewed.

Over the years I have watched many groups penetrate the haze of television. You can find archived discussions on this forum where our members took great exception to televised denigrations of Ts and yet the same process happened in the early days of Television with blacks and gays and other "groups". Each little "negative" actually was part of a lengthy pattern leading slowly to societal acceptance of those "groups". It is a process and while we may not like it progress comes from just such things. It would not surprise me in the least if Letterman soon invited Amanda as a guest. She is a very successful and mature person who is now also a public figure. Were she to accept such an invite the actual interview might go either way (positive or negative) but it would be one more step in the right direction no matter how it went IMHO.

I just looked and put my thoughts to CBS. That was rude and should not have happened!!!!!!!!

I don't think that they did it to 'hurt' anyone deeply. I think that they need to be educated and probably didn't think about who they're hurting by doing this. A little education wouldn't hurt and the best way to do that is email CBS. It's certainly not going to hurt anything and it's anonymous. Raising a public stink about it and merely asking CBS to think twice about allowing tranny jokes on Letterman are two different things.

Word!

Bingo .....

You cannot force people to become educated about us in one fell swoop. It's a process.

It's a lot better to be mocked and used as the target of silly jokes than to be totally ignored except by pure hate speech.

As Deena pointed out, that's how minority groups enter the consciousness of the people. It happened with Black people before, it happened with gays recently.

It's part of a progression. It's a good sign, IMO.

Writing to CBS about it can be good too. Depends how our protest is stated. It can be a positive input, suggesting them ways to improve in the humour they use with respect to us.

But if we take it as pure confrontation and try to shut them up, it can get worse. They can mock us in a much more negative way, or they can completely ignore our existence.

Frankly, I didn't see it as ill-intentioned. Misguided and ignorant, yup. But that's how it begins, always. It preps the public for a more serious intrusion by "those people" in their lives (as having a TS woman for an interview soon).

You raise a interesting view point on this Marcella one I don't think I would have come to on my own. I see you rpoint and like the racial injustices done in the past it's commonly accepted that such ignorance is not tolerable on the larger scale of things there will always be biggots, and the gay community are becoming far more main stream and widely accepted. I only hope the same will be for our community. In saying that while I think this process is well in the works I think minorities standing up for themselves and taking ownership of their identities is a vital part to this process and evolvement.


I hope I live long enough to see the changes hopefuly in this life time. It'd give me great peace to know that the generations to come will be more understood and accepted and appreciated for the people they are and not condemed for the type of person they are.

I've noticed a change since my teens to the teens now they are alot stronger and visable compared to just over a decade ago when I was in my teens. It's a small change but any improvement is good at any rate.

I find letterman in general to be a waste of air time personaly but I guess its cause I dont fully understand american humor?And he must have a huge fan base to still be going strong so many years later.

Still think he needs to be slapped with a soggy jock strap for that remark lol dumb dry skit.

Letterman should be forced to appear in drag for a week. Might change his attitude.

My opinion ... let it die. The more attention drawn to this the more difficult it will become for her to do her job, and she might step down just to be out of the public limelight. As it is there are far more important fish to fry.

As it is her hiring made a headline then the news died. That was a good thing. Letterman makes a crack and he looks like the fool he is. Let him look like a fool. His ratings are not going up anyway.

I remember back in the 1970s they were still telling Polish and Italian jokes. Forty years later it's not happening in public. And the Poles and Italians are what? White. No more ethnic or racial jokes and if you hear them everyone thinks they're in bad taste. It's going to take another 40 years and won't really change for good until the GenX'ers start to die off.

Of course, there are two perfectly valid approaches to this in our case (what marks us as different from other "minority" groups):

a) It's part of the process of acceptance of TS folks.

b) None of my business, I'm not a "TS" but just transitioned.

In general, minority groups fight together for recognition. We never will, since we're split right down the middle.

Some transition and take on the "trans" label proudly, and become active politically to try to make things easier for future transitioners during transition and for those who plan to keep the TS label.

Some others transition to never have to use the "trans" label at all, and consider erasure is a positive outcome, and trying to make things easier for future transitioners may be counterproductive by raising awareness to the process itself.

They are two completely irreconciliable positions, IMO, based on divergent ethical systems --hence, there is not even a point in trying to have a dialogue, it'd be like two people speaking different languages.

Although mass media and human curiosity is making the point that "more publicity means more awareness which is a bad thing" moot: these days, I doubt there is anyone left who doesn't know about the existence of people who "changed sex" and many people are well aware of the steps involved.

Activism or no activism, as education and information spread, transitioning without anyone noticing will become more and more difficult. And as safety measures increase in an integrated world, going stealth will also become more and more difficult.

We may well be facing the last years of that possibility, and in the near future we all may be forced into the fray. Even if most transition very young and with wide societal approval. In fact, the latter may be a consequence of the former.

Who knows.