Emmys reward transphobia with nomination for Dave Chappelle’s The Closer
The special in which the comedian declared himself "Team TERF" is up for Best Variety Special
Aux News Unknown
Cancel culture is really not as effective as we were promised, because Dave Chappelle continues to succeed on the strength of virulent transphobia. His controversial Netflix special The Closer was nominated for an Emmy on Tuesday, once again proving that the woke mob hasn’t done much damage to his career at all.
Chappelle has been on the anti-trans beat for a while now (it’s something of a cause du jour among wealthy celebs who apparently have nothing better to do), but The Closer saw backlash against the comedian reach a new peak. In response to the stand-up set, in which Chappelle declared himself “Team TERF,” Netflix employees staged a walk-out in solidarity with their trans co-workers (one of whom was reportedly fired for leaking data about the special).
Netflix, which has a very expensive deal with Chappelle, has repeatedly and unreservedly defended his work under the guise of “creative freedom and artistic expression.” In a previous statement, co-CEO Ted Sarandos expressed to employees that “sometimes, there will be things on Netflix that you dislike. That you even find to be harmful. Where we’ll definitely draw the line is on something that would intentionally call for physically harming other people or even remove protections. For me, intent to cause physical harm crosses the line, for sure.”
The disregard for the real harm that platforming transphobia does to an extremely vulnerable population has paid off with an Emmy nomination (Netflix’s other transphobic darling, Ricky Gervais, missed out on a nom for his special SuperNature). Chappelle has faced no true consequences for his hurtful speech (though he has tried to make some up, by baselessly accusing his onstage attacker of being a “trans man”). Instead, he has continued to enjoy critical acclaim and the support of one of the world’s largest entertainment companies. The Television Academy is just another in a long list of institutions to tacitly endorse transphobia, and its members should have to answer for it.
181 Comments
It’s terrible how incredibly canceled he’s been. Just a shame.
I know! It’s gratifying to see that the exhaustive attempts to cancel him have failed.
At this point, maybe the plan is to keep giving him platforms to simultaneously pat himself on the back and declare himself a victim in the face of massive critical and commercial success until everyone finally tires of the schtick.
“Cancel culture is really not as effective as we were promised,” written ironically.“its members should have to answer for it,” written unironically.I’m just glad this isn’t a slideshow.
There’s a slideshow with nipples, if you’re into that.
Are they the nipples that a birthing human possesses, because then Yes I Am.
I don’t know why you feel the need to limit human birthing to “humans” – an outdated term that does NOT include me, who identifies as a cat. I can also birth if I so choose for meowself.
I think I saw that in 2003. You know, back before jokes caused “real harm”. I blame Dane Cook.
What do you think you’ve just discovered Sherlock?
No, he’s been around since like the late 1880’s.
Its a Carr blog, so its a shitshow.
The Closer wasn’t even funny.
Kyra Sedgewick isn’t known for her comedic roles.
Underrated reply right here.
Mary Kate Carr continues to make a living criticizing the work of other people with actual creative talent. You bottom feeder.
Those that can’t do, teach.Those that can’t teach, critique.Those that can’t critique, blog.
What does that make both of you?
Those that can’t blog, comment.
Those that can’t blog, comment.
I thought about adding that, but decided I wouldn’t deny someone else the satisfaction.
FYI, blogging is commenting.
And those that can’t comment yell nonsense from the greys.
Those who can’t do any of those things leave pithy comments in the comment section.
Those who aren’t funny make fun of minorities.
And here you are, criticizing her actual creative talent while you scrape the bottom. Enjoy your irony.
Amber Heard shits out more talent on bed’s then what Carr has in her blogging “skill”.
Slurp that boot
If Dave had any talent left he’d tell some jokes that weren’t stale on Twitter five years ago.
Chappelle hasn’t shown talent since he quit his tv show.
Dave has been pretty boring without his writers
Cry some more, snowflake.
AV Club is pathologically horny for Dave Chappelle at this point. I wonder if they ever consider how much free promotion they’re giving him.
Content, man. He’s it, you’re it, I’m it.
No tag backs.
Tag!
A drop in the netflix bucket, but thanks for asking.
You can feel the spittle on your cheeks as they bend and contort comedy into *checks notes*“real harm that platforming transphobia does to an extremely vulnerable population”*closes notes**checks receipts**finds none*
If you actually cared beyond making a snarky comment, you’d find TBs of data on the horrific violence perpetrated against trans people. But you don’t, because you’re a*checks notes**checks receipts*bad person.
There’s TBs of data showing violence being perpetrated against all people.There’s 0 kbs of data showing that these jokes you don’t like are responsible for any of it.
Normalizing bigotry emboldens violent actions. To believe contrary is to ignore the fucking entirety of human history, but especially, let’s say, the last 400 years or so, and certainly the last 6 years.
You talk in blanket terms, which is the problem with this whole thing. This isn’t Hitler calling for the death of all jews, this is a person making jokes in a standup special about what someone wants to be called regarding their gender. If you cant see the massive gulf between those two things, i don’t know what to tell you. Try thinking instead of feeling, maybe? Or maybe just grow up. Perceived victimhood is a hell of a drug though, so i’m not holding my breath.
So, coupla things: 1. I’m a cis het white dude. I’m not the victim here, but I am capable of caring about people who aren’t like me.
2. No, Dave Chapelle is not like Hitler. That’s your straw man, and you’re welcome to keep it. But you know who is a little like Hitler? The conservative state and local legislatures all over the country, passing laws increasingly limiting trans folks’ access to public facilities, segregating them from school sports and other activities, and stifling their access to certain types of healthcare. You know who else passed increasingly restrictive laws targeting trans folks? The Nazis.
https://mjhnyc.org/blog/transgender-experiences-in-weimar-and-nazi-germany/Dave Chapelle isn’t advocating for passing those kinds of laws, but what he is doing is making people who do advocate for passing those kinds of law feel better about their own bigotry. I hope we can agree that that’s not good.
It’s not my strawman if you compare comedy to violent historical rhetoric, then add “btw Nazi Germany was like this too” in the same breath. Come on now. You’d have a stronger case arguing that video games cause violence, since the games are actually emulating violence. But you’d still be wrong, despite what your feelings say.
Cool dude. For me, “The Nazis did this too” is a pretty strong argument against doing something, but setting that aside (for some reason) there’s extensive evidence that public figures bagging on marginalized groups increases those groups chances of being the victims of violence. Anti-asian hate crimes following the right’s attempts to paint COVID as the “Kung Flu” or the “China Virus” is a recent example.
Setting aside the risks from strangers, though, normalizing bigotry also exacerbates the risk that trans folks will be victims of domestic abuse, as well as their risk for dying by suicide.
Continuing to say “This doesn’t happen” doesn’t make it true, but I know it’s comforting for you, so have at it.
It’s all strawmen in your argument. Again, there is no comparison to be made between anti-asian hate speech regarding who was responsible for a worldwide pandemic vs. a comedian’s jokes. Actual hate speech is “look at all these bad things happening, these people are responsible, you’re justified in harming them”Comedic speech is “look how silly you look insisting to me what I have to call you”Entirely, completely different. That’s why treating one like it’s the other is so wrong. It’s a solution in search of a problem, and when it’s speech, it definitely does matter distinguishing the two. One is an agenda of harm, the other is laughing at someone who doesn’t like it.Know what else the Nazi’s did? Censored and controlled all speech that didn’t fit their agenda. Bad, right? So until you can hit me with a link that connects the dots between Dave Chappelle and any kind of real-world violence, I’m going to continue to be skeptical of claims like this.Music doesn’t cause violence. Video games don’t cause violence. Comedy specials don’t cause violence. Lots of people wish they did though, especially when they’re popular, and that’s the thing that should worry us a society. At the end of the day, I want both trans people to feel as safe as anyone else, AND for comedy specials to not be de-platformed over the lack of critical thinking. I think most people agree with me, too. I thank you for being civil with me, rather than a devolution into name-calling. We may not agree in the end, but I think civility lost is also a major factor in a lot of culture war stuff we see happening right now.
Sorry if I gave the impression that I was trying to say that Chappelle, alone, uniquely, was directly causing violence. If he were the lone voice in the wilderness, that’d be a whole different thing. But he’s not.
My concern is that he is a very loud, very powerful voice who is (rightfully) revered for his contributions to comedy over the last 20 years, adding his voice to a growing chorus of transphobic sentiment around the world. JK Rowling is a prominent example, along with (recently) Joe Rogan and Ricky Gervais. But just underneath that, there’s a widespread public sentiment, fueled by reactionary misinformation and disinformation, that Trans folks are a danger to women and children. There’s also a concerted effort across many parts of America to pass laws limiting trans folks’ access to healthcare, access to public facilities, and kids’ participation in school activities.
My concern is not Chapelle’s voice alone, but how it adds to the overall narrative, and lends legitimacy to other more virulent transphobes across all spheres of entertainment, politics, and public life. Most acts of violence–against someone else or against one’s self–are triggered by a “last straw.” I’d just like to see fewer straws on the pile.
I don’t want Chappelle to be censored by the government, and I wouldn’t support laws outlawing transphobic speech because I believe in the power of inquiry and discourse, for some reason. What I am absolutely in favor of is individuals and groups, using their voice to say “That sucks,” or “Man, I wish Netflix wouldn’t platform transphobes, maybe I’ll cancel my subscription,” or, you know, “Fuck Dave Chappelle and his boring, repetitive, derivative, transphobic comedy.”
You might not have noticed, but Dave Chappelle is a hot topic right now, so a whole lot of outlets are covering stories about him. You might also not be aware that that doesn’t make those outlets “pathologically horny” for him.Lastly, you might not be aware that Chappelle is a huge name and gets publicity regardless of articles like this.
Wait…isn’t he cancelled?
Dave Chappelle continues to succeedTruer words have not been written by AV Club.
I have images of Netflix executives reading Chapelle headlines, getting him more and more outraged while they rub their greedy little Devil hooves together. Grinning for all that publicity they get at the expense of Trans people.
“while they rub their greedy little Devil hooves together.”I may have to borrow this, thx.
Yes, the logic of a toddler from 1996. Nice self-own as usual.
Toddler logic from 96 is more sensible then most of the nonsense spewed out by young people in the 20 teen’s-20’s.
Imma be that guy and say Kindergarten Cop was 1990 (I am a dork about this)…
Wrong
Uh, wrong!!??
Gnarly Rae Jepsen = Ken Doll.
You have the intelligence of a child, as well as the basic science knowledge of one. How nice for you.
I’ve started a campaign to get this film pulled for exactly this scene. Please join me.
Juse don’t watch it…..
Yes, as we all know, biology is very simplistic and contains absolutely no complicated nuances. Such a broad subject can definitely be boiled down to eight words and that’s that, no need for elaboration or additional context.…Intersex people? Never heard of ‘em!
AV Club commenters in absolute shambles
Use your imagination, AV Club. I know you can find an excuse to include Chappelle, Stranger Things, and Thor 4 into one arti… slide show.
A 20 picture slide show on why Stranger Things would be better suited on D+ with Thor 4, rather than on Netflix with The Closer. And how Stranger Things’ continued existence on Netflix with The Closer actively hurts Thor 4.
9 Things We Can’t Stop Talking About (You’ll Never Believe #3!)
Cancel culture is really not as effective as we were promisedWho is “we?”
All of us who’ve had to hear about its supposed devastating effects from the Bill Mahers and Ben Shapiros of the world.
Yep.It’s almost as if “cancel culture” is another term for “audience segmentation,” and the people whining about it are just mad that someone doesn’t like something that they like. Y’know, like a fucking child would.
Yeah. THEY’RE the angry ones. LMAO.
“Sometimes, there will be things on Netflix that you dislike…”So you’re telling me that not every single show on this streaming platform will cater directly towards my specific sensibilities? That wasn’t part of the deal, Sarandos!!!!
Stupid
I know! There’s still an embarrassing lack of shows centered on the LGBTQ Pacific Islander community, and NONE about my secret identity as a cat.
Well, sadly, “cancel culture” is the closest thing we have to a functioning democracy at his point.
“Royal”?
“I don’t have a problem with Trans people. I have a problem with white people.” – Dave Chappelle, The Closer
“I don’t have a problem with drugs. I’ve had problems with cops.”
– Keith Richards
This guy gets it.
Pretty sure he didn’t call himself a white-o-phobe in the special, but go off.
The Closer was flat out not funny. (Sticks and Stones, very funny).Dave needs to get back to some jokes.
Outrage!You know, I wouldn’t have even been aware this special existed if not for the AV Club’s constant coverage of Dave Chapelle.
Outrage clicks. They can pretend otherwise, but stories like this are catnip for them.
People care more about women’s nomenclature than they do about their human rights.
“If only we could find a way to ruin this guy’s career! P.S. no one is trying to ruin careers.”
It’s honestly shocking to see people, mostly white liberals I would imagine, turn on Chappelle so swiftly. Other than on lily-white Kinja and woke Twitter, he is generally considered to be one of the greatest comedic talents of our time. 8:46 in particular is one of the most powerful pieces of (spoken word, I guess?) that I have ever seen. Chappelle’s Show is legendary and formative for many people, especially of my generation.But then he said a handful of jokes (let me stress that word “JOKES”) about trans people and suddenly he is the worst comedian of all time. And in classic liberal fashion, the people—who either hate comedy or don’t understand how it works—suddenly start saying “he was never funny” or whatever other nonsense. People on this very site (again probably white people) even questioned his “blackness” which is insane and racist.
I don’t know if the root issue is that we’ve gone so far into the age of irony that it’s become impossible for liberals to reflect upon their own absurdity, or if it’s just the crushing weight of cognitive dissonance within the woke mob that requires its adherence to have spent their entire lives in a pristine state of political correctness despite the ever-changing nature of culture.Are liberals now unable to separate fiction from reality? We now treat jokes like TED talks. If a comedian makes a joke about trans people (or any other protected group) then we take that as hatred and bigotry, as a call for violence against that protected group, and we demand that the comedian lose their career, their social media accounts, their entire livelihood as a warning to anyone else who might consider a career in comedy.And you can hide behind “oh, cancel culture doesn’t exist” or “the woke mob must not be a problem because Chappelle still has a career” but that’s nothing but deflection. You’re mad only because you don’t (yet, thank God) have the power to actually cancel someone. Yet clearly that is what you desperately want. If you had the power to end Chappelle’s career, you would. In a heartbeat.You have not earned that power. And you do not deserve to wield it, to silence anyone you disagree with. Liberals are turning so many people away with nonsense like this. Just look at how radically this country is shifting to the right. It’s no surprise given how quickly liberals (especially white liberals) will turn on people who would normally be their allies against the right.
A few things:1. I loved 8:46. I loved his earlier output. I loved Chappelle’s Show. I have not enjoyed his recent output. These are all true statements.2. Absolutely no one – at all, in any credible or non-insane sense – is trying to “silence” or “cancel” Chappelle. You cannot even explain how that would work, you just go into “well you WOULD if you COULD!”3. Germane to #2: he was just nominated for one of the industry’s highest awards. If people legitimately are trying to “silence” Chappelle, they’re doing an incredibly shitty job of it. Which is probably due to the fact that it isn’t a thing that is possible to happen.Bottomline, no performer is owed an audience. No performer is owed adulation for their entire artistic catalogue, yeah? And the people you’re bitching about? They have roughly 1/100 of the power that you’re saying they have.Cancel culture has always – historically always – been a thing. You’re going to want to get used to it at this point.
No one is trying to cancel or silence Chappelle? I feel like this very article cites a Netflix staff walkout in addition to countless public protests..
“It’s honestly shocking to see people, mostly white liberals I would imagine, turn on Chappelle so swiftly.”It’s not shocking, if you’re paying attention at all. He’s getting older and falling into the trap a lot of comedians do. He’s lazily hitting “controversial” topics in order to try to remain edgy and relevant. Then when it’s pointed out that he’s doing harmful material toward a marginalized group and it’s not cool, instead of listening, he doubles down. Not only does he continue to do the same jokes, but he goes full edgelord in “hitting back” at those criticizing him, like the aging performer he is.If you’re shocked that an aging comedian doing bigoted material to stay relevant is turning off people who don’t like bigotry, then I don’t know what to tell you.
“He’s getting older and falling into the trap a lot of comedians do.” Bullseye; I’m almost more offended by the laziness than the subject matter. That, and he’s increasingly punching down because he’s forgetting how to punch up. Funny how that happens when you spend enough time at the top.
Dave Chappelle’s transphobic screed in the Closer was absolutely freedom of speech.
So was the walkout by Netflix trans employees and their allies.
Terribly sorry you’re too stupid to understand that, my friend.
In a local show that he didn’t want recorded, someone recorded him calling a guy a “f*g.” He can say what he wants, but no one can argue that the guy is anti-gay and anti-trans. That’s what he’ll be remembered for.
Ohhhh fuckkkkkk you. This is the most self righteous bullshit AV Club has posted in a hot minute. Don’t like it, don’t support it. You crybabies. Make a quality program and get invited into the television Academy. Then you can bitch and moan your way towards your opinions changing anything.
What’s amazing is I’m totally on board with making fun of that hacky outdated asshole, but somehow the AV Club manages to do it in such a way that I’m almost tempted to take up against them, purely out of spite.
MKC, you’re a talentless hack.Thank you.
“transphobia”
Can you tell me exactly what Dave Chapelle said that is so transphobic? Because in the show I saw, he stated nothing but scientific facts regarding gender. And some really funny jokes.
I mean, you could start by understanding the difference between sex and gender before trying to ascertain whether Chappelle spoke any “scientific facts” but hey, don’t let facts get in the way of your feelings.
And you could understand the difference between sex and gender. Right? What is as man? What is a woman? tell us!
what is a man? a miserable pile of secrets.
If a dog has puppies, the ones that have penises are male and the ones with vaginas and uteruses are female. It’s like this through most of the animal kingdom. Humans are no different. I was born with a penis and that makes me a male of my species. A MAN. The same for someone born with a vagina and uterus. They are a FEMALE in the human species. A Woman. This is simple biology. This is facts. If you were born a male, and you FEEL like you’re really a woman, then that’s a different thing. But that still doesnt change the biology of things. Now if you want to take hormones, and have a bunch of surgeries to get as close to the “real thing”, then that’s on you. If you were born, biologically, as one sex/gender and you FEEL that you are the opposite, I will respect your FEELINGS and address you as what you want. But that still doesn’t change the BIOLOGY of things.
If a dog has puppies, the ones that have penises are male and the ones with vaginas and uteruses are female. It’s like this through most of the animal kingdom.This is uncontroversial. Another thing that should be uncontroversial is the idea that dogs, like the vast majority of the animal kingdom, do not have anything approaching what we would call a culture, or a society. There are not styles of dress or societal roles that we associate with female elephants or dolphins.
The difference between sex and gender is what we’re talking about. It’s something that most “gender critical” folks seem incapable of understanding, despite being really, really easy to understand.
What I’m actually talking about it why no one can answer my question. What did Dave Chapelle say that was so transphobic?
LMGTFY
https://time.com/6105951/dave-chappelle-netflix-controversy/
So what I’m hearing is that you think that trans people are literally confused about biology. They aren’t. They know that people born with penises are of the male sex and people who are born with vaginas are of the female sex. That’s not controversial, but if you’re a woman who knows in her heart that she would rather be a he, having to check the “female” box on forms that have nothing to do with medical stuff can sting.
No one is trying to change medicine or state that biology doesn’t matter. They’re just trying to make the language we use about our biology more inclusive to people on the edges. Most of us are fine with that. It can be obnoxious, sometimes extremely pointless, but its absolutely no skin off my back if a trans person would like the language surrounding sex and gender to be less exclusionary. On the example of when people say “people who can be pregnant” instead of “women,” I get that it can be kind of eye-rolly, like “omg you know I’m talking about, shut up.” Obviously most people who have uteruses are people who identify as women. But there’s millions who aren’t. I’d like for them to feel included more.
The big issue that got brought up on a thoughtful comment thread higher up is that not everyone believes that sex and gender are two different things. They think that gender is intrinsically wrapped up in whether or not you have a dick. I get that. I originally didn’t understand it either. I hadn’t seperated sex from gender in my mind. It was a few years of working with or knowing people who were trans that got me to get it. I dated a lady who’s now a dude who ended up transitioning a while after we stopped seeing each other. That got me really sort of getting it because we remained pretty close through the whole thing and hearing him describe what it was like to get the surgeries and hormones and actually start passing as a dude solidified the whole deal as something that made sense to me. It was like, aww that’s a bummer, “she” used to be really pretty but now he’s this confidant dude who everyone recognizes as a dude and he’s clearly in a much better place now and fits right in with guys.There are millions of people who will tell you that they don’t feel like they fit into what society sees as a man or a woman and are much more closely aligned with the opposite. That doesn’t change their biology. It’s social. They know that. Maybe some uneducated people don’t understand this, but most of them don’t suddenly think that their vagina doesn’t exist when they start identifying as a man. It’s just not that complicated. In the framework that these people go with, sex is physical. Gender is social. I personally have had times when I’ve seriously considered dropping the male label and just going gender neutral. I often don’t feel like a guy. I don’t like dude stuff. I’m sensitive, I like crafts, making things. Cute things. Artistic, beautiful things. When I envision myself, I’m like some kind of dark gothy lady with long hair and bangs and a flowy black dress. It’s been that way since I was a little kid. I fit in much more with women, was raised mostly around women, I like to wear clothes that are pretty and usually designed with women in mind but can be worn by men. I opted to just keep identifying as a man because it doesn’t bug me that much, but like… if I did start preferring to be called something else, if it was something relatively reasonable like saying “hey I’m androgynous to the degree that I actively don’t enjoy being referred to as ‘he,’” I would kind of expect the people around me to respect that. That’s kind of all it is. Or if I said, ya know, I feel like a woman. It would make me feel more validated if you referred to me as she. Like… you don’t HAVE to respect that, but can you see how
Now, we can talk about unreasonable stuff like in my opinion when people just start referring to themselves as trans but make no effort to transition in anyway and seem to just be trenders, like, alright. There’s room to talk about why maybe they shouldn’t be in women/men only spaces. There’s also people who identify as horses or objects or whatever. But honestly, that kind of person is usually just a total weirdo who lives online and doesn’t actually do anything. So like… why the fuss?
Back to trans men and women, they live with a hard set of mental circumstances. The suicide rate is high. Its not fun to feel like you are not what everyone insists you are, especially when just living how you feel like you are doesn’t really affect anything other than a few specifics like bathrooms and intramural sports. I’d just err on the side of hearing them out and thinking more critically of the people who are committed to upholding the idea that your biological sex is the same as the way people are describing gender now, which is more of a social thing. This is too long but I hope you don’t take any of this as being an asshole.
“but hey, don’t let facts get in the way of your feelings.”I mean isn’t this what all the Dave haters are doing?
Right, absolutely! If a 12yo boy feels more female than male, science has SETTLED that the penis, testicles, and male hormones don’t count – just feels.
That’s why I watch comedy: for the statement of scientific facts regarding gender.
He literally called himself a transphobe in the show, you absolute garden gnome.
He was saying it with irony. It’s comedy, not vcr instructions. Take it literally at your own risk.
Oh, are we discussing scientific facts?Biological sex refers to a series of physical and physiological traits—such as the presence and levels of various “sex” hormones, chromosomal makeup, and internal and external anatomy—that are conventionally, though by no means consistently or comprehensively, used to group humans into the “male” or “female” category. Though sex is often confidently assigned at birth following a cursory inspection of the subject’s genitals, in reality “sex” represents more of a bimodal distribution of traits than a set of rigid categories.Gender is a human construct and refers to the identities, statuses, roles, performances, and cultural artifacts associated with sex and sex categories. Gender is reproduced in and through social interaction. As gender is socially constructed, the phrase “scientific facts regarding gender” is functionally meaningless—unless of course one is referring to various social scientific studies, which will necessarily be more descriptive than explanatory and thus fail to reach what is conventionally defined as “fact.”A transgender person is someone who feels that their gender identity is incongruous with the sex they were assigned at birth. Someone please applaud my very funny stand-up routine.
Great speech. But it still doesn’t answer my question. What did he say that was so offensive and transphobic?
See, no one here thinks for even a fraction of second, or even a fraction of a fraction of a second, that you are asking this question in good faith. You know why? Because that question has been answered exhaustively, patiently and in great detail by many folks on the internet in the aftermath of that show’s airing. The fact that you are here disingenuously asking the question shows that you have already decided that you are AOK with Chapelle’s transphobia and just want to argue in favor of his transphobia by disguising it in a very tired and very obvious JAQing off manner. Maybe start off by owning up to the fact that you agree with his bigotry and ho from there.
And here lies a serious issue. I’m genuinely asking the question because I saw nothing wrong with what he said in his special. The big problem here is that you all get so triggered if someone asks a question that you don’t like, you want to fight. I’m not here to fight with people, but to see what they found so offensive. If you’re not even ready to have a conversation, your cause is doomed.
The big problem, is that your question has been answered in exhaustive detail elsewhere. So yes, you are being disingenuous. At least you come out anf say you agee with his transphobic views.
Well I’m not “elsewhere”. I’m here and I’m asking. And no one can seem to answer the simple question. What did he say that you find so offensive and “transphobic”? People are more willing to post multi page statistics, but none of you will just answer the question. You’ll sooner insult me, than answer the question. I’m trying to have an intelligent discussion and I’m getting a bunch of people with attitudes. If you’re here because you like to be angry, just say so.
You don’t get the joke. They don’t want you to see or hear what he said. They are outraged, so in turn you have to be. If you are not, you must be a “phobe” as well. Shun the non-believer!
And your answer below just confirms that you’re a dedicated transphobe who was asking the question disingenuously. No one fell for your bullshit.
If gender is a social construct, that is, *totally made up by people*, then how does one feel that one is innately a totally made up thing?
If money is a social construct why do I have to pay rent? If laws are a social construct why did I get arrested? If nations are a social construct why are they deporting me? I didn’t say social constructs are “totally made up,” I said they were reproduced in and through social interaction. Social structures might not appear to be “real” on a concrete, physical level, but they are very much real in their consequences. Now, gender is, indeed, associated with sex, which has a biological component, and as a cis-man I cannot speak to what social and/or psychological and/or biological processes that might lie behind feeling like one’s gender identity is different from the sex one is assigned at birth. But the crux of the issue remains many, many people do indeed feel that way, and are owed the basic dignity of having their gender identity recognized and respected by others.
because a lot of us don’t define our existence simply by being a ‘man’ or ‘woman’ or ‘scared, uneducated uber-CHUD’…
Sex they were “assigned”? Sex they were born with!
People are born with bodies, which are subsequently sexed—often according to incomplete or contradictory criteria. E.g., there are people who are chromosomally “male,” but have the external anatomical characteristics of a “female” and are classified as such. Sex is a classificatory category applied by humans to humans.
Imagine if you weren’t SO unbelievably insecure with your own self that you so desperate yo control others.You might actually find yourself HAPPY one day, instead of constantly feeling emasculated by someone who is more of a “real man” than you’ll ever be despite not having been born with a dick.Be less pathetic please.
“And some really funny jokes.” Really, really curious what version of the special you watched, cuz the rest of us were stuck with the reheats of the leftovers of material that wasn’t all that funny in the first place.
Eh, his point about DaBaby was valid. And he made it funny.
“Can you tell me exactly what”AnD dId YoU ReAD tHat bIll ™??!!? Tucky explained it very carefully to me as I stared at a pixelated jpg of a random page of it on my screen, etc.
As soon as an artist fancies themselves a truth teller it’s fucking over, throw em in the bin, they’ll never make something good again.
Here’s what the left needs to understand about trans issues.
The validity of trans identity (and it is valid) is not something that can be understood a priori. It takes a certain amount of intellectual understanding or, alternatively, an actual lived experience for people to sincerely get on board with it. We can condemn racists all we want because the evidence is overwhelming that racial discrimination or hatred is completely unjustified. So overwhelming, in fact, that we wouldn’t even call it ‘evidence,’ just ‘reality.’ You could also be a non-racist person simply by being a chill, non-judgmental person and not jumping to conclusions about other people.
By contrast, someone can have 100,000 positive interactions with trans people and still not necessarily be convinced that they are what they say they are, because they just don’t understand how a biological male can be a woman and vice versa. Moreover, in order to not be transphobic, that person has to actively participate in what they believe is a comforting lie by referring to them by their chosen pronouns/label – something a transphobe is less likely to do than the passive tolerance a racist or homophobe might afford a PoC/gay person.
Additionally, making society a place of acceptance for trans people is logistically much more complicated than just saying: ‘Trans women are women, trans men are men.’ There’s issues such as trans women in sports, puberty blockers, detransitioners, age limits, disclosure of trans status to sexual partners, transmedicalism vs self-identification, and so on. And finally – and I know people are gonna fucking hate this one – there is the very real problem of distinguishing genuine trans people from the mentally ill people/misguided teens/trenders/attention seekers/sex offenders presenting themselves as (if not really being) trans and attempting to hijack the movement.
None of this excuses Chapelle or Gervais, who have quite clearly put no thought into any of these issues despite making trans people the focal point of their acts. But the reason they is able to find an audience for this shit, which is also the reason Netflix don’t really care about the fallout from hosting them, is because people don’t understand trans issues, and reject trans ideology because of their lack of understanding.
And what makes this problem 1000 times worse is that the online left’s collective response has been to dismiss the numerous, valid concerns that some people have about the movement in a way that further muddies the waters. If any of the above-mentioned issues are brought up, it’s labelled as transphobia (weirdly, the phrase ‘virulent transphobia,’ as in this article, always seems to be used), and it’s always framed in terms of causing harm/violence/damage to vulnerable people. The left presents the issue as not just being settled, but obviously so. It unquestioningly validates and legitimises everyone who identifies as trans, from 4-year-olds to confused adolescents to terminally online weirdos who identify their gender as moon/autism/cat and whose pronouns are ‘meow/meowself.’ It’s answer to any anti-trans narrative is to loudly repeat ‘TWAWTMAM’ as though this is an ontological fact, which it isn’t.
Here’s the better way to do it: ‘To make our society more inclusive, we should expand the category of men/women to include two groups: cis men/women and trans men/women. Both groups can thus be referred to and treated as just ‘men/women’ whenever it’s possible to do so, although yeah, there might be certain times – such as with sports – where the biological distinction takes precedence.’ Explain that trans people and genderqueer people have existed throughout history (though leave that whole ‘indigenous third-gender/two spirit’ stuff at home), that a lack of acceptance has never ‘cured’ someone of being trans, that if it is a ‘delusion’ then it is a pretty exceptional one in that its effects are lessened by being reinforced. Accept the fact that some individual assessment/gatekeeping may be required, that someone’s stated gender identity can be explored, investigated, and even challenged a little instead of being endlessly affirmed and reinforced, to help weed out the future detransitioners and crazies. Doing this won’t end transphobia but it will take a decent chunk out of Chapelle’s audience.
Geez, thanks for laying all that out. Really *really* appreciate nuance on this thing, as opposed to the typical internet daily helping of shouting.
I have a ton of trans and non-binary friends in my community. Happy to call them whatever feels right to them, and also don’t want to just insist that everyone alienated by the term “people who can get pregnant” is a TERF. It feels idiotic to chase away every possible ally and supporter who has a question.
Also, I’m guessing you’ve posted this elsewhere and it’s a paste, because it’s so long and this site’s commentariat is so tiny. If it’s like a blog thing, post a link. It’s good stuff and I’d like to read more of what/how you think.
(God, I hope you didn’t write something that long just for the benefit of the Kinjaverse!).
Okay. All love <3
Thanks! Appreciate the kind words. And yeah, there definitely needs to be some room to let people get to grips with it all.
(God, I hope you didn’t write something that long just for the benefit of the Kinjaverse!).Sadly
I did lol. No blog or anything, just a lot of effortposts on here (this
actually dovetails nicely with another thread on this comment
section…) Definitely a smaller community, but on the other hand it
means it’s less of a problem if I get something horribly wrong.
To be fair, online responses in general are filled with so many trolls that just want to cause chaos that it is difficult to determine valid criticism and people who are commenting in good faith. That isn’t even touching the people who are just arguing because they’ve been convinced that there is an ongoing social war against their specific demographic and that everything is against them.
Chapelle’s audience won’t lose a decent chunk because we’re living in an age of nostalgia. Even though his act is almost archaic at this point, he attained enough fame in the 2000s that people will back whatever he says. We’re also at a point where anyone remotely famous being criticized will get them support as long as they claim that they’re being canceled.
To be fair, online responses in general are filled with so many trolls that just want to cause chaos that it is difficult to determine valid criticism and people who are commenting in good faith.Absolutely, 100%. But I think regardless of motivation, online TRA spaces have fallen victim to this in a particularly bad way. The good faith actors quite understandably want to support trans people who might be suffering IRL, and thus are reluctant to gatekeep/question someone’s identity, but the result is that bad faith actors or the other groups I mentioned have a disproportionate sway over the general discourse, since others are reluctant to call them out (if certain posters are to be believed, this is what started the legendary ‘truscum vs tucute’ tumblr wars, which has massively affected the way trans discourse is handled online). And because of trans people’s general vulnerability, anything that seems to approach transphobia is treated with the utmost vitriol – like, JK Rowling’s transphobia has definitely gotten worse over time, but it really did not take much for the first death threat to arrive.I think your assessment of Chapelle is a little off. His career will survive, it’s true, but someone who’s informed/aware of these issues and on board with the validity of trans identity is going to notice the hollowness to this routine. Right now there’s a demand for his trans material and for other bRaVe TrUtH-tElLeRs to TeLl It LiKe iT iS. Educating the wider populace can put a dent in that demand.
“ the very real problem of distinguishing genuine trans people from the mentally ill people/misguided teens/trenders/attention seekers/sex offenders presenting themselves as (if not really being) trans and attempting to hijack the movement.”Citation needed
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/are-sex-offenders-exploiting-trans-rights-policies-behind-bars-https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/07/when-a-child-says-shes-trans/561749/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6327300/(I should clarify that ‘hijack the movement’ does not/should not really apply to misguided teens)
1. First of all, that link doesn’t work. Even if I take the link as true, sex offenders allegedly exploiting the system in prison is such a vanishingly small percentage of folks it doesn’t even begin to support your argument2. Jesse Singal is a well known transphobe3. This article mentions that more people are being referred for gender identity disorder. It’s a letter referring to another article and does not include the reply from the original authors regarding the data.
1. It does work but even if not, you have the publication and title, Google it. And the article mentions that roughly 60% of all biologically male, female-identifying (to be clear, not legally-recognized trans) convicts in the UK prison system are there for sexual offenses compared to 18% of the cis male population. So yeah, it does support my argument. Anecdotally, too, I’ve heard from a social worker friend of mine that it’s relatively common for sex offenders to claim trans status post-conviction, possibly because it’s perceived as a means of dealing with their own guilt/societal stigma.
2. Jesse Singal is labelled a transphobe in large part because of the article I linked. If you read that article, and think it justifies the ‘transphobe’ label – regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with it – then you are basically proving the point I made in my OP. https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/glaad-took-false-previously-disproven3. The article refers to the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service whose number of annual referrals went from double digits to over 2000 over a period of ten years. This is pretty well known and if you Google it you’ll find plenty of sources to back that up.Keep in mind, here, that I’m not trying to argue against the validity of trans identity. I am arguing that there is a subsection of people trying to glom onto the movement, for whatever reason, and that this is problematic when the ostensible philosophy of many TRAs is that self-identification as trans = trans and that any mention of any of these issues is transphobic and must be condemned.
1. I found it. It on no way shape or form, supports your pearl clutching, false scare-mongering thesis that “mentally ill people/misguided teens/trenders/attention seekers/sex offenders presenting themselves as (if not really being) trans and attempting to hijack the movement” What it does say, which supports my argument, is that is it a vanishingly small percentage of folks (146 people!) that it doen’t even begin to support your argument. Plus, he’s comparint that those scant 146 folk have a sexual offence somewhere in their conviction history (we don’t know what they are, but we do know that trans folks are often targeted for being charged with sex crimes), against what the general male population is charged sith currently, not ever in the past. So his statitics are bunk. Plus, that guy is a well known Rowling supporter.2. Jesse Singal is labeled a transphobe because he is a transphobe. Here’s a round up from https://www.transgendermap.com/politics/media/jesse-singal/critics/ of which I quote a vanishingly small part of the very thorough recoginition of his tranphobia ans how it underlies a lot of the anti-trans legislation, such as Texas’ devastating attack on trans children. Jesse Singal s best known for his work critical of progressive movements that benefit transgender people. Below is a representative sample of criticism about his work and tactics, which stands in stark contrast to praise from his mostly conservative and often transphobic supporters.Columbia Journalism ReviewAlexandria Neason cited Singal’s trans coverage as an example where “the entire gist of an article is off even though every single fact is right.”Controversial stories like Jesse Singal’s cover story for The Atlantic, on how parents of transgender teens approach their desire to personally or medically transition, come to mind. The story was fact checked, but according to many readers, journalists, and activists in the trans community, was transphobic—and all wrong. The difference between fact and truth is yet another example of why newsrooms, and publishing houses, desperately need to invest in employing and representing diverse writers, editors, agents, and fact checkers alike.Columbia Journalism Review, 2019The ObjectiveIn 2020, in response to an open letter signed by Singal in Harper’s Magazine, a group of 150 journalists and public intellectuals described his work thus:Jesse Singal, another signer, is a cis man infamous for advancing his career by writing derogatorily about trans issues. In 2018, Singal had a cover story in The Atlantic expressing skepticism about the benefits of gender-affirming care for trans youth. No trans writer has been afforded the same space. Singal often faces and dismisses criticism from trans people, but he has a much larger platform than any trans journalist. In fact, a 2018 Jezebel report found that Singal was part of a closed Google listserv of more than 400 left-leaning media elites who praised his work, with not a single out trans person in the group. He also has an antagonistic history with trans journalists, academics, and other writers, dedicating many Medium posts to attempting to refute or discredit their claims and reputations.Harvard Law ReviewIn April 2021, Harvard Law Review cited Singal’s Atlantic piece as an example of “desistance” claims used to support anti-transgender legislation. Singal’s work had been previously cited favorably by a consortium of conservative attorneys general seeking to curtail trans health services. Passages in bold cite Singal.The argument that trans youth should not receive gender-affirming medical care must be vigorously discredited on its own terms as a fallacious rationalization of ingrained prejudices that contradicts both empirical data and the experiences of thousands of children. For one thing, the bills’ central justification, that trans youth lack the capacity for self-reflection necessary to accurately perceive their gender identities,is flatly untrue. Trans youth are quite secure in their gender identities by the time hormonal interventions become physiologically appropriate. A related claim, that trans youth should have to wait until adulthood to transition because many young children who display gender nonconforming behavior “desist,” or do not grow up to be transgender, has questionable empirical support and, more fundamentally, equivocates gender expression with gender identity. There is a meaningful difference between a child who exhibits gender-atypical behavior and a child who persistently identifies as another gender, and the fact that the former child may not be transgender does nothing to invalidate the latter child’s entitlement to access medically necessary gender-affirming care. And gender nonconforming children who later “desist” from expressing the binary gender opposite to their assigned sex may not necessarily identify as cisgender; they may be nonbinary or possess another gender identity. Presuming that all of these persons are cisgender thus erases nonbinary experiences. Second, the implied premise that trans youth have unilateral control over whether and when they transition is empirically untrue because the current standards of care recommend both parental consent and a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria before a minor can receive puberty blockers or HRT. This “gatekeeping” model, far from uncritically acceding to trans youths’ wishes, privileges caution and deliberation over ease of access. Finally, even if one accepts that a certain number of cisgender youth will mistakenly transition if gender-affirming healthcare is available (which is itself a dubious proposition), that number is likely dwarfed by the number of trans youth who will suffer the opposite, equivalent harm — being unable to transition even though transition is right for them — if gender-affirming healthcare is not available.Jules Gill-PetersonJules Gill-Peterson is an American historian and author of Histories of the Transgender Child. Gill-Peterson wrote a 2021 piece for The New Inquiry placing Singal’s work in historic context.The appeal to free speech in anti-trans punditry is hardly novel, but I have become interested in the intensely-avowed emotional attachment to liberalism in this genre of complaint. Singal, Shrier, Weiss, Greenwald, and Sullivan each register their complaints against what they frame as an illiberal trans opponent who has attacked not the truth-value of their work, but more importantly their good reputation. This affective attachment is all the more interesting because it is so frequently accompanied by the suggestion that a lawsuit would be justified to secure their liberty against irrational critics. What strikes me is not so much the appeal itself but its appearance within a much wider illiberal field of anti-trans discourse that these figures claim not to endorse. The emotional attachment to liberalism is an effective method of distancing from what these pundits can then hold proximate to their platforms without being held culpable: a small army of internet accounts that spring into action around them. Robyn KannerRobyn Kanner is an American marketing executive and designer who wrote a response to Singal’s Atlantic piece. She wrote, “Singal is attempting to provide hope to parents that their child who says they’re trans might not be. He leaves enough doubt for you to consider gatekeeping your child’s identity. This is irresponsible.”M.K. AndersonM.K. Anderson is an American writer. In a 2022 Protean piece, Anderson describes Singal’s pattern of behavior:First, he is critiqued by trans people or allies. He misrepresents their positions to incite backlash online, or simply screenshots or quote tweets them to direct harassment their way. Trans writer Emily VanDerWerff said her experience with being misrepresented and harassed included “death threats, rape threats, invitations to commit suicide, [and] constant misgendering.” Singal contacts critics, threatening to sue. He contacts their employers. He sends them abusive emails. When someone reports a fact about him that he finds unflattering or releases a critique he doesn’t like, he frivolously threatens to sue and demands publications issue corrections—then howls about not getting them on Twitter. At this point, it’s a little bit of a joke on trans Twitter that every trans writer or academic, no matter how minor, is eventually subject to a Singal meltdown and volley of threats.Singal’s first major foray into transphobia was his defense of fired sexologist Kenneth Zucker. Anderson notes:Yet Singal seems intent on rehabilitating Zucker’s reputation. His 2016 article for The Cut is transparently sympathetic to Zucker’s point of view, written in a tone indignant at Zucker’s implicitly unfair firing. It adopts a strange framing: it insists that the claim that Zucker’s practices were tantamount to conversion therapy is merely the work of “activists” who were out to smear Zucker and had “tarred” the GIC clinic for its “cautious” stance. (Singal dismissively and disdainfully refers to sources that contradict his narrative as “activists”—i.e., ideologues. Doing so allows him to discount and dismiss contradictory expertise.)[…]This appearance of good faith and benevolence masks Singal’s transphobic underlying logic, which is much more subtle than the flagrant bigotry on regular display on the right. He hedges his claims and imbues his narratives with the appearance of rational debate, obscuring problematic premises and logical contortions. He maintains, as Gorcenski puts it, “a facade of being outwardly supporting of trans rights.” His sleights-of-hand are therefore that much more palatable to a wider audience, appearing reasonable to the liberal conscience.They also appear reasonable to the reactionary conscience. Singal’s apologia for Zucker was an early manifestation of his fascination with the “problem” of trans children and their bodies. That perceived “problem” is what actual anti-trans legislation is aimed at “correcting,” as seen in the Abbott memo and elsewhere. 3. More people seeking care does not support your scare-mongering at all. More care is available, more people feel comfortable getting treatment, and more parents are interested in supporting their children. It is truly scare-mongering of the highest order to assume that higher number are because of the bogeymen you raise in your screed.
First of all, great job there with the formatting of that post, you really made it clear and easy on the eyes. Bravo.Now let’s look at your rebuttals.
Response 1) is to say: ‘It’s a small number no biggie.’Response 2) is a collection of quotations asserting that Singal is transphobic, not a single one of which refutes any part of the article I cited.
Response 3) is to say: ‘It’s fine and it’s good thing.’And, of course, all this is delivered with a healthy dose of vitriol: ‘Scare-mongering!’ ‘Pearl-clutching!’ ‘Screed-writing!’ as though I am personally trying to instigate trans panic, contrary to the explicit message and overall thrust of everything I’ve written.So here’s what I want you to do: go back and re-read my OP. Do it really slowly, so it all sinks in and you understand it in its totality. And while you’re doing that, ask yourself two very important questions:1) Am I actually refuting the OP’s argument, or am I refuting what I imagine his argument to be because I didn’t actually bother to read it through the first time round?2) Could certain parts of my crowing, condemnatory, self-satisfied response in fact be demonstrative of the problem the OP is attempting to elucidate?
Once you’ve demonstrated that you actually understand what my point is, instead of responding to me like the entire goal of my OP was to talk about sex offenders and push Jesse Singal articles, then maybe we can have a conversation. Until then… fuck off.
I thoroughly read your verbal diarrhea, thank for being super patronizing. And you, a person who refused to post a working link, can blame kinja for the formatting. I take issue with it’s core argument which I quote:“the very real problem of distinguishing genuine trans people from the mentally ill people/misguided teens/trenders/attention seekers/sex offenders presenting themselves as (if not really being) trans and attempting to hijack the movement.”Which has no basis in fact. Your citations are either shit, inaccurate, don’t support your conjecture, or are some combination of that. You have supplied literally not a shred of evidence to support your contention. And it’s an important one. It’s literally the type of fear mongering that transphobes like Rowling use (it also strongly parallels a lot of anti-abortion arguments). It’s the type of rhetoric Texas has been using to justify its abusive laws against trans children. And yes, I use “fear-mongering” and “pearl-clutching” because that’s what it is. If water is wet, I’m going to call it wet.So maybe you can actually educate yourself on how what you wrote was both wildly inaccurate and very much part of the transphobic rhetoric that is currently being used in multiple legislation attempts across the country before posting bad takes on the internet.(And honestly, no one here is more self-satisfied than you.)
I take issue with it’s core argument which I quote:“the very real problem of distinguishing genuine
… And there we have it. If you think that one sentence is the ‘core argument’ of what I wrote then you are incapable of having this discussion. You are missing the forest for the one tree you keep walking face-first into, you have completely missed the point of why I said it and what context I was putting it into. Learn to read buddy. Have a nice day.
You’re clearly not capable of defending the inaccuracies in your screed. I specifically asked you about what I had issues with and you utterly failed to defend it. Rather than admit you were wrong and that you were parroting very bad faith arguments from the transphobe crowd, you have doubled down and obfuscated. If you still believe that “the very real problem of distinguishing genuine trans people from the mentally ill people/misguided teens/trenders/attention seekers/sex offenders presenting themselves as (if not really being) trans and attempting to hijack the movement” is a real thing, then you are the one who lacks comprehension. Learn the facts and stop scare-mongering with lies. Have a nice day.
The first link is the spectator, which is about the most far right mainstream magazine in the UK. They employ people like Rod Liddle, who is an out paedophile (writes in that magazine he couldn’t be a teacher because he couldn’t stop himself raping kids) and publish articles with titles such as ‘In praise of Wehrmacht’
Yeah, and I’ve realized that based on other articlea, the authro is just a huuuuuge transphobe. So two of the alleged citation are from out-and-out bigots (Singal has been so thoroughly discredited it’s embarrassing), and the last is just saying that more people are seeking care in transitioning.
Wait, why are we leaving that “indigenous [sic] third-gender/two spirit stuff at home?” Why are we leaving non-binary people out of the conversation entirely? Just because it’s hard?Sorry, you’re framing your comment as being thoughtful and inclusive but drawing hard lines that leave whole groups, STILL, out of being acknowledged as existing – possibly because it’s hard for normies to understand, or maybe just because they’re hard for you to understand. Many cultures have identified third genders, and the fact that Indigenous folks from these continents had a lot of their base cultural knowledge (in the form of knowledge keepers etc.) murdered and therefore don’t have a strong historical foundation to defend the existence of those genders doesn’t mean they didn’t and don’t exist. They get to define and redefine them in the present day.Honestly, while I agree that it’s hard to have exploratory conversations about the limits of trans identities when some of those nuances and explorations genuinely hurt people, I think you’re dramatically overestimating the number of people who “endlessly affirm” trans identities.
First of all: Fuck off with the snark and the condescension. My post was extremely long, detailed and nuanced – especially by AV Club standards – and the fact that I didn’t add multiple paragraphs discussing NB issues does not equate to me erasing their identity or drawing ‘hard lines’, especially when they’re not the focus of Chapelle’s or Gervais’ attacks.You have drilled down hard onto a single sentence from my OP (which I will admit was unclear) and used your own uncharitable interpretation of it to paint me as enbyphobic. So, thanks for proving my point about how difficult it is to discuss these issues.
I’m going to address the first line of your comment – which is valid – and ignore the rest.
Wait, why are we leaving that “indigenous [sic] third-gender/two spirit stuff at home?”1. ‘Two spirit’ seems sort of like the Native American equivalent to ‘Latinx’: it’s a term that was coined in the Anglosphere (albeit by Natives) and transplanted clumsily onto another culture, where it has not received a particularly welcome reception. AFAIK, a lot of tribes have taken issue with its use. There’s also questions about the way in which it attempts to distinguish Native third-genders from other ones but in doing so paints all Native tribes as a monolith, at which point, it seems, you might as well just refer to them all as ‘genderqueer.’2. One can sense a certain overeagerness on the part of activists to label anything and everything as an ‘nth gender’ when looking at some of the examples they provide. If I identify as a femboy with he/him pronouns you’re not necessarily going to call me trans or NB. By the same standard, I don’t think it’s accurate to assume that terms like the Cree napêw iskwêwisêhot: ‘Man who dresses as a woman’ or the Lakota wíŋkte: “Want to be like a woman” denote a third gender either. In fact, the literal meaning of these terms would seem to suggest the opposite. And that’s before we get onto some of the other (non-NA) terms which are outright derogatory.
3. Even in cases where we can be sure that there’s a legit ‘third gender’ in there, there’s a question as to what exactly this represents – partly because our modern/Western concepts of gender do not necessarily map neatly onto their concepts, and partly because historical technological limitations prohibited medical transitioning. What would these people be if they had access to modern surgical methods? Would they undergo medical transition, or just socially transition? Would they be trans, or non-binary, or genderfluid? Or even just gay?
4. All this is to say that while these identities serve as great examples of the general validity and cross-culturality of queer/genderqueer identity, they work less well as evidence that our culture should have extra genders or that non-binary ID is a cross-cultural phenomenon, especially when a whole lot of these terms specifically reference a gender binary (see the examples above). This is why the sentence before the one you quoted says to cite trans/genderqueer people throughout history – I was trying to get at this idea that these work well as general examples but less well in specific, although admittedly I could have phrased it better.
1) You still seem to be saying that two spirit (nizh manitoag), and non-binary identities, identity is invalid, or less valid, than binary trans identity because they are new or don’t have concrete “cross cultural” validity. I am saying that non-binary identity does not have to have deep historical and cross-cultural precedent in order to be a meaningful part of the cultural shift toward accepting that trans people are people, and real.1b) I was responding to this statement, imperfectly: Here’s the better way to do it: ‘To make our society more inclusive, we should expand the category of men/women to include two groups: cis men/women and trans men/women. Both groups can thus be referred to and treated as just ‘men/women’ whenever it’s possible to do so, although yeah, there might be certain times – such as with sports – where the biological distinction takes precedence.’”The one where you explain trans people – make a statement I don’t necessarily agree with about sports but whatever – and don’t mention anything but binary gender, and then explicitly tell people to leave Indigenous identity at home. Which came off super racist and spurred my off the cuff reply. That’s just feedback about that specific statement, not about you as a person.1c) I missed your genderqueer comment, probably because I was so cheesed about the comment immediately preceeding. Sorry.1d) I did not intend to “paint you as enbyphobic,” but was pointing out that your argument about what we should be trying to educate people about excludes non-binary identities (see 1b and 1c) or at least dramatically marginalizes them from the conversation and leaves them far more open to being questioned or “gatekept.” No, I don’t think “meowself” is a pronoun I am socially bound to acknowledge in order to be a decent person. But also, if I thought it was okay to gatekeep other people’s identities based on what makes inherent sense to me I’d still be a harboring a lot more bad ideas. I guess I’m still reactive to the word gatekeeping, because there are so many big questions about who GETS to gatekeep, although I do see what you’re getting at.2) “Tribal” acceptance of a concept is not a crisp way to define its cultural or community validity because tribes are not monolithic. I know it would be nice if we could just get An Answer from marginalized and colonized communities about certain things but we can’t.
3) I don’t know where you found your translations. Maybe you’re Cree! However the problem with translation is that if the concept being described in the other language doesn’t exist, your translation will be deeply imperfect. Even with the root iskwew in there, it doesn’t mean the word has the same connotation as its literal translation. And if it does have the same connotation – if it’s not a slur, it still supports that the culture had some acceptance and concept around a non-binary existence. But this is way too in the weeds for what I am trying to get at.4) I don’t think my post was snarky (I’ll read it again when I’m not late for work and see if I can find the snark), but I do accept the feedback that it was condescending and didn’t acknowledge your fundamental stance of being supportive of trans identities. I’m sorry about that. I was reacting to your dismissive comment re: Indigenous identities. I still think your post leaned into an acceptance and strong messaging around binary trans identities and didn’t do non-binary identities the same justice.5) I’ve been in the AV club comments since literal, actual 2001 and my standards for what counts as nuanced here have never evolved (or rather, devolved). But I responded to your post because unlike shitty troll posts, it seemed worth responding to, especially because it’s likely to influence a lot of decent people’s thinking and therefore what was missing from it matters more to me than what’s missing from trash posts.
6) I meant this comment to be super short! Oh well. You seem super smart so fee l free to tear it apart, I appreciate the response although I’m sorry it came from a reaction to my tone/approach/emotion.
I appreciate the apology. It’s fine, I think we can have a conversation w/out any tearing apart. You seem smart too. And your post touches on some stuff that I have, admittedly, been wrestling with, so maybe you can help me out there.
FWIW, I do a lot of effortposts on here as a lefty who thinks the left needs to do better rhetorically in order to achieve greater societal progress. I expect and can handle pushback on those and will always try and deal with it politely. But there’s always someone who completely ignores the thrust of the post, tries to cherry-pick one of my points and use it paint me as right-wing/racist/whatever. I generally stop being polite when I’m faced with bad-faith types like that. I think with your response, I could understand you taking that sentence poorly (I really didn’t explain it very well) but the ‘Just because it’s hard?’ line and the other one similar to that felt pretty uncharitable. It’s fine though, chalk it up to the limitations of online communication.To the extent that we do disagree – which I think may not be that much – rather than addressing your points one by one I’m gonna try and get to what I think is the crux of the matter and lay my own perspective out there:No, I don’t think “meowself” is a pronoun I am socially bound to acknowledge in order to be a decent person. But also, if I thought it was okay to gatekeep other people’s identities based on what makes inherent sense to me I’d still be a harboring a lot more bad ideas.So, when I talk about ‘validity’ I’m largely referring to the question of being ‘socially bound,’ as you put it. Personally, I would say that any form of identity and expression, gender or otherwise, is absolutely OK as long as it’s not causing harm to that person or anyone else. Thus, a person’s internal sense of gender and external gender expression, no matter what it is, is completely fine by me – be it non-binary, two spirit, trans, cis, whatever. I’d even (tentatively) extend this to the otherkin cat people and the stargenders or whoever.The problem, though, lies in what you allude to in the first part of this quote, which is: ‘Are we (as in, society at large) socially obligated to validate this aspect of a person’s identity?’ When I talk about ‘validity’ in my last two posts, I’m referring specifically to this question – not the person’s internal sense of self, which I almost certainly wouldn’t attempt to gatekeep, but the requirement that society handle it a certain way. With trans people, what this refers to more specifically is: Do we use their pronouns? Do we use their desired labels (e.g. male/female/non-binary)? Do we treat them differently in social spaces and interactions (e.g. locker rooms, sports, prisons, and all that)?
But the question that underpins all this is: ‘Under what circumstances are we (society at large) socially obligated to respond to this aspect of this person’s identity?’So, right here I’ll admit: the reason why you might have detected some reluctance to discuss NB issues in my post is because I believe I have a very good answer to this when it comes to trans men/women; one that strikes a pretty groovy middle ground between the excess gatekeeping of transmedicalism and the anything-goes of self-identification. But, it works less well when it comes to non-binary/gender neutral people. So if you feel like my post gave short shrift to NBs, that might be why. To be clear, this doesn’t affect how I personally view them – I still respect their internal sense of self, I’d still address them as they/them etc. – but it does mean that when it comes to arguing for trans rights against conservatives and normies (which is what I was primarily talking about in my OP) I don’t have it all quite so logically reasoned out. That’s all. Getting into this would be at least a whole other post, but I wouldn’t mind doing so if it afforded me the chance to refine my position.But the part of this question that relates to our current discussion is this: Given that gender is a spectrum, to what extent can we justify adding a third category? Can someone even exist outside that spectrum? Or, alternatively, be so in-the-middle that neither one serves as an adequate descriptor? Or, alternatively, be in both categories at once? Should we do that, given that the gender binary works for over 99% of people?
And the only point that I was trying to make wrt third genders and two spirits is that, unfortunately, we can’t point to them as evidence that helps us to answer these questions a certain way, for all the reasons I mentioned in my previous post. So while the Cree may have had a class of people they referred to as ‘Men dressed as women’ this doesn’t mean they were treated as a distinct gender in the way that modern NB people want to be treated; nor does it mean they were given their own distinct pronoun/grammatical gender the way modern NB people are; and this doesn’t mean that they were seen as being somehow apart from or outside of the gender binary, or whatever the Cree equivalent is to that. Even though – as we both seem to agree – they do serve as good evidence that NB identities, genderqueerness and trans identities are not just a product of sick modern libcuck feminazis pushing a radical gender ideology onto hard-working Christian families and their children. Does all that make sense?In case there’s anything left unanswered/unclear, I’ll address a few stray points:I am saying that non-binary identity does not have to have deep historical and cross-cultural precedent in order to be a meaningful part of the cultural shift toward accepting that trans people are people, and real.I would agree, which is why I’m reluctant to use this argument for it at all if it doesn’t really work as evidence.tell people to leave Indigenous identity at home. Which came off super racist and spurred my off the cuff reply.Ah, I see what you’re seeing. No, that absolutely wasn’t my intention, though I can see why you’d think that and it’s my fault for phrasing it badly. My apologies. Regardless of how I fucked the phrasing of that part, I guarantee there was no intent to be dismissive of either non-binary people or indigenous cultures – only to stick to what I’d logically reasoned out.
“Tribal” acceptance of a concept is not a crisp way to define its cultural or community validity because tribes are not monolithic.I know, but then that’s all the more reason not to use it as evidence in an argument, right?I don’t know where you found your translations. Maybe you’re Cree! Wiki, and no.
However the problem with translation is that if the concept being described in the other language doesn’t exist, your translation will be deeply imperfect.But, again, that’s my point. As evidence that genderqueer people have existed for ages? Sure. As evidence that a culture specifically had a ‘third gender’ in the sense that we’re using it? Not so much.
I feel bad leaving this hanging for so long! I don’t have a super crisp response, of course.I think you’re looking for a really reasonable, basic soundbite type encapsulation of non-binary identity to argue with people who are not very open to trans and non-binary identities. I don’t really think that exists – but I think that identifying that gender has been understood differently, or carved out a bit of space for those who understand their gender differently from their biological sex, in different cultures and different historical periods, and providing examples of that is an important way of helping people understand that man/woman binary is not, either biologically or socially, the only and exclusive way of understanding gender.I shouldn’t have used the term “third gender,” this was what I am sure is now a much-maligned concept that I picked up in an anthro class a long time ago. There are so many identifications of gender that to lump them all into a third doesn’t make a ton of sense and could feasibly end up being about as restrictive as a binary gender concept is. I think that when we have discussions about gender with people who are committed to a binary interpretation, the most important piece is to make room for some fluidity in how people understand their gender, and that a traditional understanding of masculinity and femininity just doesn’t feel right for everyone and in some cases feels completely disconnected from their internal sense of their gender identity. We don’t know how exactly our culture will come to settle with gender or how non-binary folks fifty years from now will understand and conceptualize their identities compared to today, so the best thing a wider society can do is loosen the reins a little bit and make room for this conversation.I think you could also lean into your idea that “the binary works for over 99% of people” – I would suggest that most people have, at one time or another, found the gender expectations they live under to be a constraint in how they live their lives. We have been actively working to change our vision of femininity to include a wider human experience and, to an extent, to de-center motherhood as its defining characteristic. We’re seeing more work to redefine masculinity to include a broader range of coping skills and revalue parenting. Most people have probably felt some benefit from those changes in their lives – if only in the form of a freedom to choose how much value they place on one part of their life or another – and that can be a place to build some empathy. If your grandfather or great-grandfather committed suicide or was only capable of expressing themselves to their family through violence, and you have had more options for connection and mental health care in your life, maybe taking a second look at gender isn’t the end of the world. If your grandmother or your great-grandmother’s life was profoundly constrained by femininity and our redefining of that gender role was able to create a very different, and more positive, life experience for you, maybe it’s worth listening to the experiences of non-binary people and trans folks who do identify with a binary gender to understand more about how our current gender constraints impact them. It’s highly doubtful that listening is going to completely destroy dominant parenting roles (hasn’t happened yet!) or other things that people feel really passionate about, so even though there are some people who are going to feel like this conversation has the potential to be destabilizing, it’s important to reinforce that it also has the potential to create a more balanced understanding of gender norms and therefore the potential to create improvement in everyone’s lives, not just those of trans and non-binary people.It could impact things like sports, I guess, and I would probably try to sidestep that part of the debate because I likely have different opinions than most people about the male/female sports ranking situation even before we bring transness into it. Also I don’t care about sports and don’t understand why people think determining who’s empirically the best at throwing rocks is so important. I feel like we can appreciate athleticism and a great athlete without getting into the finest levels of comparison about it, but I know I’m a minority there.
As for things like prisons – I fully believe that tackling the carceral system in this benighted fucking country is a big social priority and if you can deal with overcrowding, failure to rehabilitate, and general safety from rape in prisons then wow, the gender mess will be 80% taken care of. I absolutely wouldn’t argue for adding special facilities for trans and non-binary folks, I would advocate for reducing prison populations, eliminating for-profit prisons, and creating livable spaces for rehabilitation. That doesn’t help trans and non-binary people in the prison system right now, but I frankly don’t think anything will until those fundamental issues are dealt with (though if there are potential supportive stopgap measures out there I’m happy to learn more about them).The gym? I don’t know, man, figuring out unisex bathrooms wasn’t that hard (pushback aside). I feel like having a more private changing area somewhere would be a relatively simple-to-implement fix. Basically I feel like if someone got really hung up on this in an argument about trans rights it would be fair to call it a red herring. Yes, same-gender spaces like gyms, bathhouses, saunas etc. have some significant history behind them, and no, we don’t have to turf them immediately, but we do have to make room for spaces that create some safety for those who don’t fit neatly into those categories or who do, but don’t find those spaces especially safe. Like women’s music festivals, I feel like opening up these spaces could create some TERF-y backlash from people who just want to hang out with those who have similar experiences of their gender and I guess I just want to remind those people that they can still have a girls’/boys’ weekend somewhere. It’s fine to want to spend time with people who get certain aspects of your experience, but public spaces do need to be for everyone.
Yeah but is bullying cool all the sudden? When did that happen.
I get what you’re saying but harassment still isn’t an “opinion”. It’s hateful and wrong.
I’m 100% in agreement.
It only takes all this effort if you want it to take that much effort. If someone comes up to me and says “my name is Joe” then the only effect on my life is that I have to remember their name is Joe.Its easy. It has no appreciable impact on my life. If someone comes up to me and tells me they are a man, woman, nonbinary or any other gender identity, all I have to do is remember what they want to be called. Its easy. There is no major change to my life, but it is exceptionally important to that person. Something that is easy for me to do and causes no real change but also makes someone happy should be something I do as a matter of course. Being kind should not be a burden or require any existential angst on my part.
What I don’t understand is paying for and sitting in a show that you know is featuring someone who knows nothing about the topic and talking about things that themselves don’t relate to them but still thinking you’ll get the best comedic experience from that person.
The best jokes come from personal experience with embellishments. Is Dave experiencing being Transsexual or something? Am I missing where he’s lived the life and can speak from this? It’s very strange to talk about the same topic over and over when you have no basis.
I’m a cis male, and I will watch specials by Sam Jay, Tig Notaro, Fortune Femster, Wanda Sykes. Great comedians. They pour their heart out in their sets exposing biases and personal human quirks. Where is Dave’s heart in all of this? Where’s he coming from? Where’s he going with all of this? He is showing the wrong kind of fragility and and intolerance and it’s not funny.
i mean, he had a really long bit in one of his shows (maybe this one? maybe the one before?) about a trans woman comic who was a big fan of his and who opened for him and who defended him and was hounded unmercifully for it until she killed herself.
good point. chappelle brought powerful, incisive viewpoints and comedic talent to material that related to his life as a black man in a racist af country.it’s not that he can’t talk about other experiences, but also strikes me as very strange that he keeps talking about trans people.
Honest question, beyond all the transphobia, did anyone actually find it funny? I thought it was far removed from Chappelles good stand up specials.
I watched it, and I only laughed once (and it wasn’t a particularly big laugh at that):It was the gag where Chappelle meets a guy on the street who’s like, “They’re after you!”, and Chappelle asks if it’s a singular they or a plural they.A trans joke that doesn’t dehumanize anyone! Whoda thunk?The Closer doesn’t really work because it’s one of those “speaking-truth-to-power” comedy-specials, except instead of “truth” it’s “lightly-transphobic BS” and instead of “power” it’s “random trans people who use Twitter”. So it’s just like… What’s even the point?
Yeah I couldn’t agree more. Even if we set aside the transphobia and I’m not really sure that’s possible, its just not funny. Yet he thinks this was the second coming of Richard Pryor.
Just because Chappelle hasn’t been removed from Netflix and other platforms doesn’t mean there isn’t an effort to do so. I think it’s intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise. It’s kind of like Trumpers saying “there was no insurrection on Jan. 6″ because it didn’t succeed. Netflix employees who struck demanded he be removed. An individual also attacked Chappelle physically (perhaps with intent to kill him). It also doesn’t mean that many others with far less money than Chappelle haven’t been “canceled” over speech – comedians, professors, writers. We just experienced a wave of cancelations of Russian artists based solely on their ethnicity.Just puritan free speech reformers looking to take away a brother’s livelihood. If this were 1990 you’d be going after 2 Live Crew and NWA.
Fuck off.(Is this directed at Dave Chappelle for being transpobic, or The AV Club for harnessing his transphobia as an easy generator for endless content?
Yes.)
yeah, for as much as they pretend to be exhausted by HAVING to talk about this asshole some more, you can just tell that they’re salivating at the thought of all those outrage clicks.The AV Club is a long dead website; we’re just picking through the scraps. And articles like this are the only thing that get even a modicum of engagement anymore.
Alt title for article:Despite Efforts, Freedom of Speech Still Intact in America
Subtitle:All Still Not Required to Subscribe to One Way of Thought
Nope. Not even close. He’s not transphobic. He’s not a TERF. He’s not homophobic. He’s not a bigot. Dave Chapelle is a mainstream person with all sorts of friends, none of whom would dump him because he loves them all. You are all being totally ridiculous.
So stamping your feet screaming NO NO NO is your explanation. A+.
He specifically said “I’m Team TERF” that is literally as explicitly TERF as you can be
im also team terf.now nothing ive ever said or did would make you think that, but i did say it, so it has to be true.
Why would you say “I consider myself part of a group of people that works to actively limit the civil rights of trans people” if you weren’t that?
to make someone laugh and forget their own problems for a night
Is Dave Chapelle the only comedian you’ve ever seen or heard? Because there are lots and lots and lots of very funny people who manage to do entire standup routines without once saying using “I agree with bigots trying to subjugate a marginalized group of people” as the premise of at least one section of every special they do.
Imagine, just for a second, that the problem someone is trying to escape for a night is “People think that, because I’m a trans woman, I’m a sexual deviant who can’t be trusted around cis women or children.”
ive seen many and a lot had similar jokes.
Oh, no question, there are lots of bigoted, hack comedians recycling a lot of the same, tired premises. You can go to any “Chuckle Hut” on a Tuesday night and hear some shitty comic trying to be the next Andrew Dice Clay or Howard Stern. I guess my question is, should someone making millions and millions of dollars for doing dated, hacky, bigoted material really deserve to be regarded as some sort of free speech hero?
Is this a “you people” comment?
I don’t see those words in atlas’s post. Or is the meaning of punctuation changing “too”?
Okay so how did he undermine this? What did he say to subvert that?
Correct! If you exclude any ironic interpretation of his words. People always mean exactly what they say and permanently so.
Chappelle hasn’t been funny since Bush was president
Nobody should want an Emmy.
The awards lost all credibility the day they gave one to Andrew Cuomo.
If we’re canceling people who have said or done something wrong, then we should cancel your mom.
Chapelle and Gervais will not abide by people telling them what they can or cannot say. They refuse to be cowed or shut up by people attempting to cancel them. You have the right to complain because you are offended by what they say, but I think what angers most of the “woke mob” is that they can’t snap their fingers and make them stop saying what they want. I respect the comedians for that. I also respect that trans identity is valid. I have trans friends and family. Some of whom actually watch and can laugh because they recognize that these guys are telling jokes. Others of whom don’t watch because they can’t laugh and find their take on trans people offensive. The “woke mob” can try all they like but they will never stamp out offense. Nor should they be able to. Life is diverse and people are going to disagree with each other, make jokes, argue. If you can’t deal with that, you’re going to have a long, difficult time of it for the rest of your life.