|
Gender Centre >>
Resources >> Magazine >> Polare Archive >>
Polare 62 >> Article 3
A Review of the "Coming Out" Episode of the Simpsons
There's Something about the
American Gay Marriage Industry and it Isn't Something Favourable for
Transgendered People, by Katrina C. Rose
I have no idea whether Mianne Bagger was offended by the recent gay
marriage episode of The Simpsons.
After all, I don't know her personally. And, odds aren't the best I'll
cross paths with her. Why? I'm not a golf gal.
But, I am a woman who happens to be transsexual - one who also happens
to be extremely disturbed by "There's Something About Marrying." And,
I'm even more disturbed (though, sadly, not all that surprised) at the
willingness of the official American gay establishment to overlook the
highly problematic trans-inferences in the episode - a willingness to
overlook in order to lavishly praise.
Why might there be such a willingness to overlook?
Well, in current American gay rights orthodoxy, if something is
pro-gay marriage, it cannot be criticized even if it is harmful to
other sexual minorities - even sexual minorities for which those
organizations comprising the official gay rights industry claim to
speak right along with gays and lesbians of the non-visibly queer
variety.
Looking for any real analysis of how transsexuals have paid the price
for the continuing push for same-sex marriage? Don't look to the
organizations that are pushing same-sex marriage.
Looking for any real analysis of "There's Something About Marrying"?
Ditto.
For that reason, I now offer my analysis of it (which, admittedly,
begins with some of the plainly obvious - and non-controversial.)
As the episode began, it wouldn't have seemed that there would be
anything for a transsexual woman to criticize. Through a chain
reaction series of events, set in motion by Bart in classic Simpsons
fashion of course (replete with the type of overt visualization that
shouldn't work but always does; here, a stranger literally falling off
of a turnip truck, though I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the
subsequent quasi-cameo by the Creature From the Black Lagoon),
Springfield's tourism trade dies.
And, summoning up that true American spirit of over-opportunism, in
order to re-kindle Springfield tourism a gimmick is turned to:
same-sex marriage. Of course, it had been suggested with the best of
intentions by one of the few people in the town with measurable brain
activity, namely Lisa.
Once gay marriage is legalized by Mayor Gavin Newsom, er., Mayor
Quimby (sorry - easy mistake to make at least here), who ends up
actually doing the marrying? One of the zillions of people in the town
without measurable brain activity, namely Homer.
During the ensuing gay marriage frenzy, one can see a veritable parade
of couples - and here is where the problems begin. One bridal-gowned
couple is shown to be a pair of bearded men.
I'd thought the skag-drag stereotype had died long ago, only living on
in the black hearts of anti-GLBT hatemongers (and perhaps the
occasional Log Cabin Republican mouthpiece.) However, it appears to be
perfectly acceptable not only with the producers of the Simpsons but
also with those who have declared themselves to be the arbiters of all
that is decent and right for GLBT people.
Even at that, the perverse, superliminal invocation of transgender
imagery did not stop with Bearded Brides in Stereo.
Marge's sister Patty approaches Homer about officiating at her wedding
- to a woman.
Now, like most who follow the Simpsons, I've been awaiting who would
be revealed as the character on the show who would be 'coming out'
during the February sweeps period. To some degree, one of Marge's
sisters was too obvious of a choice - yet, after the quasi-frustrating
'Maggie did it' revelation following the 'Who shot Mr. Burns?'
cliffhanger of a decade ago, I'm not going to complain about that.
(Having said that, I must confess that I am still a bit perplexed that
the even-more-obvious candidate, Waylon Smithers, was not in the
episode at all; and I'm also wondering where a semi-throwaway line
from Marge about the ubiquitous Lenny and Carl is ultimately going to
lead.)
So the transgender concern with this?
Patty's honey is Veronica, a pro golfer - not a problem per se, except
that Veronica is not all that she appears to be. Marge stumbles on to
the fact that Veronica is a man - no, not a MTF transsexual (either
pre-op or post-op), but a man - and after some soul-searching as to
whether or not to tell Patty, exposes Veronica (replete with the
ever-popular focus on the adam's apple) at the wedding ceremony, but
before the 'I do's.
In the New York Times, Alessandra Stanley, while deeming the episode
to be "not the funniest in 'Simpsons' history," nevertheless lionized
it as "tonic at a moment when television seems increasingly humorless
and tame - fearful of advertiser boycotts by the religious right and
fines from the Federal Communications Commission."1 The genuflecting
over, fawning at and praising of "There's Something About Marrying" by
the gay marriage industry - media and pure advocacy branches - also
instantaneously reached ridiculous heights.
Or depths. Take your pick.
Brian Moylan, writing in the Southern Voice (one of the Queer Channel
Media chain of allegedly-local publications), wrote: "Though it may
have been a ratings stunt, 'The Simpsons' used nuance, humor and a
dash of stereotyping to deliver one of the most insightful looks at
same-sex marriage to air on primetime television."2 This comment
appeared immediately after addressing the issue of "Patty's beau" by
briefly noting that Veronica was "a man pretending to be a woman so
that he could play professional women's golf."
Can Garry, the head of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD),
declared: "In the middle of an intense national conversation about our
families and our freedom to marry, we're in the business of creating
more dialogue, more visibility, more understanding - and 'The Simpsons'
has done just that."3
Dialogue? Perhaps.
Visibility? Likely.
But understanding? Understanding of gay marriage, but of what else?
'Understanding' that men fraudulently represent themselves as women to
play on the women's golf tour - and perhaps who knows what else?
'Understanding' that the specter of bearded men in dresses is indeed
on the horizon for enforced public consumption?
No one should read any of what I'm writing as a demand on my part for
ultra-anal, political correctness. I'm not so bold as to believe that
GLBT issues cannot form the core of bits o' humor (ever heard Margaret
Cho's bit about whale-watching?), perhaps even quasi-politically
incorrect ones - even ones about transsexuals. For instance, one of
the best jokes I've ever heard that is even remotely related to
transsexuality emanated from Bill Maher in 2000, and was a jab, likely
a not-so-friendly one, at Minnesota transgender Democratic National
Convention delegate Jane Fee. I won't repeat it except to note that
the money line was the phrase "fake bush," and was far more of a jab
at someone other than Fee (use your imagination as to who it might
have been.)
All of that having been reminisced about, I do expect gay media to
know the difference between a "dash of stereotyping" and an
egregiously dangerous misrepresentation. And, I do expect
organizations that accept donations, at least some of which can be
legitimately presumed to be premised on the representations of the
organizations that transgender concerns are encompassed in their
mission statements, to respect the faith, hopes and beliefs that
implicitly act as the collective aura of every penny they collect.
And, the only way that the faith, hopes and beliefs can be fully and
completely honored is for these organizations - particularly those
"dedicated to promoting and ensuring fair, accurate and inclusive
representation of people and events in the media as a means of
eliminating homophobia and discrimination based on gender identity and
sexual orientation," such as GLAAD - to actually pay attention to
whether something that might look as though it is merely another
trendy slice o' pro-gay-marriage-ness might also be topped with
rancid, poisonous, radioactive transphobic icing and, if necessary, to
refrain from praising the pro-gay-marriage item if doing so
constitutes de facto, albeit unspoken. praise of transphobic imagery.
I suspect that the attitudes of Queer Channel Media, GLAAD and others
(probably even the New York Times) would not be so cavalier if an
older gay man had been shown marrying a young boy, whilst each wore
NAMBLA t-shirts - an image which would immediately become mega-grist
for the anti-gay-rights mills.
Make no mistake, I'm not focusing my attention on gay reaction to the
episode to the exclusion of fanatical right-wing reaction. All should
read between the lines of the comment of L. Brent Bozell, III, head of
the so-called Parents Television Council. He criticized the episode
(without having seen it of course, something disturbing in its own
right) by saying, "At a time when the public mood is overwhelmingly
against gay marriage, any show that promotes gay marriage is
deliberately bucking the public mood,"4 leading one to wonder whether,
should Bozell (or a like-minded pseudo-thinker) ever be in charge of
America, any speech criticizing what the Bozellians are in the "mood"
to hear would be tolerated.
Were the producers of "The Simpsons" taking a shot at Mianne Bagger,
currently the most prominent MTF having success with being recognized
as the woman she is for purposes of a women's pro sport?
I don't know.
'Veronica' certainly was not drawn to resemble Bagger. Irrespective of
intent, however, I do expect all who praised the episode for its gay
marriage content to focus on what could be the anti-transsexual
effect. And, to illustrate this I find myself turning to a publication
not exactly known for its trans-inclusivity (the masthead, after all,
still only says "gay & lesbian newsmagazine") or even trans-knowledge:
The Advocate, whose March 15th issue features a perspective piece by
Andy Marra, who identifies as a "transgender Korean-American adoptee
who was raised in a white, upper-class Republican suburb in upstate
New York."5
She writes about her reaction to the infamous Details magazine "Gay or
Asian" piece as well as, years earlier, to one of all-too-many "He or
She?" episodes of the "Maury Povich Show". "If the media really tried
to be fair, accurate, and inclusive in its coverage, it would empower
the next generation of young transgender women of color to be proud of
who they are." She goes on to ponder: "Did Maury's producer's realize
that their show would be a backhanded slap to a struggling 10-year-old
on a journey of self-identification?"
I wonder if the producers of the Simpsons realized what kind of
backhanded message they were sending about real transgendered people
via their use of 'Veronica' and the skag-drag hags.
I also wonder whether GLAAD cared about the fact that the message was
being sent.
I would hope it does.
According to the bio-blurb of Marra's piece, she's the Asian-Pacific
Islander media fellow at GLAAD.
Katrina C. Rose is an attorney and America's leading
expert in the field of transgender legal history. She is currently
working toward a Ph.D. in History at the University of Iowa and is the
author of "The Proof is in the History: The Louisiana Constitution Recognises
Transsexual Marriages and Louisiana Sex Discrimination Law Covers
Transsexuals - So Why Isn't Everybody Celebrating?", which appeared in
Volume 9 of the Deakin Law Review.
Footnotes
1. Alessandra Stanley, "At Least One Television Show Runs Toward
Controversy"
2. New York Times, 21 Feb. 2005, at B2.
2. Brian Moylan, "A Very Gay Night - From 'The Simpsons'' Satirical
Look at Gay Marriage to a 'Desperate Housewives' Gay Kiss, Last Sunday
Was Must See TV", Southern Voice, 25 Feb. 2005.
3. "GLAAD Applauds Truth at the Heart of 'The Simpsons'", GLAAD press
release, 21 Feb. 2005.
4 "Gay Marriage, 'Simpsons' Style", Star-Tribune (Minneapolis, MN), 21
Feb. 2005.
5. Andy Marra, "Already Sensational", The Advocate, 15 March 2005, at
10.
Polare is published in Australia by The Gender Centre
Inc. which is funded by the Department of Community Services under the
S.A.A.P. Program and supported by the
N.S.W. Health Department through the
AIDS and Infectious Diseases Branch. Polare provides a
forum for discussion and debate on gender issues. Advertisers are advised that all advertising is their responsibility under
the Trade Practices Act. Unsolicited contributions are welcome, though no guarantee is made by the Editor that they will be
published, nor any discussion entered into. The editor reserves the right to edit such contributions without notification.
Any submission which appears in Polare may be published on our internet site. Opinions expressed in this publication do not
necessarily reflect those of the Editor, The Gender Centre Inc.I, the
Department of Community Services or the N.S.W. Department of Health.
|
