GLAAD Outraged Over David Letterman Transgender Joke
On Tuesday, after Amanda Simpson became the first transgender presidential appointee by being named Senior Technical Advisor to the Department of Commerce by President Obama, talk show host David Letterman announced Simpson’s appointment on his show and aired a photo of her.
The show’s announcer Alan Kalter then reacted to the news with disgust and mock horror, saying, “What? Amanda used to be a dude? My God!” He hurried off stage to laughter from the audience, apparently to go collect himself after the shock of this discovery.
“Amanda Simpson and transgender people want the same things all Americans do: to earn a living and be recognized for their contributions to society,” said Jarrett Barrios, President of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). “Instead of using humor to raise awareness about the lives of transgender people, the show ridiculed the first transgender Presidential appointee and one of the most vulnerable minorities in this country. By promoting unfair and cruel reactions to transgender people, the David Letterman Show is feeding an epidemic of discrimination and violence that currently faces transgender Americans.”
GLAAD urged community members to contact CBS with concerns on the anti-transgender segment at glaadBLOG and has reached out to producers at the David Letterman Show.
Here's the clip:
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
There's merit to the above comments. I, too, watched the joke when I was linked to it from Twitter from some of my friends who rather outraged, saying it "defends 'trans-panic.'" I didn't feel that Letterman was justifying it, I felt the joke was in bad taste.
What you do have to realize, though, is why GLAAD is upset about this. For example, would you find jokes about "reacting to blaming a people for something and committing genocide" very funny? Maybe, maybe not. The reaction highlighted on this particular Letterman clip is known as the "trans-panic defense." When trans people, and typically in these cases, trans women , of which Amanda Simpson is one, are murdered, their attackers make the claim that they "reacted in panic once they learned the [trans person's] true identity." Recently there was a high-profile case where a 19-year-old Angie Zapata was beaten over her head repeatedly with a fire extinguisher. She didn't die from the initial beating , but he finished her off with another blow to the head afterward. He then stole her car, and her credit cards , and left. He said he "killed it." This is very common. It gets reduced sentences for these killers, acting "in the heat of passion." THAT is why GLAAD is upset. Because the punch line in this episode is used as a defense for murder ; that trans people are stereotyped as "deceptive sexual predators" and that one wouldn't reveal their previous status if there were question.
Make no mistake, I, too, thought about the potential half-handed compliment to Ms. Simpson's beauty displayed by the shock, but I'm also not making a big deal about the clip. But you should understand why someone would. If someone made a joke about Jews in the Holocaust, would you feel that the Jewish community would be justified in demanding an apology for the joke?
in these three previous posts to consider. I can understand Mr. Earl's statement about the public's response to transgender people. I don't understand it and I have lived in the gay community for 40 years. But, I know that it is a serious issue to those people.
I also agree with LagerHead and SolarSanitizer that if you look for something to be insulted by you will find it.
My take on the clip was that Kalter had been "with" Amanda and was now shocked to find out that she had been a dude. Which in my opinion would be a compliment to a transgender person, that being that you had made this transition so smoothly that you had no traits of who you were.
It also seems that we, as a society , are not able to laugh about anything because it will upset someone else. I don't know what the answer is.
Had this clip pointed out something slanderous about this person I would agree that it was completely out of line.
As it stands, it seems that was a jab at a political figure, just as the cartoons of Obama with large ears. Since I can remember, anything that can be used to emphasize a "difference" about politicians has been used.
I think we walk a fine line on what is discrimination and what is not. I wondered how much emphasis was the fact that Amanda was transgendered prior to this appointment. If that was a major point of discussion, you can count on that being a continuing point.
I will say this, however, Letterman has proved that not only does he make other people the butt of his jokes, he has put himself in that position as well.
The bottom line will be how this person does her job. And if being transgender has an effect on that performance.
What was missed here by the GLAAD was that Letterman and Kalter were poking fun at people who will make a big deal out of it. They weren't mocking Sampson, but her detractors.
GLAAD's response here just highlights a growing problem here in the U.S. Namely, if you go through life looking for things that offend you, you will find plenty that will. These folks need to take a pill.
I don't think it can quite be spun as not looking for a cheap laugh at someone else's expense. At the same time, political/public figures have always been the target of cheap laughs.
As I recall, it was sometime around the late 70s or early 80s when there was a crude, but very popularly used catch phrase for this kind of situation: "Delete you if you can't take a joke."
It was used in response to thin skinned, humorless individuals who threw tizzy fits whenever someone made a joke they didn't think was funny through taking themselves too seriously. So, delete glaad if they can't take a joke.
99.9999% of the population finds it more than passing strange that someone would have their nads chopped off and start wearing lipstick. I'm in the majority. That's just plain WIERD!! Only a lunatic could believe they can do something that strange and expect others to find it unremarkable.
What if someone covered themselves with grape jelly and ran down the freeway naked? No doubt some nut case would get on the loud mouthism bandwagon to attack anyone able to find humor in the oddity of that person's "sexual orientation".
I'm sorry. I'm 100% in favor of letting everyone do whatever goofy thing pleases them, as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process, but don't expect me to keep a straight face. It's not a reasonable request and I'll view it even less seriously as a result.
"If you go through life looking for things that offend you, you will find plenty that will."
Well stated, sir.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.