Awesome! thanks!
If thatâs from Rab C Nesbitt, then it was surprisingly positive for the time. Donât expect it to hold up well today though, it was a comedy about working class Glaswegians. Still, it got away from the idea that âtrans woman are the jokeâ that plagued comedies at the time.
David Tennant is awesome, but that episode of that show isâŚpretty typical for its era. Itâs not great.
Probably the best we could hope for. It would have been better for them to take up the case and declare conversion therapy bans legal, but at least they didnât strike them down. I am concerned because there are conflicting rulings on this issue, they will eventually have to rule. I hope they are not just looking for one that would be easier to strike down the bans.
There was far worse out there on British television back then and it carried on like that for years to come. I experienced abuse that came straight from that weeks The League of Gentleman and Little Britain 10 years later.
Oh Iâm sure there was worse. A few years ago, I started to look into some of the earliest depictions of trans people in Hollywood, and I was pleasantly surprised. Some of the earliest ones werenât actually bad at all. I mean, they werenât very realistic, but they at least were attempting to portray trans people sympathetically. There was an episode of Medical Center with Robert Reed (Mr. Brady himself) playing a doctor who was trans. Of course, is the span of a two part episode, she came out and had a âsex changeâ in the language of the day, but they didnât portray the character in a negative light, which amazed me considering the time (1975).
Thatâs an interesting bit of history. Thereâs a 1977 episode of The Jeffersons in which an old friend of Georgeâs is revealed to have transitioned. Sheâs happy and, also important, not seeking approvalâshe just happened to be in town and wanted to say hello.
It gets cited sometimes as âthe first sympathetic portrayal of a trans person on US televisionâ so itâs really good to know thereâs at least one example that predates it.
There was also a character who appeared in two episodes of All In The Family, one in 1976 and one in 1977, who was described, I think, as a transvestite, and was portrayed by an actual drag queen. Anyway, regardless of the uncertainty whether that character was transgender, or a drag queen, it was definitely a positive portrayal. I just wish the second appearance hadnât involved the character getting murdered, but oh well.
ETA: By the time ER was in its first season, Hollywood had regressed in its sensitivity of the portrayal of trans characters. Episode 9 of that first season includes a story line involving a trans character, and itâs pretty cringey at times.
Was that All in the Family, or was that The Jeffersons? I remember (I thought Georgeâs) friend from the army named Eddie calling and leaving a message from Edie leading to much confusion, but I seem to remember it ending well. That was my first exposure to the whole concept of trans people.
The one I was talking about was All in the Family, but @SpunkyTWS mentioned the Jeffersons episode youâre talking about. Norman Lear was ahead of his time. Big shocker.
I remember them both.
The Jeffersons was done very positively. Especially given the times.
In the All in the Family one - Archie gave the drag queen mouth to mouth resuscitation and saved her life. Unknowingly at first.
Knowing the majority- theyâre probably just waiting for a stronger case that will give them a clearer shot.
Maybe, but Iâm more hopeful. SCOTUS as recently as 2020 found that discriminating against trans and gay people violated Title VII, because "it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.â And Gorsuch wrote that opinion (Bostock v. Clayton County). Now, since then, of course, RBG died and was replaced with Barrett, but that decision was 6-3. So I feel kind of hopeful that any other case involving discrimination against gay or trans people will, at worst, be 5-4 on our side.
As a side note, though, this is why we really still need the Equal Rights Amendment. Right now, laws which discriminate on the basis of sex (and by extension sexual orientation and gender identity) are subject to âintermediate scrutinyâ. This means that such laws are not presumptively invalid. All the state has to show is that they further an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest. If the ERA had been ratified, any laws that discriminate on the basis of sex would be subject to âstrict scrutinyâ which means they would be presumptively invalid, and the burden would be on the state to prove that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. This is kinda technical, but just know that right now, laws that discriminate on the basis of sex have a lower bar to clear than laws that discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or national origin, so if anyone tries to tell you we donât need the Equal Rights Amendment because women are already guaranteed equal rights under the law, you tell them theyâre wrong, because they are.
Not to move the issue away from trans representation, but there was a documentary one the DVD for a doctor Who episode called the Mutants (Pertwee era episode) talking about representations of race and how they got better from the 40s to the 70s, but then regressed somewhat in the late 70s and 80s (both on Doctor Who and the BBC in general). This makes me wonder why this is the case - why is minority representation such an influx thing, and all I can really think is that the mass media in general constantly is being calibrated to what the general public is feeling, what the elites who run the media are feeling, and who is working behind the scenes. It seems like during times when there is greater behind the scenes diversity, you get better reflections of that diversity, but when there is a re-assertion of straight white cisgendered male dominance of such spaces, thatâs an ebb. The question is, how we ensure that these spaces retain their diversity? It seems like there has been strides (especially around trans representation) recently, in part because there are more trans people behind the scenes. But given how much the far right is pushing back, in the next few years, weâll see that trying up Iâm guessing.
I certainly hope so. But several members of this court have expressed less adherence to precedent than previous courts. And they can take other lines of reasoning to limit the Bostock.
I can easily imagine them saying something like - Title VII only covers discrimination in employment and the decision shouldnât automatically be expanded to other areas. Or that it doesnât apply to conversion therapy bans because sex discrimination isnât involved as the sexes are treated equally.
I donât trust this court to be fair.
This is the exact argument the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals used to uphold Tennessee and Kentucky bans on gender affirming healthcare for minors. So yes, itâs entirely possibly SCOTUS could agree with that reasoning. I have to hope they wonât, though. Itâs about all Iâve got to hang on to.
I literally (as in about 3 minutes ago) just finished writing a paper on the status of gender affirming healthcare bans. Researching this, and writing about it, has taken a lot out of me, emotionally and spiritually. I regret choosing this topic, actually. My paper is very late, because some days, I just couldnât bring myself to work on it. Itâs even possible they may not accept it and I might fail the class and delay my graduation a few months. Anyway, Iâm just venting here. Commenting on issues like this in various threads over the last few weeks has actually helped me work through the legal stuff I needed to understand this for my paper, so I thank all of you for unwittingly helping me. Ok, Iâm wiped. Iâm going to bed.
Good luck!!! I have faith!!!
And yes; we do need legislation in addition to these court decisions (and policies) that are huge victories. For lgbt civil rights, abortion rights and the ERA.
Vocal therapy changes vocal cords of transgender patients without need for surgery
There may be an easier way. A new study in the Journal of Voice shows that a noninvasive treatment called vocal therapy may be enough to physically alter trans womenâs vocal cords and change their voices, expanding treatment options for this group.
The study shows that vocal therapy causes actual physiologic changes in the larynx, says Angela Dionisio, a speech language pathologist at the University of Cincinnati (UC) who was not involved with the work. âItâs not just a feeling.â
