The Complete Trans Failure of The Simpsons - Video Essay - Lily Simpson - May 18, 2023

Brad Lascelle

Brad Lascelle

A Fixture in Online Simpsons Fandom Since '93
Moderator
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
5,441
Location
Kitchener, ON
It's season finale night... which means we have more eyes and ears than usual on this site.

Which makes this vital and long overdue video essay on a topic the Simpsons has repeatedly failed to address properly optimally timed...


This is a thorough and well-researched video essay which serves to really bolster the strength of her argument. Really, the only detail Lily got wrong was that Al Jean was no longer showrunning the series. He still is... albeit just 6 episodes/year.

This is an area where I have been especially cognizant of the show failing a vibrant community and undeniable subsection of Americana... despite being the self-professed cultural ambassador of America across the globe. We had a lengthy discussion about the show's failings on thsi front back during the Frink Gets Testy R&R thread, which if the lesson they took away from our condemnation of their casual throwaway trans humour was to pretend said community doesn't exist, they took away the wrong lesson. We weren't upset because they inferred Waylon might be exploring a trans identity. We were upset because it was brought up as a one-off joke for shock value that would never be seriously considered and also outright contradicted with dozens upon dozens of episodes exploring his character.

Which is, of course, what the show has always done with trans representation and Lily cites a multitude of such examples where this occurs. I'm grateful she took the opportunity to exhaustively cover this subject in a video essay structure and I do encourage anyone reading this to take the time to give it a view in full.

As was the case when criticism about Apu was raised, instead of keeping the character a prominent inclusion within the Springfield community and simply not having a white guy provide his voice, they swept Apu under the rug, recast all of their other non-Caucasian characters and only trot out a Nahasapeemapetilon - usually Manjula and/or Sanjay - for a background gag. They addressed the elephant in the room but largely did so by sweeping said elephant under the rug and pretending it didn't exist. Apu deserved better. So did the Indian community.

Back to the issue at hand, however. It is an undeniable failing of the show to largely portray the trans community as non-existent and invisible over the course of 750 episodes (and counting) - especially when it has served as a progressive trailblazer on so many other fronts.

I understand that the series has largely felt comfortable taking the time to seek out writers from within a specific community before treating it with some degree of sensitivity. We only got an episode focusing on Carl's black heritage in Season 34 when Loni Steele Sosthand took it upon herself to write one and received the green light to do so. Ditto for the hearing-impaired community which she could relate to due to her brother being deaf. We got an episode that treated the gay community with some semblance of sensitivity instead of merely as a punchline when Rob LaZebnik saw that as an opportunity to collaborate with his son Johnny who can provide first-hand input on that community as they're a part of it. I love that we have a character like Wendy Sage because Renee Ridgeley can speak to being a breast cancer survivor.

Some trepidation with properly and responsibly handling representation is understandable and I welcome the strides the writers' room has taken on this front. But the trans community needs a voice as well... arguably moreso now than ever before seeing how they're being mercilessly targeted as a means of imposing control at best and an outright genocide at worst by hateful right-wing governments across the United States and elsewhere across the globe. There are talented trans writers out there that can be sought out as freelancers if you have a story you wish to properly tell.

Will said episode get banned from a good number of streaming service markets as a result? Probably. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be told, however. Every argument Lily's raised above in her video essay is a sound one. The show can... and should... do better here. I second her demand that it does.
 
Oof, I completely forgot that "soon to be Wanda" "joke" and where it came from. This probably wasn't meant to be offensive but it's definitely ignorant... especially at this point of the series where trans people still are invisible outside of a cheap joke like that here and there.

The series is a product of its time... and most of the staff grew up during that time as well (and that is reflected in such an old-school town that Springfield is, even today because that's mostly its identity). In their quest for freshness, they should definitely consider modern standards where some communities finally get the chance to express themselves. You hit the nail on the head with what you said about what happened to Apu. It shouldn't be about backing up when outdated stuff is pointed out and act as if it never happened... It should be about evolving with our time. And to hell with the conservatives. Since the show is still gonna be around for a while, I hope they listen as well.

Too bad this thread got overshadowed because this is an interesting (and important) debate.
 
Huh, didn't even see the thread. Admittedly, eyesight's been really bad lately. But I did see this video, commented too since I'm pretty sure I already follow Lily.

Outside a few details (for instance, that ain't Milhouse, just a woman who resembles him...) it's a really good video and the McBabe thing was news to me. Skybox in general often threatens to be more interesting with minor/secondary characters than they get on the show.

Anyhoo, this has always been a depressing part of the show. While hardly perfect there were at least quite a few character that were either lgb in some way or could feasibly be seen as at least bi (sometimes Homer and Clancy Wiggum have kind of an odd chemistry going on...) even back in season 2 we had Karl too.

But when it comes to the T and/or Q... it's one of the more worrying aspects of the show. Maybe forever ago it could be attibuted to ignorance or just seeing it as a "oh huh that's kinda eccentric" or maybe even a coincidence like the Mother Shabooboo joke.

Around the Jean era though, their views on trans people becomes much harsher and unironically hold up most of the worst stereotypes possible like "trans women are just gay men that want to be straight" like the Wanda joke or, of course, "trans women are just eeeevil men tricking lesbians into sex!" from Something About Marrying. Then there's also Nelson saying the T-slur outright. Or how they always draw trans women with details they usually don't draw on even male ones like adams' apples or almost always giving them big muscles or cheekbones.

A video like this really was overdue, by years, but I don't think it'll change anything, nor will any other kind of discussion on the issue. The way the show's been problematic in other cases you could just say it was ignorance. We can do some pretty crappy things without really realizing what's wrong and I could buy that being the case with Apu because they were never taught to think anything of it or whatever. When it comes to trans issues though, It feels straight-up malicious. Even Family Guy of all things had the nuts to poke fun at JK Rowling's obsessive turn to transphobia. But then I've got a bad feeling that a lot of the staff at The Simpsons don't exactly disagree with her.

I guess it's not entirely out of the question that there might, *might* be a trans episode but I don't think it's likely and it'd probably be along the lines of Bart vs Itchy and Scratchy or Hostile Kirk-Place and try to "both sides" an issue that probably shouldn't be. That and they're already pretty crappy to most of the cis female characters so trans women probably stand no chance. :V

Speaking of, the video did also miss the joke about Helen apparently being trans herself. Granted it was a one off joke that's not meant to be canon and is just a "haha Tim married a man lol" joke but that sadly still makes her the closest to decent trans rep. Of course it wouldn't explain Jessica... unless she was actually adopted which would threaten to make her less dull.

But yeah, don't expect them to ever change. The best we can probably hope for is they just stay quiet. Shame too because there's a lot of stupid views from the terf crowd to make fun of (when did feminism go from "women can do anything men can do" to "women are inferior to even mediocre men in every single way"? Never mind the trainwreck that is Graham Linehan.)
 
Wait, this thread didn't show up for me earlier this week and I guess it was becase got buried by a lot of other threads that popped up rapidly in the wake of the season 34 finale. I even thought it was a new thread posted just now (!).

But anyhow, this is a really interesting subject and that video essay I'm very much intereted in seeing, especially after sometimes having been thinking of the transphobic moments of the show, the post-classic stuff especially (Well, the Jean & HD eras, at least, where most of those moments tended to show up). Will watch tomorrow and then give some thoughts
 
She missed the budget yacht full of beautiful women that used to be men, another hateful joke at the expense of the trans community. Still there were way too many mean trans jokes in Simpsons history and the essay covered nearly all of them. I would hope Simpsons would someday get better about this with a meaningful trans character who is not called tranny, shemale, or he-she unless it's clear the slurs are hurtful and the person using them is a bigot and at fault and they learn not to use such words any more.

Maybe reveal the Angelica Button books are written by a j k Rowling ish person who is furious the actor who played headmaster greystash (the Dumbledore expy) has since come out as trans. All the jokes could be aimed at the author being close minded (maybe Marge too as she doesn't want Lisa to put up a poster of the actress post transition because she fears it might turn her gay. And Marge of course would be over reacting and maybe Homer who loves the series could say there's nothing wrong with him or his daughter enjoying the character/actress.)

This actually sounds interesting. Hire me, Simpsons writers.
 
Ooh, that could work. Though it'd definitely need some care.

Though part of me also says if they do an ep on trans issues it oughta be a Martin one, since he's probably the most plausible one out of the regulars to be trans (obviously excluding characters like Judge Harm who already are...)

Some sorta social satire would work too. Especially given the many foibles to outright lunacy the anti-trans crowd show. Like having the town buy into the trans-panic. Maybe as a Martin and Lisa ep... potentially throw in Bart too given his own gnc moments.

There's probably a few things to really dig into. The most likely and least jarringly dark would probably be the extreme anti-feminism of the so-called "women's rights activists" that could drive more people against them. For instance the way they're all too happy to hurt cis women for not conforming to suspiciously patriarchal standards for instance. And several characters could be hit by that. It does run the risk of centering the debate on cis women, though it's worth including in some way just to hold up a mirror to how terf-ism isn't actually pro-woman and sure as hell not pro-lesbian or g or b. Perhaps some like Patty or Helen could find out the hard way that the Leopards Eating Peoples' Faces Party would indeed eat their faces.

Maybe in the above scenario, Martin is treated as just as unusual ally and being either closeted-trans or at least questioning is a reveal?

Or maybe in some alternate universe the school-segregation plot from Girls Just Want to Have Sums occurs because of said panic. If going full ridiculous, it robably resolves when they go full "transvesigator" and find some way to accuse literally every girl of being secretly boys to the point where everyone's in the same school anyway. Like Lisa's assertivity being called male aggression or a meta joke on how Sherri and Terri don't have eyelashes (also just look weird/ugly in general) and so on.
 
Just finished watching the video, and I pretty much agree with Lily, the show has failed at Trans representation and I do hope it gets better. Its one of the reasons why I prefer Bob's Burgers over Simpsons, that been Bob's Burgers having better LGBTQ+ representation in general compared to Simpsons.

Also...didn't realize until now at how transphobic How I Met Your Mother was until after watching this video.
 
Main wrinkle with @GlitterCat's suggested idea is that the show's already established the T.R. Francis character (their J.K. Rowling-equivalent) as being a construct that doesn't actually exist. Just a name and backstory a publishing house slapped on to a series for marketing purposes when the series was actually group-authored by a handful of people for money. That was the initial setup for Season 23's acclaimed The Book Job... and while this show is by no means averse to ignoring or otherwise rewriting established canon, I'm not sure they want to pull the loose thread that set up one of their more universally acclaimed HD era episodes when they could just as easily come up with a different premise.

I do love their idea of making Lisa the crux of such a premise, however... as she's their de facto go-to character for highlighting/championing various social causes in ways that engage the audience and you could branch into a couple worthwhile directions that lead to self-reflection i.e. (what's the difference between good vs. bad allyhood) and there's a natural conflict waiting to happen given her mother's tendency to either be willfully dismissive when something that's foreign to her hits close to home (i.e. her established blind spot regarding Patty's homosexuality - most notably showcased in There's Something About Marrying) or to treat it as some kind of kitsch novelty when she's somewhat removed from it (i.e. wanting Abe to be gay for her own selfish reasons in Gorgeous Grampa).

Main wrinkle with @Venomrabbit's suggested idea is that for a show that has such a dubious track record when it comes to properly acknowledging the trans community that doesn't come off dismissive or outright insulting, I'm not sure they're going to want to make their first proper foray into the subject involve either A - a child or B - someone they've developed a lot of story material with previously... although the latter would certainly provide more of an impact provided they STUCK with it. After all, they couldn't even commit to Brunella Pommelhorst's transition back in the day... they made a gag about it and then kept using her as a female gym teacher in episodes afterwards evoking the impression that her transition failed or that she changed her mind about it - both of which set a terrible precedent. And that was with a character they couldn't give a rat's ass about.

Back to point A, I think it's a tough nut to crack to expect this series to effectively explore LGBTQIA+ stories involving their kid characters when even one of their more staunch LGBT advocates in Yeardley Smith is keen to push back on any interviewer asking her about Lisa's sexuality with the 'ole "she's 8, people" response. Do younger kids have an established sense of their eventual sexual identity at a young age? Sure do. But if you've got an advocate pushing back on giving Lisa any kind of harmless girlcrush outside of future-based storylines, that's going to serve as an impasse towards broaching even more serious material like a child character not being comfortable within their own prescribed gender role.

Although... if the show were to go down that path, you want to know who I'd tell that story with in a way that would be the least disruptive and honestly has some pre-existing storyline hooks to give it more teeth? I'd use Francine Rhenquist. Not only is Kathy Griffin an LGBT ally in her own right, but this is a character whose descent upon Springfield Elementary had her lashing out violently at her peers and Lisa's eventual response to being bullied herself was to medicate this aggression away via her invention of poindextrose... as opposed to actually getting to the root of Francine's aggression. What better way to open Lisa's eyes to a character not much older than her not being comfortable in their own skin and to explore some self-reflection of her own than to force her to confront her own initial rejection of Francine's outward aggression. Treating it as something to be a problem to be cured instead of properly understood.

If you wanted to roll with a slightly older character instead of a Springfield Elementary student, why not Alaska Nebraska? You want to make a splash and tell the world you're serious about treating trans values seriously? You transition your Hannah Montana allegory and you solicit Elliot Page's creative input in crafting the script. Elliot's been through that journey quite publically so he'd offer one hell of a perspective on transitioning while under the public spotlight and how to make said journey relatable and accepted to audiences.

But at the end of the day, this shouldn't be just something that the show gets to do once and then handwave away, say that they did "the thing" and sweep it under the rug to be cast aside and forgotten. I enjoyed Much Apu About Something but the series effectively put Apu in a box to be forgotten after telling that story and I'm not sure that sends the right message, either. If you really want to make a difference, you tell this story and then incorporate whichever trans character(s) you introduce and make them a part of the accepted ongoing Springfield collective going forward. That's ultimately what inclusivity is all about.
 
Last edited:
Well, I watched the video essay and Lily does raise a lot of valid point of how the show has let down the transgender community. It's not just the amount of transphobic jokes (that are more than she mentioned; I think Nelson calling Skinner a "tr***y" in Girls Just Want To Have sums is an egregious one that I can't believe was overlooked in the video), but maybe especially by not taking advantage of the transexual character that it does have (or introduce a new one, let alone use a pre-existing minor character with only one or two appearances, for it). They really could (and should) do a lot more to rectify this, but I'm not expecting any miracle any time soon.

I definitely think a big part of the problem is the overall ages of most of the Simpsons staff (writers, directors, producers, etc.) that are mostly from another era that weren't brought up in today's world where LGBTQ+ characters and storylines have become more normalized and accepted so therefore they'd not have the same values (being products of a more or less, say, conservative time); It's a generational thing first and foremost so I'd not go around pointing fingers to choose whom is to be blamed, as its more of an attitude problem than something tied to this or that person, which I think can be a danger in a sense (as becoming too fixated on blaming individuals for problematic stuff is not really getting anywhere, it's better to try change and/or inspire change society in terms of outlook and attitudes).

I think that with the more fresher and modern direction the show has taken from season 33 and on and with more young writers coming on board to give a fresh perspective (Broti Gupta comes to mind), I think the possibility of them do something about it (by tackling a trans story with such a character in it, be it a new one or an old one-time character brough back or a forgotten secondary character) may increase. Also, with how active online some of the crew are, maybe they'll come across this video essay and take it to heart? We'll see, we'll see...

Brad Lascelle said:
Back to point A, I think it's a tough nut to crack to expect this series to effectively explore LGBTQIA+ stories involving their kid characters when even one of their more staunch LGBT advocates in Yeardley Smith is keen to push back on any interviewer asking her about Lisa's sexuality with the 'ole "she's 8 people" response. Do younger kids have an established sense of their eventual sexual identity at a young age? Sure do. But if you've got an advocate pushing back on giving Lisa any kind of harmless girlcrush outside of future-based storylines, that's going to serve as an impasse towards broaching even more serious material like a child character not being comfortable within their own prescribed gender role.
Click to expand...

I think it's a shame that an animated kids' show such as 'Craig Of The Creek' (which focuses on child characters) runs circles around 'The Simpsons' in terms of LGBTQ+ representation (there's also non-binary kids who prefer they/them, which also open the question why there's no non-binary characters on 'The Simpsons') so our favorite family really should step up its game and be with the times (but I'm, guessing there is still a fear about it somehow, as if they are still rooted in the past and are worried about what the audiences would say if they, say, had Bart or Lisa come out as bisexual). I think they should risk it, especially now when they are more creative.
 
Last edited:
Regarding Craig of the Creek, its interesting how Yeardley Smith says Lisa's 8 as her push back, given Stacks & Kelsey are both 8 years old in the show.
 
@Jackomon, That's for sure! Kelsey & Stacks being an item is the first thing that came to mind reading that quoted pushback part from Yeardley, which make her defensive statement seem really backward and ridiculous. I'm all the more feeling 'The Simpsons' really do still feel a bit too rooted in the more conservative past for its own good at this point (at least in regards to all this).
 
Last edited:
Brad Lascelle said:
It's season finale night... which means we have more eyes and ears than usual on this site.

Which makes this vital and long overdue video essay on a topic the Simpsons has repeatedly failed to address properly optimally timed...


This is a thorough and well-researched video essay which serves to really bolster the strength of her argument. Really, the only detail Lily got wrong was that Al Jean was no longer showrunning the series. He still is... albeit just 6 episodes/year.

This is an area where I have been especially cognizant of the show failing a vibrant community and undeniable subsection of Americana... despite being the self-professed cultural ambassador of America across the globe. We had a lengthy discussion about the show's failings on thsi front back during the Frink Gets Testy R&R thread, which if the lesson they took away from our condemnation of their casual throwaway trans humour was to pretend said community doesn't exist, they took away the wrong lesson. We weren't upset because they inferred Waylon might be exploring a trans identity. We were upset because it was brought up as a one-off joke for shock value that would never be seriously considered and also outright contradicted with dozens upon dozens of episodes exploring his character.

Which is, of course, what the show has always done with trans representation and Lily cites a multitude of such examples where this occurs. I'm grateful she took the opportunity to exhaustively cover this subject in a video essay structure and I do encourage anyone reading this to take the time to give it a view in full.

As was the case when criticism about Apu was raised, instead of keeping the character a prominent inclusion within the Springfield community and simply not having a white guy provide his voice, they swept Apu under the rug, recast all of their other non-Caucasian characters and only trot out a Nahasapeemapetilon - usually Manjula and/or Sanjay - for a background gag. They addressed the elephant in the room but largely did so by sweeping said elephant under the rug and pretending it didn't exist. Apu deserved better. So did the Indian community.

Back to the issue at hand, however. It is an undeniable failing of the show to largely portray the trans community as non-existent and invisible over the course of 750 episodes (and counting) - especially when it has served as a progressive trailblazer on so many other fronts.

I understand that the series has largely felt comfortable taking the time to seek out writers from within a specific community before treating it with some degree of sensitivity. We only got an episode focusing on Carl's black heritage in Season 34 when Loni Steele Sosthand took it upon herself to write one and received the green light to do so. Ditto for the hearing-impaired community which she could relate to due to her brother being deaf. We got an episode that treated the gay community with some semblance of sensitivity instead of merely as a punchline when Rob LaZebnik saw that as an opportunity to collaborate with his son Johnny who can provide first-hand input on that community as they're a part of it. I love that we have a character like Wendy Sage because Renee Ridgeley can speak to being a breast cancer survivor.

Some trepidation with properly and responsibly handling representation is understandable and I welcome the strides the writers' room has taken on this front. But the trans community needs a voice as well... arguably moreso now than ever before seeing how they're being mercilessly targeted as a means of imposing control at best and an outright genocide at worst by hateful right-wing governments across the United States and elsewhere across the globe. There are talented trans writers out there that can be sought out as freelancers if you have a story you wish to properly tell.

Will said episode get banned from a good number of streaming service markets as a result? Probably. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be told, however. Every argument Lily's raised above in her video essay is a sound one. The show can... and should... do better here. I second her demand that it does.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I’m not sure if I would like an episode about trans people. Nor should they do an episode about it just because the trans community demands it. But if they do cover the topic in the future I hope they can keep it light hearted and funny. Im just having a hard time imagining an episode about the trans community being a very good one.
 
Last edited:
Stonecutter #7 said:
Yeah, I’m not sure if I would like an episode about trans people. Nor should they do an episode about it just because the trans community demands it. But if they do cover the topic in the future I hope they can keep it light hearted and funny without shoving trans values down our throats. Please don’t take that quote as me being anti trans or something. Im just having a hard time imagining an episode about the trans community being a very good one.
Click to expand...

Yeah... so.... um, I'm pretty sure you don't mean any ill will (well, you did say that you're not anti-trans), but I do think you could've worded that post quite differently, @Stonecutter #7 (maybe especially that part about hoping they won't be "shoving trans values down our throats") :uhh:
 
Well, @Brad Lascelle , the bit about not trusting the current staff with it is true, that post was kind of a what-if for if we had a more reliable set of writers... or if I had any real writing chops whatsoever. Or like "if I was showrunning, god forbid"

As for picking a character that's already established, it's disruptive for sure but a very deliberate choice. Someone like Francine or Alaska could too easily be swept under the rug (maybe if Francine was a reocurring character outside of a couple times in the comics). And having a new character in general feels very dicey. I mean, compare Smithers and Julio as characters. Martin's also a character who, even well before Boyz n' the Highlands, had parents who seemed to keep wanting to "fix" him like with fat camp or making him take testosterone.. So pressure from parents could be a reason why it hadn't come up before.

The comments about Yeardley are pretty interesting. While we don't know who for sure since they're never credited, Tapped Out does apparently have actual show writers working on it. And in some ways it could be down to format but the way they're written still feels very different. Some characters in particular feel like they got a lot more effort put into them compared to the show and it does make me wonder how much of it is down to the writers and how much is down to meddling by either the va's or showrunners. In particular, remember a bit from the Van Houtens event where one of the twins twice makes some very girlcrushy remarks about Annika, describing her as pretty but also "way hotter" (than Milhouse) and given Janey pulls the breaks on the conversation both times to ask which one said that then it probably was meant to mean something.

Okay that's a bit of a tangent but I suppose it might mean even if there are writers that'd be more up to the idea, it'd probably get veto'd by the higher powers... so again, a bit of a "what if it had a different crew" thing. I don't imagine that above example ever being on the show even ignoring the resistance to giving the twins actual dialogue.

Having someone be non-binary would also be a good shake-up. Granted, the character I'd expect to be (Bart) isn't the sort of person that'd be able to actually figure things out in present. It'd be better as a more-or-less-consistent thing of flashforward Barts than being married to Jenda though.

Well any such way, if it was actually something done well (get a guest writer if need be) then I don't really see what the show has to lose. I mean, conservatives already despise them for even tiny things as poorhouse rock. Far as they're concerned the show's already part of the woke illuminati or whatever so screw 'em.
 
Stonecutter #7 said:
But if they do cover the topic in the future I hope they can keep it light hearted and funny without shoving trans values down our throats.
Click to expand...
I guarantee you if 99% of this thread wasn't in support of trans ppl you'd actually come out and say what you want to say instead of trying to dance around it so you don't get flamed. I see right through that bullshit.
 
Will said episode get banned from a good number of streaming service markets as a result?
Click to expand...

That's the problem, though. The show's response to the Apu controversy and pulling the Michael Jackson episode show that The Simpsons staff prefer to take the cowardly way out if given the chance. Which tells me they're not going to do a "trans episode".

Their latest "PSA" episodes tend to target uncontroversial topics: charities that don't actually help people are bad, scamming is bad and is getting worse, the middle class is being screwed over, etc. Those are things "we all" can agree on. Doing an episode with a message that "trans women are women" (as an example) would be way more controversial, and I don't think The Simpsons is up to it.
 
pax said:
I guarantee you if 99% of this thread wasn't in support of trans ppl you'd actually come out and say what you want to say instead of trying to dance around it so you don't get flamed. I see right through that bullshit.
Click to expand...

Sadly, the more I've thought about that post, the more I'm suspecting it's a thinly veiled anti-trans post (not only that about "shoving trans values down our throats", but having to point out that "I'm not anti-trans" do ring some warning bells). I thought this would be a more respectful thread about this important subject, but I guess there'd be a few insensitive comments :(

Nitsy said:
That's the problem, though. The show's response to the Apu controversy and pulling the Michael Jackson episode show that The Simpsons staff prefer to take the cowardly way out if given the chance. Which tells me they're not going to do a "trans episode".
Click to expand...

I think they should put all of their effort into doing a trans-themed episode and not thinking about on whether or not "Will this get banned on some streaming services?". If they worry about such a thing as the latter, then why do any kind of stories that some might find controversial/contentious? To hold back because of such a thought and worries would be a shame.

They should get the right writer to pen the episode (I think one of those from a younger generation would be the best, as they are more in tune with current values and all) and do their best to construct a good, funny & clever episode with a positive, inclusive message (and definitely not trying to rush anything into production to satiate the part of the fanbase and the LGTBQ+ community that want this episode or it'd be a mess) and I'm fairly sure things could work out fine. Even if it's not a perfect 5/5, it'd at least be something.
 
Last edited:
CousinMerl said:
Sadly, the more I've thought about that post, the more I'm suspecting it's a thinly veiled anti-trans post (not only that about "shoving trans values down our throats", but the part of having to point out that "I'm not anti-trans", which do ring some warning bells). I thought this would be a more respectful thread about this important subject :(
Click to expand...
yeah i'm honestly disappointed in @Stonecutter #7
 
Nitsy said:
The show's response to the Apu controversy and pulling the Michael Jackson episode show that The Simpsons staff prefer to take the cowardly way out if given the chance. Which tells me they're not going to do a "trans episode".
Click to expand...
The problem with both of these cases is that a thing from their past has been pointed out and instead of giving a proper answer (or after failing to), they were like "yeah sure, sorry, won't happen again". But it barely means a thing, they don't do anything after that to evolve and properly face the issue.

They could totally do an episode about the trans community, they tackled other "risque" topics before, but they have to stop having this "my bad" attitude when the symbol of mentalities from the past is pointed out. To err is human, but it's up to us to learn from our mistakes.
 
People like to say "cancel culture" doesn't exist, but it does in the sense that people will censor themselves for fear of backlash, a backlash that sometimes doesn't come (was anyone going to boycott The Simpsons over "Stark Raving Dad"?). But sometimes it does come. Whatever you may think of Budweiser's trans ad campaign, the calculated and ruthless right-wing backlash has hurt their sales, and companies will respond to that by dialing it back (as Target recently did, by removing some of their pride merchandise from their stores in response to conservative backlash). That kind of thing will give other outlets pause when considering taking a firm stance in the "culture wars". I'd like to think The Simpsons has more moral fortitude than a company only looking to move product, but their recent actions in the face of controversies haven't done much to prove that.
 
The moment i saw this thread I knew i'd see at least one post like that in here
This kinda behavior is all too predictable on the internet at this point
 
Snowy said:
This kinda behavior is all too predictable on the internet at this point
Click to expand...
ikr!

let people live freely, if you dont agree with it that still doesnt give you the right to wish that they dont exist, people deserve to be happy and live freely

stonecutter, let people be happy, if someone is trans that doesnt affect you, let people be people
 
Well glad someone more confrontational than me pointed it out. All too often I see people insisting they don't have a problem with trans people it's the "ideology" or several inflammatory accusations they coincidentally apply to any trans person they see whatsoever. And there's some definite parallels to the likes of anti-semites too.

I mean maybe it was just badly worded but it did raise a red flag or two...

Fwiw though, the thread overall is actually doing good. Only one upset and just about everyone else was quick to call on it. So it's going better than I expected tbh.
 
pax said:
I guarantee you if 99% of this thread wasn't in support of trans ppl you'd actually come out and say what you want to say instead of trying to dance around it so you don't get flamed. I see right through that bullshit.
Click to expand...
I said everything I wanted to say and I didn’t mean to come off disrespectful. Everyone has the right to live their life anyway they want to. I just can’t see the simpsons covering the topic in an episode being a very good one.
 
Jackomon said:
Same...I unfollowed him & removed him from Tapped Out after thinking about it a bit more.

Its just more evidence to be careful who you talk to really...trusting someone is a hard thing to come by ever since 2016
Click to expand...
Speaking of trust, I don’t think the writing staff will embrace anything from the trans community for quite some time. I think the whole Bud Light backlash might have steered them away from making it a focus of any upcoming episodes.

(I haven’t seen the synopsis of upcoming episodes, so I’m probably wrong on this)
 
The Bud Light backlash?

The only thing I can think off is that Duffless moment been ruined on Disney+ due to the screen ratio
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top