Daily Mail article The article represents transgender people and allies as illogical and their ideas as needlessly convoluted and harmful to women, constructing this representation by comparing their chosen leftists definition of a woman to Jay Richards’ (a right-wing researcher) and the leftists one is a lot longer. The article also includes different professionals critiquing what the leftist is saying, using their titles and qualifications to present their arguments as inherently more logical and correct, and by bringing in multiple different professionals they represent the leftist as being alone in their ideas, and therefore wrong. Towards the end of the article it starts mentioning times when organisations have replaced the word “woman” with more gender inclusive terms, posing this as an attack on women, as if trans people and allies are trying to erase women and negate their experiences. This adds onto a larger representation of trans people in the article – the representation of them being inherently predatory and dangerous. This representation is also achieved by focusing on women throughout the article – a social group often viewed as vulnerable by society – and making it seem like trans people are trying to dumb down what a woman is and encroach on their spaces. Pitting trans people against a typically viewed as vulnerable group succeeds in presenting them as a threat. I think this representation relies on stereotyping, as the stereotypes of “trans people/allies make everything needlessly long winded” and “trans people encroach on women’s spaces” do exist and are reinforced here for the reasons stated above. I also think the stereotypes used here are an expression of values, as The Daily Mail has many articles with similar ideologies about trans people, and they also specifically mentioned the politics of people featuring in the article, making it undeniably ideological. I think the main ideology featured in this article is that trans people and allies are a disruptive force in society, and the article tries to position the audience against them by making it seem like trans people are a threat to them, or people related to them, specifically. This is done by presenting trans people as an oppressive force on women. I think this is a hegemonic representation, written by and to enforce the views of the ruling classes without consulting a member of the group they were representing.
I saw the TV Glow I saw the TV Glow has an interesting, pluralistic representation of trans people, being made by a trans person themselves. Never in the film does it use the word “trans” or any other term to allude to the identity of the main character. This decision unfortunately allowed this aspect of the film to go unnoticed by some viewers but allowed for a more authentic representation of trans people – not defined by a word, but an experience. This means the trans-ness of the film exists only in (unambiguous) subtext, the text is a horror-leaning film about being trapped in a nightmare world which you need to accept your true self and go through a ritual to escape. Throughout the film, trans people are presented as sympathetic, as it focuses on conveying the horror of the trans experience and how othering it can be to be trans, but with trans people as the victims, not the perpetrators. I would not say that this representation relies on stereotyping, as the experiences and people it aims to construct have direct real life inspiration from the creator, making it a pluralistic representation. Family Guy The show has a few episodes/gags that feature trans people, all of them representing trans people as something inherently deceptive or disgusting – there is a gag where Brian finds out that he slept with a trans woman, and then proceeds to violently throw up for the rest of the scene. There is another episode where the main plotline is Peter being mistaken for a trans woman and deciding to stick with it after getting benefits at work because of it, this uses a stereotype of trans people that they’re faking it for some type of gain – Peter says verbatim “I will do anything for money and attention”. The same episode also features Peter undergoing unwanted gender reaffirming surgery, being rushed into it against his will, which is a common misconception about gender reaffirming care – that it gets given out with little consideration. I think all of this makes for a stereotypical, hegemonic and uninformed representation of trans people and society’s reaction to them, reinforcing the stereotypes “trans people are over pandered to and have it easy enough” and “people fake being trans for attention and other benefits” for the reasons stated above. Again, I think stereotypes are used as an expression of values, as they don’t act as a shortcut to meaning as the episode is still very convoluted.
Comments