In which we lose VGCats

[aumentou]

Comic VGCats posts issue 294 containing a joke which could avoid including a transphobic reference but does not. Conversation ensues. Author doesn't give a shit and refuses to make the trivially simple change, or even consider it.

Result, I am no longer reading said comic.

How long before I run out of comics to read? How long before I run out of escapes?

Comments

[morecake.livejournal.com]

Erm....VGCats doesn't seem to go up to 294. Is there a secret archive?

[delanthear.livejournal.com]

http://static.vgcats.com/comics/images/100623.jpg

Is that transphobic?

[spindr.livejournal.com]

I totally get it if you don't want to go into it any further, but if you do feel able, could you explain why you think it's transphobic?

To me, it just seemed like it mentioned a particular niche porn - clichéd, but only as much as *any* porn is. Tasteless, but not -phobic. What am I missing?

[grok-mctanys.livejournal.com]

Ditto. The reaction to the content is "Er, how did that get in there?", which doesn't sound transphobic to me. If the reaction were something along the lines of "Ew, gross", I could sympathise (even though, as spindr points out, "Ew, gross" could still be a legitimate response to any porn without necessarily implying *phobia), but "Er, how did that get in there?" Really?

If the title was instead "busty lesbos 5", would you have considered that homophobic? Are you going to forswear "Clerks" from now on because Dante's response to Randall's viewing of hermaphroditic porn was "And you rented this?"?

Sorry, I don't see it either. +1 for more explanation as to what exactly is transphobic, or a link to the conversation thread where that's already been explained (if available) please.

[mayfly182.livejournal.com]

It wasn't the character who was supposed to be transphobic. I think the point of the story was the character had actually viewed/bought that and accidentally recalled it later.

[grok-mctanys.livejournal.com]

Huh? Looks to me like the character's gesture has been misinterpreted by Kinect as "buy 10 copies". And, no matter what the item, if you weren't planning on buying any copies of anything at a particular time, having your computer suddenly place an order for 10 of them is a pretty legitimate cause for being a bit panicked and trying to cancel or delete the order ASAFP.

[mr-s-face.livejournal.com]

One might ask the question: Why that particular porn title?

Obviously, suddenly having your porn habit exposed in front of your family is going to be embarrassing. I mean, your wife probably knows, but that's still emarrassing, and the kids seeing porn leads to a tricky question and answer session. So the joke is, the controller doesn't do it's job very well, and the result is embarrassing.

So why that title?

Why not a mainstream title?

The point of the joke is that the porn is embarrassing. So the implication of that non-mainstream title choice is that the preference within the title is even more embarrassing than mainstream porn. It's not enough that he was watching porn, he was watching porn with trans people in! The horror! The embarrassment! The shame!

If finding trans people attractive is extra-embarrassing, then that's making a rather negative statement about trans people.

Of course, it's possible that this was not the authors intent. He claims this, and actually I believe him. But it is an implication of the published work, and it could be removed (or not have been included) just by putting a mainstream porn title in. The joke would still work, and everything would be fine.

[mr-s-face.livejournal.com]

"The reaction to the content is "Er, how did that get in there?""

It's his viewing history. He paid for that title. His response exists as a feeble attempt to distance himself from it.

Also, see above.

[grok-mctanys.livejournal.com]

Because no normal person ever tries to distance themselves from their porn history when their friends stumble across it?

[grok-mctanys.livejournal.com]

So the implication of that non-mainstream title choice is that the preference within the title is even more embarrassing than mainstream porn.

Surely the implication is that any non-mainstream title choice is more embarassing than mainstream porn, simply because of the fact that it's non-mainstream, and people like to conform. He was watching porn that wasn't entirely mainstream - the horror! the embarrassment! the shame!

Finding something non-mainstream attractive is extra-embarrassing, simply because it's non-mainstream. It doesn't matter for the purpose of the joke what the non-mainstreamness is, and I don't think it says anything negative about the particular subset of non-mainstreamness that happens to have been arbitrarily chosen, but the fact that it is a niche preference does make the joke funnier. "Busty 40+ housewives hoovering in crotchless leather chaps 6" would also work better than "mainstream porn 3" because of it's nicheness, but I wouldn't take that as being large-boobist, ageist, houseworkphobic or anti-leather, and it would make a mess of the panel layout.

Of course, it's possible that this was not the authors intent. He claims this, and actually I believe him.

So, he claims he wasn't being transphobic, you believe he wasn't being transphobic, and a couple of people you know (spindr and I) couldn't see any transphobism in the comic, even after you pointed out that it might exist.

But it is an implication of the published work

I am reminded of Cardinal Richelieu's famous quote:

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

If you look hard enough, you can read whatever implication you want into almost anything. Are you sure you're not looking a bit too hard here?

[mr-s-face.livejournal.com]

"Surely the implication is that any non-mainstream title choice is more embarassing than mainstream porn, simply because of the fact that it's non-mainstream, and people like to conform. "

Why is non-mainstream porn more embarrassing? People like to conform... or another way to put it is, people are prejudiced one way. And by using that prejudice in a joke, the writer is endorsing the prejudice rather than criticising it. He's implying the prejudice is normal, fine, and no problem.

If this would've been gay porn, I would've been knocking it for homophobia. As is, it's trans porn and transphobia.

"It doesn't matter for the purpose of the joke what the non-mainstreamness is,"

It also doesn't matter for the sake of the joke if he would've used a mainstream title. Or a non-mainstream title that no-one would want to defend, like bestiality. That he didn't was tactless and rude in the best possible interpretation.

"I don't think it says anything negative about the particular subset of non-mainstreamness that happens to have been arbitrarily chosen"

How can it not? The male character is more embarrassed by his choice because his choice is non-mainstream. That means the male character is himself prejudiced - or he wouldn't be more embarrassed. And the prejudice is not being criticised in the joke. It's being endorsed because you, the viewer, are expected to understand his predicament and sympathise with him.

"So, he claims he wasn't being transphobic, you believe he wasn't being transphobic..."

You've failed to understand something critically important here:

Prejudice is not always deliberate. In fact, more often it isn't.

I don't believe he set out to write a thing that would offend trans people and help normalise transphobic attitudes, but he has managed to do it nonetheless.

And this is the thing - I'm not (very) annoyed that he wrote it. I think he made a mistake and put in an implication he didn't mean to. I'm annoyed he won't fix it, despite that being a five minute job.

We are of course still making the assumption that this is a mistake. There remains the possibility that it's deliberate, or a subconscious choice that reflects his prejudices. The refusal to even consider alterations might also be a symptom of his own prejudice.

"Are you sure you're not looking a bit too hard?"

Funny story, every time anyone says that something is prejudiced, someone says this back to them. But I wasn't looking at all. I was trying to hide from the real world by reading a webcomic, and this hit me in the face. Mind you, the standard response is still good too: Are you sure you aren't trying not to see it?

[grok-mctanys.livejournal.com]

Why is non-mainstream porn more embarrassing?

Why is finding out that someone watches porn at all embarrassing? Because it's private. Because society says we're either not supposed to watch it, or not supposed to admit to watching it. Finding out that someone definitely has viewed porn is an intrusion into their privacy, and therefore embarrassing. However, it's only somewhat embarrassing because so many people really have viewed porn. But, if you find out exactly what sort of porn someone likes, you're finding out more about them that's supposed to be hidden; it's more of an intrusion into their privacy. The specificity, the nicheness, the personal knowledge makes it more embarrassing.

As another random example, "Barely legal flat-chested neck-down-alopecic flexible cheerleaders doing kinbaku" again would be more embarrassing (and hence more funny) than plain "porn", and not because any of those attributes are prejudiced against in society (in fact, I'm pretty sure they're not, which is why I chose them for this example) but simply because of the extra detail they give us about something that is supposed to be private.

At least, that's why I find it funny.

every time anyone says that something is prejudiced, someone says this back to them.

Sorry I wrote that. I don't mean to be an enormously insensitive asshole, but it happens sometimes. I'll try to make sure it doesn't happen in that way again.

Are you sure you aren't trying not to see it?

Well, that's entirely fair. And, no, I'm not sure at all. And even though I probably know more than my fair share of transgendered people compared to most members of society, and like to think of myself as tolerant and fair-minded (but, even the most bigoted racist homophobes tend to think that about themselves), and honestly think that it doesn't bother me, I'm aware that my unconscious prejudices are, well, unconscious.

And when I read your post, I was totally getting my rage on at whoever writes VGCats. Some motherfucker insults one of my friends, and then doesn't even care when this is pointed out to them? That asswipe was going to get some bad vibes from me, naughty words shouted at him through my monitor (which part of my unconscious insists is a microphone directly wired up to the speakers of whoever my ire is for) and possibly a vicious email too! So, I went to the comic in question in order to get good ammo for my feelings, and looked hard for this dire insult, and.... looked again. And again.

I wasn't trying to miss it. I was trying to look hard for it, and thought I was, and I wanted to stand with you against the forces of prejudiced bigoted fuckheadedness.

But I really could not figure out which bit might be insulting, or why.

Yeah, it may be that part of me doesn't want to see it. My interpretation of why I find it funny could be due to me rationalising my humour in a way that allows me to keep thinking of myself as non-*phobic.


OK, now I'm a bit lost. Also, I'm going to be misled by the introspection illusion if I try to find my own way out.

Any ideas?

[child-of-chance.livejournal.com]

Because obviously we all leave our porn on the coffee table.....and not in the bottom of the sock drawer....

[grok-mctanys.livejournal.com]

Are you sure you aren't trying not to see it?

I've been thinking about this one a lot, and there could be something to it. Would you bear with me for a bit, please, and let me know what you think?

Your article definitely left the impression that you considered the VGCats author a callous transphobe, and, by natural extension, a prejudiced bigot. As I hardly need point out, prejudice, bigotry and *phobia are terrible things which should be despised, fought and eradicated at all available opportunities.

But, reading the comic, I could honestly see no such phobia on display. Now you've explained it to me, I can see your point, but I don't think it's a natural or obvious way to read the comic. I think it's a somewhat unfair twisting of the author's words.

As a result, I had a "There but for the grace of God" moment - it could easily be me.

I could write something that happens to mention some minority group or other. It wouldn't mention them in an inherently bad way, there would be no malicious intent, and it could be about a group I happen to be genuinely unprejudiced towards. It could be about a group I care about.

Then some member of that community points out that if they twist my words hard enough in a certain unfavourable way, it's possible that some unrelated bigoted wankstain might use that meaning to prop up their existing prejudice. Because I would prefer not to let these unnamed bigots dictate what I choose to write, somehow I get called *phobic!

Prejudice and bigotry is a terrible thing. But because it is so bad, false accusations of prejudice and bigotry are also bad. False accusations are obviously not as bad as the act itself. False accusations of rape are not nearly as bad as rape, but that doesn't mean it's OK to falsely accuse someone of rape.

So there is definitely some fear behind my comments.

I fear being in a position where someone could go around telling people I'm a prejudiced bigoted *phobe simply because they've managed to twist some of my genuinely innocent words against me, or where such actions are not themselves discouraged.


What do you think? Is this me trying not to see it?

Reading back, I think I'm trying to be fair, willing to see it if it's really there, not wanting to jump to the wrong conclusion if it's really not there.

But, as in my previous reply to this comment, I am aware I'm too close to my own thoughts to be able to judge their fairness accurately. You should be in a much better position to do that.


As a postscript, one other thought that has occurred to me and been rattling around in my head is that, isn't a pro-transgendered reading of the comic just as valid as an anti- one? Would you agree that "Er, where did that come from?" would not be an extraordinary response (i.e. would be one that you might plausibly expect) to the issue of porn of any kind surprisingly appearing in a family environment? So, as the author of the strip, I need to think up a random porn title to go in the caption. Whatever title I choose, I'm saying that that's the kind of porn one of my characters looks at, it's what they find attractive. I'm saying that this kind of porn is something this character finds acceptable and attractive. It's not deviant or weird or wrong, it's what they like. Deal with it.

Does that interpretation really twist the words that are there that much more than yours does? Do you think that intent is really so much more improbable?

[mr-s-face.livejournal.com]

No. I'm too tired of all this to make sense of the problem.

[mr-s-face.livejournal.com]

"What do you think? Is this me trying not to see it?"

I doubt it. The standard response exists to separate the well intentioned from the poorly intentioned. The fact that you consider the possibility says that in the least favourable reading you're well intentioned.