Bodyshock

Comments

1. Well said Bronwen! I second that. Do the right thing Channel 4 and the Bodyshock Producers, apologise properly for the incorrect pronouns used throughout.

   Posted by Jo on 12/11/2009 10:45:55

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
2. If you are making a documentary about a group of marginalised people, and they tell you that you have done it wrong, insulted, degraded and invalidated them, then maybe you should check your privilege, take pause, think about what you did wrong, NOT try to defend it, and apologise. There is nothing confusing about calling a woman or a girl "her" and a man or a boy "him." And a trans woman is a woman; a trans girl is a girl; a trans man is a man; a trans boy is a boy. That is the simple truth. It was undoubtedly far MORE confusing for your viewers uneducated about trans issues to hear the narrator using different (and INCORRECT) pronouns from those used by the individual men, women, boys and girls and their families who were featured. If, on the other hand, they were presented with, say, a trans girl, and every person on the programme, from the girl herself, to the narrator, to her family, referred to her as "her," they would get the point pretty quickly that this girl IS A GIRL and is to be accepted and respected as such. By referring to girls as "him" you invalidate the fact that they are girls. By referring to boys as "her" you invalidate the fact that they are boys. You degrade them, and you dehumanise them. You were wrong. Apologise properly.

   Posted by Bronwen on 09/11/2009 22:22:37

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
3. As someone who wasn't very well informed about the issues of transgender, I can say I was not at all confused by the pronoun usage in the documentary, and actually found it useful in understanding the transitions that were happening. It is not meant as a sleight against transgendered individuals. If you have not been directly affected by this issue in your life, chances are you are not very well informed on it. It does no harm to make things explicit for an unfamiliar audience. It was clear that the families accepted the children for who they were, and I would do the same, despite the words used by the narrator. It seems hypersensitive to react to the use of biologically accurate pronouns when the target audience are just trying to understand what's going on. The context was not derogatory in the slightest.

   Posted by RLB on 06/11/2009 19:41:53

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
4. I am just wandering if this show was aired in America or not. The reason for this is that it said in the documentary, that Bailey moved house in order for him to escape bullies but if this was aired in America that would prove a waste of time. If anyone can answer my question it would be really helpful.

   Posted by Bee on 05/11/2009 19:37:40

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
5. I found the narrator incredibly insulting by continually referring to the children as their birth gender despite using the childrens names, ie. saying 'he' depite using the name Josie. What could be more insulting? I hope the children and their parents never see this documentary as it would be most upsetting. I am a women and I would not apreciate being referred to as 'he'. I also found the emphasis on Josie's old 'boy' toys disgraceful. As a child I played with toy cars and toy army men as well as dolls and barbies. This has not had an impact on my sex. I hope all thse comments will result in the narrations been rerecorded to refer to the children in the correct manner. I also agree with Andy in thinking the age for hormone treatment in the UK is far too late and would cause a great deal of distress for teenagers.

   Posted by Debbie on 04/11/2009 17:50:33

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
6. I just finished watching this programme on OD and found a couple of aspects quite upsetting. The primary one was the programme makers continual referral to the youngsters by their birth gender, when they and their families were clearly doing the opposite. This showed blatent and quite nasty disrespect for the brave families who let the cameras into their lives and it felt to me as though the makers started with the bias that birth gender is true gender and can never be changed. Only by referring the kids as trannies could they have been more offensive without the use of foul language. Even a transvestite prefers to be referred to by their adopted gender when dressed, so how much more important would it be for a transgender person to be correctly tagged in our gender-laden language? This aspect seems to have been over-ruled in favour of treating to the audience as though they are idiots and writing the commentary accordingly. A handful of the audience might be, but to aim the programme at them will not help educate the wider community and will not change the views of the idiots, so the value of the programme is diminished. The second, and more personal issue was the statement that in the UK children still cannot be prescribed the puberty blockers until 16. My partner is a post-operative Male-to-Female transgender born in the 1960s and she has had to live her post-operative life with the legacy masculine traits inflicted on her by puberty. The emergence of those traits at puberty was, she has told me several times, one of the most horrible times of her life, times during which she came closest to suicide. Had she been born this decade in America, she could have had her puberty blocked, so her masculine features would never appear to ruin her chance to become the womanly woman she truely wanted (and still wants) to be. Even after her surgery, she has been unhappy with her body, mainly expressed in her unwillingness to look after herself properly, in spite of my best efforts to persuade her to eat better and give up smoking. This almost killed her earlier this year when she had a heart attack, but luckily she survived and is now recovering. She still suffers from depression and at least part of that is because she can never be the woman-shape she feels she should be. Her shoulders are too broad (broader than mine) and her hands and feet are too big. The old-fashioned view that a child cannot know what they truely wish to be, gender-wise, until after or during puberty is depressingly reflective of the 'mummy knows best' attitude of law-makers, medical people and society in general in Britain. Mummy definitely does NOT know best or we would not be in the mess we are in and would not be harming significant numbers of our most vulnerable citizen through inaction forced upon us by convention, ignorance and unwillingness to change. I can only hope that this programme, flawed as it is in some respects, acts to trigger debate here in the UK about lowering the age at which puberty blockers can be prescribed, to save future trans-gender children being forced to suffer through the nightmare of puberty of the wrong gender. In the meantime, once again we lag behind America by a decade or more, in an important social trend.

   Posted by Andy on 31/10/2009 16:30:11

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
7. I found the use of incorrect pronouns in this show completely disrespectful, and I found the commissioning editor's explaination for using such pronouns offensive. It is not "biologically-accurate" to call a transman "she" or a transwoman "he". The pronouns "he" and "she" are based on gender which is a socio cultural concept based on appearance. Biology is your sex, not your gender. Therefore somebody who presents as a man should be refered to as "he" and a person that presents as a woman should be refered to as "she" regardless of that inividuals biological sex. This is an extremely basic fact that is key to understanding transgendered issues, and that this programme failed to even mention. This documentary has done more harm than good. It has not educated anyone at all about the issues trans-people face. If anything it has reinforced incorrect ideas.

   Posted by Sergei on 31/10/2009 02:59:21

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
8. It's a shame channel 4 could not see how offensive it was to refer to the children by their biological sex and not the gender they identify as. Also, those children have not been forced into those genders, they have every ability to 'change their mind' if thats how you wish to put it, at any stage. The doctors were not suggesting giving any of the children in the programme hormones until puberty. As one of the girls on the programme showed you can like boys toys and still be a girl, it is not central to their identity they embrace all element of a gender which is a social creation anyway. It made me very angry that bodyshock implied she should have removed all the toys that are associated with a male identity, and almost implied that this showed she had doubts. This documentary was pretty poorly handled, and really should never have been made in the first place, let these kids just live and be happy without having a camera shoved in their face and being told they're abnormal.

   Posted by Nell on 30/10/2009 16:30:34

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
9. I can't believe they were referring to the kids as their birth genders! Uh, hello, they're transexual, that changes it, genius! The programme was worth watching and could probably help unnescisarily prejudiced people, but the narration was anything but!

   Posted by Chloe on 30/10/2009 15:29:36

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
10. Well done to Simon Dickson and Channel 4 for referring to these children by their birth gender, with the exception of Chris who had clearly made a complete and informed transition. The two little boys whose parents allowed them to 'be' girls made for disturbing viewing, given that a large percentage of children exhibiting gender dysphoria at a young age grow out of it. To start young children on cross-sex hormones causes sterility and irreversible changes that many would come to regret. I should know, I was mis-diagnosed with gender dysphoria and ended up being whisked by the NHS on a gender changing journey I would come to regret and feel suicidal over. Those who make the transition after puberty - who I must point out are TRUE transsexuals - go on to live happy lives. They will never completely be their chosen gender as genetic make-up plays a significant part in your sex. I think in a perfect society transsexuals should be able to state what they are without abuse or fear of reprisals.

    Posted by David on 28/10/2009 22:52:47

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
11. I think its disgusting, and a lame excuse refering to these gender dysphoric people by their "biological" genders!! This does not make it easier for people with no understanding of transgender issues to understand, it makes it confusing!! It's very disrespectful, even the bloke at the end of the programme who had transitioned ages ago was still refered to as she..This sort of thing would not be tolerated in the trans community and would be taken to task. This hasn't helped the trans community at all, it's just made a mockery and shows NO respect at all.

    Posted by Lee on 28/10/2009 18:56:55

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
12. I find it puzzling and very condescending to say that someone with little or no previous understanding of this topic would not find the mis-use of pronouns confusing. I find this 'excuse' unacceptable and damaging and shows (again) a lack of respect and understanding of the transgender community.

    Posted by Pauline on 28/10/2009 17:42:29

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
13. You make it sound like it was only trans people who found this confusing, but this is not the case. I found it confusing, sometimes I wasn't even sure who they were referring to in the voice overs. It was very confusing at times. It seemed very disjointed to refer to the same person as two different genders in the same conversation.

    Posted by chelseylsl on 27/10/2009 04:05:51

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
14. Whilst I understand where you are coming from it would've been far easier and far less offensive to the families, children involved and the trans community as a whole if you had called them by the "target" gender. It's simple enough to explain to the audience without always saying "he" and "his" when refuring to Josie for example. The mainstream audience would've seen the program, heard the kids and their parents, then heard the narrator constantly contradicting them. The public then assume that the narrator knows more - and is refuring to them as their birth gender because she knows that, that's what they really are! So what the public then learn from this is that we are wrong about who and what we are. I'm not saying EVERYONE will, but many will I have no doubt. It's hard to be accepted in a world that views Transsexuals as odd at best, but using the former pronouns constantly will lead to problems where the public don't know how to respond to us use those pronouns because "Bodyshock did it on Channel 4" Not fair, not nice and is infact Transphobia. The program was good, narration was anything but and the reason given for it flawed!

    Posted by Jo on 27/10/2009 00:15:57

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment