|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Jan 17, 2019 2:29:33 GMT
As someone who was very involved with drag and trans communities at the time the phrase "t@#££%" was not onlt in common useage at the time as both reference to crossdressers, drag queens, and frequently transfolk themselves. Is it a mistkae in the piece? Yes. But the ignorance of connotations back then and it not bein ok for a teenager from blackpool to say it is different now. As in now the word is almost exclusively a slur. I am not even sure of transfolk use it anymore. That said, I am glad to hear there was an apology. But cultural context at the time and widespread non negative useage by 3 separate queer cultures makes it forgivable for the time. It's one of my favourite 8 and Lucy stories and it does hit me funny. Also, it would have made more sense if it had been used by one of the 1975 folk instead of Lucy. (As in the 70s it was even further removed) It was actually in really widespread useage in 2006-8 by like I said 3 differnet queer subcultures and many people who really shouldn't have been using the word were not aware of it bein offensive. Today in 2019 it seems to be almost exclusively a slur. I am intersexed and identify as fluid and performed as a king back then and the T word was everywhere. It was also a miserable time for anyone who was born trans, gay, or intersex. Etymologically the t word fell out of favour because it was used to identify people in a dehumanizing way to the point that nobody was comfortable with hearing the word anymore. Excellent post and the only thing I would add to it, is I hear world quite a bit among my friends in the NOLA drag community. Perhaps not as much as I hear it used a few years ago but it is still being used.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2019 2:34:11 GMT
As someone who was very involved with drag and trans communities at the time the phrase "t@#££%" was not onlt in common useage at the time as both reference to crossdressers, drag queens, and frequently transfolk themselves. Is it a mistkae in the piece? Yes. But the ignorance of connotations back then and it not bein ok for a teenager from blackpool to say it is different now. As in now the word is almost exclusively a slur. I am not even sure of transfolk use it anymore. That said, I am glad to hear there was an apology. But cultural context at the time and widespread non negative useage by 3 separate queer cultures makes it forgivable for the time. It's one of my favourite 8 and Lucy stories and it does hit me funny. Also, it would have made more sense if it had been used by one of the 1975 folk instead of Lucy. (As in the 70s it was even further removed) It was actually in really widespread useage in 2006-8 by like I said 3 differnet queer subcultures and many people who really shouldn't have been using the word were not aware of it bein offensive. Today in 2019 it seems to be almost exclusively a slur. I am intersexed and identify as fluid and performed as a king back then and the T word was everywhere. It was also a miserable time for anyone who was born trans, gay, or intersex. Etymologically the t word fell out of favour because it was used to identify people in a dehumanizing way to the point that nobody was comfortable with hearing the word anymore. Thanks for sharing this, it's good to learn about things like this from someone in the community themselves.
There is another much, much less impacting bit of slang -- gamer slang, in this case -- that seemed to have drifted under BF's radar in The Song of Megaptera. Namely, the leet-speaking computer saying that it will "teabag" the whale (*polite cough*), so I can see how this might have happened. It's also nice to hear that they didn't hunker down about it and apologised when they found out. Shows a benign intent, if nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by muckypup on Jan 17, 2019 9:44:13 GMT
My god, it was a joke.......
The world would be a dull place if we lose perspective and our sense of humour went too......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2019 10:58:39 GMT
Same way everyone just ignores Rose telling the Doctor that he’s so gay in Aliens Of London. It was really not that long ago that that kind of talked was still looked at as socially acceptable. We know better now and you wouldn’t see lines like that these days. ^ First response answers it best. I remember the first trans friends I had would refer to themselves as that word all the time back then, part of which may have been appropriating the word to take its power away from haters but for whatever reason, it was the term back when and, yes, we know better now as a society. It's like everytime Talons comes up it starts a major debate which usually has posters ignore the fact that story is from a UK show, indeed a UK show from 1977 which was shown the same night as The Black And White Minstrel Show, a programme featuring men in blackface miming to Al Jolson. In 1977. From the same era as Ali Bongo, a white man dressing and acting like the stereotypical Oriental stereotype who was one of the biggest draws in light entertainment. And all this was years before Only Fools And Horses (the UK's favourite ever sitcom) used racial slurs with Del Boy talking about corner shops. Alien to us now, just as Lucie's line is just over a decade on, but the context is King. The only solutions are a) accepting it as the relic it is; b) censoring the lines or c) removing the story from circulation. Anyone really in favour of the last two?
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,813
|
Post by lidar2 on Jan 17, 2019 13:21:38 GMT
On the subject of changing attitudes as to what is and isn't acceptable, I heard a radio discussion recently where someone representing people with facial disfigurement (that was their term, before anyone criticises me) was complaining about how mainstream media uses facial disfigurement to indicate a character is evil and how that was inappropriate. Travis from Blakes 7 and Sharaz Jek came first to my mind as examples, but I'm sure there are lots of others we can think of. It made me wonder, in the future will people be condemning Blakes 7 and Caves of Androzani in strong terms, the way some now condemn Talons, because of their portrayal of people with facial disfigurement. (actually Talons falls down on that front as well, come to think of it)
Back on topic, re Glam Rock, like Talons, it is what it is - a product of its era. I'm not losing any sleep over it and I still enjoy them both.
|
|
|
Post by levi3o4 on Jan 17, 2019 17:14:06 GMT
The thing about people using slurs that refer to them is that it's not entirely about reclamation; it's often also about internalized bigotry. When trans people use that slur, it's often due to internalized transphobia, especially internalized transmisogyny.
Anyway - yes, Paul Magrs has no right to use that slur. i don't know much about Magrs, but there is plenty of transphobia in the gay community, so his being gay says literally nothing about whether or not he's transphobic. I hope he's not - he's a good writer, it would be a shame if he turned out to be another Gareth Roberts.
And as for whether or not certain words should be "allowed" in certain contexts - this line of reasoning falls afoul of a common fallacy: there is no authority enforcing whether certain things are "allowed" or have to be censored. This is not a conversation about people are able to do; it's a conversation about which decisions are good, and which are bad. When OP asks why everybody ignores the use of that slur, they're not asking about why Big Finish hasn't pulled the episode from circulation - they're asking, literally, why nobody seems to care. And the consequences of someone caring aren't "the story gets pulled/censored" or "Paul Magrs gets burnt at the stake," it's "We acknowledge as a fandom that this was bad, and we agree that if it happens again, then it's a problem."
Not having that acknowledged, especially if you're a trans person or an ally, is absolutely maddening - it makes you feel alone, and that nobody cares at all about why this is wrong.
I'm glad OP asked the question. I'm glad Nick Briggs apologized. I hope nobody uses that word on Doctor Who ever again.
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Jan 17, 2019 17:24:21 GMT
I have to say that I don't even specifically remember that line, but it definitely strikes me as a slur and inappropriate, now that it's been brought up. I am also glad that Nick Briggs apologized for it.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Jan 17, 2019 20:37:22 GMT
It's not something that should be written now, thankfully, but like the aforementioned "Talons" it is what it is as an artifact/snapshot of the era it was written in (If you're going to burn a Magrs story chuck "The Boy that Time Forgot" on the fire.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2019 22:03:34 GMT
The thing about people using slurs that refer to them is that it's not entirely about reclamation; it's often also about internalized bigotry. When trans people use that slur, it's often due to internalized transphobia, especially internalized transmisogyny. Anyway - yes, Paul Magrs has no right to use that slur. i don't know much about Magrs, but there is plenty of transphobia in the gay community, so his being gay says literally nothing about whether or not he's transphobic. I hope he's not - he's a good writer, it would be a shame if he turned out to be another Gareth Roberts. And as for whether or not certain words should be "allowed" in certain contexts - this line of reasoning falls afoul of a common fallacy: there is no authority enforcing whether certain things are "allowed" or have to be censored. This is not a conversation about people are able to do; it's a conversation about which decisions are good, and which are bad. When OP asks why everybody ignores the use of that slur, they're not asking about why Big Finish hasn't pulled the episode from circulation - they're asking, literally, why nobody seems to care. And the consequences of someone caring aren't "the story gets pulled/censored" or "Paul Magrs gets burnt at the stake," it's "We acknowledge as a fandom that this was bad, and we agree that if it happens again, then it's a problem." Not having that acknowledged, especially if you're a trans person or an ally, is absolutely maddening - it makes you feel alone, and that nobody cares at all about why this is wrong. I'm glad OP asked the question. I'm glad Nick Briggs apologized. I hope nobody uses that word on Doctor Who ever again. Exactly this. It can be enormously frustrating because the mere mention of something now being contextually inappropriate can be shot down with cries of "Well, do you want to censor it?" It's not a question of burying your head in the sand about it. Quite the opposite, it's a question of resonance. Perfect example: there is a local story here about a place called Boundary Road, which was essentially the borderline of where the First Peoples were segregated away. When it was brought up, there was an enormous debate over whether or not to change the name... The Aboriginal community said: "Don't change a bloody thing. We're not asking for it to be changed, that's the worst thing you could do to us. We're asking for it to be recognised. Just say the words: 'This is now wrong. We accept that.' That's all we want."
Saying it was a product of it's time is fine. I've read Twain, Lovecraft, Sapper, I'm familiar with products of their time. Where you always have to draw the line is endorsing it now. Today, as of 2019. That is bunk. You don't have to celebrate a characters' values to enjoy a story (pick a well-written antagonist) and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that these values have changed. This is coming from someone who is very keenly aware of changing attitudes in regards to things like asexuality, which is still treated in some quarters as "pretending." I get historicity. I understand it. I've an English Major backing up that understanding. Still consider your praxis. Stories are not about absolutes and they are never static things. Once a story becomes static in discourse, it dies. A cold, miserable death of obsolescence because it doesn't mean anything anymore, it's not allowed to.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Jan 17, 2019 22:19:30 GMT
It’s also “in character” for Lucie, she speaks before her brain engages st times. The only “off note” is that the Doctor didn’t chastise her with a sharp “Lucie!”
|
|
|
Post by eric009 on Jan 18, 2019 0:25:25 GMT
I agree:P
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Jan 18, 2019 1:24:12 GMT
It's not something that should be written now, thankfully, but like the aforementioned "Talons" it is what it is as an artifact/snapshot of the era it was written in (If you're going to burn a Magrs story chuck "The Boy that Time Forgot" on the fire.) Let's not start on Talons again. But I totally agree with you about The Boy That Time Forgot. It's best forgotten totally.
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Jan 18, 2019 13:35:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Digi on Jan 18, 2019 14:16:24 GMT
I wonder if that was a result of this thread. DU is by no means official, but there’s definitely an awareness of it amongst at least a few of the Big Finish folks. In any case, good on Paul Magrs for addressing the question head-on. A lot of people would get defensive and double down, or just avoid discussing it entirely. Takes guts to own up.
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Jan 18, 2019 14:36:27 GMT
I wonder if that was a result of this thread. DU is by no means official, but there’s definitely an awareness of it amongst at least a few of the Big Finish folks. In any case, good on Paul Magrs for addressing the question head-on. A lot of people would get defensive and double down, or just avoid discussing it entirely. Takes guts to own up. Yeah. I follow him on Facebook and I don't know him personally, but his public comments have always led me to believe that he's a profoundly decent guy and this post only reinforces that impression.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 15:30:38 GMT
Coming back into this thread I made like; Well I... uh... guess he noticed, huh?
|
|
|
Post by Ian McArdell on Jan 18, 2019 16:09:49 GMT
I wonder if that was a result of this thread. DU is by no means official, but there’s definitely an awareness of it amongst at least a few of the Big Finish folks. In any case, good on Paul Magrs for addressing the question head-on. A lot of people would get defensive and double down, or just avoid discussing it entirely. Takes guts to own up. Yeah. I follow him on Facebook and I don't know him personally, but his public comments have always led me to believe that he's a profoundly decent guy and this post only reinforces that impression. I've had the pleasure of corresponding with Paul over the years and meeting him in person, as well as following him on social media, and this has always been my experience too. He's definitely one of the good guys, a thoughtful, creative soul. I'm not at all surprised at his prompt apology post and you can be sure it comes from the heart.
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Jan 18, 2019 17:02:09 GMT
Paul Magrs is a member of this forum, though he hasn’t posted much, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he saw it here.
That said, good on him for noticing and apologizing.
That was a very nice blog post.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 18:07:59 GMT
Tranny has always been a slur against trans people. Not sure why this wasn't known at the time.
|
|
dorney
Big Finish Creative Team
Likes: 3,077
|
Post by dorney on Jan 19, 2019 0:23:16 GMT
Paul Magrs is a member of this forum, though he hasn’t posted much, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he saw it here. That said, good on him for noticing and apologizing. That was a very nice blog post. I think he was tweeted directly about it recently. I think his response is pretty good.
|
|