Open letter to the media regarding the AG’s NC suit

Views: 10111

Dear news media:

Why is it that (almost) without exception, all news stories covering the US Attorney General’s suit against NC omits the rather significant fact that when NC took federal money tied to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and Title IX, they signed a contract with the federal government explicitly agreeing to not discriminate against trans people?

Why is it that almost all news articles spin the story to make it seem as if the legal question in the DOJ’s suit is somehow ambiguous when, in fact, NC is contractually obliged to keep their side of the agreement they made with the federal government when they received  federal funding under VAWA and Title IX?

Why is it that instead of actually telling the truth about the legal issue at hand, you’re droning on about “dueling lawsuits” and focusing on the “transgender debate” trope?

At yesterday’s press conference, here’s what the AG told you :

  • “With respect to federal funding, the statutes we brought this lawsuit under do provide the opportunity to curtail federal funding under Title IX in the Violence Against Women Act.”
  • “The Violence Against Women Act specifically targets gender identity. The law and the case law around Title VII, Title IX, and the Violence Against Women Act clearly indicates HB2 is in violation of federal law.”

Here’s what Vanita Gupta, head of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice told you at yesterday’s press conference:

  • “We also bring a claim in the Violence Against Women Act, a more recent statute specifically designed to prevent discrimination against transgender people by entities that accept certain federal funds. As with Title IX, entities that accept federal funds under VALA, including UNS and the NCDPS, pledged that they would not discriminate against sex or gender identity. Our complaint seeks to enforce that pledge and hold those entities accountable for the kind of discrimination required by HB2.”

Since you can’t seem to bring yourself to talk about what the VAWA –an Act WITH LANGUAGE PASSED BY CONGRESS AND THE SENATE… you know, the very Act that NC received funds under– says, let me spell it out for you. Under Section 3 of VAWA, the Universal definitions and grant conditions, sub-section 18 reads:

The term underserved populations means populations who face barriers in accessing and using victim services, and includes populations underserved because of geographic location, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, underserved racial and ethnic populations, populations underserved because of special needs (such as language barriers, disabilities, alienage status, or age), and any other population determined to be underserved by the Attorney General or by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as appropriate.

Under the Civil Rights section, the nondiscrimination subsection reads:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity (as defined in paragraph 249(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code), sexual orientation, or disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (title IV of Public Law 103–322 ; 108 Stat. 1902), the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (division B of Public Law 106–386; 114 Stat. 1491), the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (title IX of Public Law 109–162 ; 119 Stat. 3080), the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 , and any other program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds appropriated for grants, cooperative agreements, and other assistance administered by the Office on Violence Against Women.

Under Title I, subsection M(19), the VAWA states:

…developing, enlarging, or strengthening programs and projects to provide services and responses targeting male and female victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, whose ability to access traditional services and responses is affected by their sexual orientation or gender identity, as defined in section 249(c) of title 18, United States Code; and

Congress PASSED THIS LANGUAGE in 2013, 286 to 138. The Senate PASSED THIS LANGUAGE 78 to 22.

Why then, are you paying lip service to NC’s demonstrably false talking point that Congress hasn’t taken up the issue of “gender identity”?

Why won’t you report that NC is being sued because they agreed to the terms of the VAWA, received money under the VAWA, and then just declared that they’ve decided to not honor their contract with the Federal government?

Why have you REFUSED to print what the DOJ explicitly told you? Here it is again:

“We also bring a claim in the Violence Against Women Act, a more recent statute specifically designed to prevent discrimination against transgender people by entities that accept certain federal funds. As with Title IX, entities that accept federal funds under VALA, including UNS and the NCDPS, pledged that they would not discriminate against sex or gender identity. Our complaint seeks to enforce that pledge and hold those entities accountable for the kind of discrimination required by HB2.” – Vanita Gupta

The reality is that under the VAWA and Title IX, NC is contractually obliged to not discriminate against anyone based on “gender identity”. NC demanded the special right to not have to honor their contractual word. Not only that, NC then demanded that the federal government continue to fund them under a contract NC has declared they refuse to honor.

Why do you refuse to point out this simple — yet absolutely central — contractual fact?

San Antonio: not as mature as their children

Views: 1412
San Antonio adults standing up for their right to discriminate.

For the past month, the adults of San Antonio have been wringing their collective hands in very public displays of “concern” over a city ordinance that would extend equality to *gasp* trans citizens. While the notion of trans/cis equality has set the adult’s tongues awaggin, their children already extend this equality to trans children.

San Antonio ISD has, for some time now, had a trans-inclusive policy in place and you know what’s happened? Nothing. Not a damn thing… other than trans and cis children living side-by-side (and yes, even using the hygiene facilities) as equal citizens. Apparently being as mature as their children is asking way too much from some San Antonio adults. In response to the bigoted hyperbole pushed by the radical right, policymakers have recently added a provision to the proposed “equality” ordinance that will preserve the right of cisgender people to have transgender people jailed for using a restroom.

[soundcloud url=”″ params=”” width=” 100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /] [box]

I feel for the council member’s (CM) aid as she tries to defend the CM’s “compromise” on San Antonio’s LGB(t) equality bill. Acting as a secret shopper, I pose as a well informed Texas-style bigot trying to make sure that the CM doesn’t violate my “right” as a cisgender person to have transgender people arrested for emptying their bladders.

The purpose in my role as a secrete shopper was to reveal the bigotry and cisprivilege inherent in the CM’s “compromise.”


I guess this is what passes for “equality” for some San Antonio adults. While San Antonio kids have no issues with trans/cis equality, the adults are ready to take to the streets if it means an end to trans/cis segregation. I know it’s strange to think that you don’t get to lock your trans neighbors in a cage when they pee, but the folks at GetEquel want you to support the idea that adults need to be at least as mature and rational as their children. I know… The concept is totally wackadoodle, but there you go.

“If you look up the Texas vs Littleton case that might give you the information that you’re looking for… To, um, have gender specific bathrooms that are permanent” – Council member’s aid

The same San Antonio councilwoman who was secretly taped plotting against gay people, was – as it turns out – thinking about how best to use trans people and equivocation to fear monger:

Jeff: You get the most political points by standing up for traditional values with this one. It’s not an economic argument. This isn’t a small government argument. This is a social, cultural argument right here and this is how you… And you’re going to score the biggest points by taking that stand.

James: I agree with that but to play devil’s advocate, you could try to swing the conservative gay vote, who are, they’re conservative in their beliefs but…

CW Chan: No, I don’t think that’s…

James: It would be way fewer points though.

Roger: But if she’s, if you’re in a Republican primary against anyone that you could conceivably be against, they’re also going to be opposed to gay marriage. So that means that anyone who is gay, that’s their only issue.

CW Chan: You know, I voted no when that was put on the Constitution about a marriage should be between a man and woman.

Roger: Yeah.

CW Chan: Okay? And I’m telling you, that’s how… That’s okay if you want… This is my philosophy, guys. Whatever you want to do in your bedroom, that’s none of my business, but do not impose your view on other people, especially become a policy. And I’m, that’s all. Because personally, I think it’s just disgusting just to even think about. All the… definitions…

Jeff: But, but if you are, but if we are going to write something, I suggest it, to score the most points, it be, you know, a pro… It doesn’t have to be anti-gay, but pro-traditional values.

CW Chan: okay, I’m for that, but I don’t want to go against, necessarily… I don’t want to beat up anybody.

Jeff: No, you’re not going to beat up… That’s what I’m saying. It’s not anti-gay, it’s profamily.

Roger: And then the other thing I think you should do..

CW Chan: Maybe what we can do, can we maybe throw some questionable confusions like okay, this transgender… Because this definition is so broad, we don’t want to go into detail, but if you, I look up, I had a… Maybe I say I was not educated on what transgender is about. I look up the, the Wikipedia, whatever, and I’m very surprised how broad the definition can be and it can cause a lot of troubles. What is the, would that, in other words start to have a lot of questions. Would we be discriminating someone if a person go to uhh, uhh, go to a female bathroom?

Roger: Yup.

CW Chan: Because the person that I am…

Jeff: I feel like I’m a woman.

CW Chan: … I feel myself that I’m a woman…

James: That gets down to, umm, what’s on the driver’s license. In some states, you can get, if you have…

Jeff: In the state of Texas, identifies you with what you were born as.

James: By chromosome, right?

Jeff: It’s about what you were born as. By the equipment you have at birth…

CW Chan: Exactly!

And it seems that her plan is going off without a hitch.

San Antonio isn’t the only Texas town with cis/trans equality policies that kids have no problems with. Here in Houston, our trans youth have full access to everything that their cisgender counterparts have access to. Yes, that means restrooms, sports, and changing facilities… And you know what? It’s been that way for years and if you haven’t noticed yet, the doom and gloom the radical right is forever forecasting hasn’t materialized.

No chicken little, the sky isn’t going to fall.

Texas Attorney General wrote to San Antonio mayor urging him to crush equality or risk everyone’s right to religion.

Apparently San Antonio children are far more capable of dealing with trans people than their parents and by gowd, many adults seem to like it that way.

California Trans Bill Freak Out

Views: 2117

Supposedly, as the RadRight narrative goes, the California bill protecting trans kids in school is anarchy and madness. Unsurprisingly, TERFs and H-BSers jumped on that narrative:


You know what?


Here in TEXAS – yes, conservative TEXAS – we’ve had these California-style policies in effect for YEARS. And you know what’s happened? Nothing… Except trans kids got to go to school without having to face institutionalized bigotry.

Yup, from kindergarten to high school, here in Texas towns like Houston, trans kids have been able to transition and be protected on the basis of gender identity for years. Worse (for the nutty narrative on offer by fringe groups), Houston isn’t the only Texas town with these protections on the books. Other Texas towns with these California-style policies are Dallas, Fort Worth, El Paso and San Antonio. Worse still, most Texas universities have similar California-style policies.

Here I am helping to get these policies passed here in Houston, Texas:

While these fringe groups have collectively gotten the vapors over this California law, a lot of Texas towns went further. We’ve even extended gender identity protections to the SCHOOL EMPLOYEES too!

Nutty groups like TERFs, H-BSers and fringe radical right groups have asserted all kinds of hyperbole in the hope that it will scare you into helping them harm trans kids. There’s a reason you’ve never heard any of them clue you in on the fact that these policies have been in effect for years throughout conservative areas of the nation.

Let’s be honest, how likely is it that all of these extremist groups are clueless that California-style policies were already enacted all over the country – for years – before taking to various media outlets to encourage you to help them harm trans kids? Why is it that they never talk about that? What purpose does it serve to pretend that liberal California is the first to enact these policies? What purpose does it serve to not tell you that this isn’t anything new? What purpose does it serve to not tell you that these policies haven’t been the harbingers of doom they claim them to be?

Let’s be clear:

  1. These policies are about the well-being of trans kids in a cis privileged system.
  2. These policies have been in effect for years in even conservative areas.
  3. These policies haven’t produced the hellish urban dystopian future these fringe groups are forever promising looms just over the horizon.

These groups like to pretend that gender identity means something like “how you feel” when you wake up in the morning. Here’s what the FBI says gender identity means:

“A person’s internal sense of being male, female, or a combination of both; that internal sense of a person’s gender may be different from the person’s gender as assigned at birth”

When the term was first popularized, here’s what it meant:

Gender identity is the sense of knowing to which sex one belongs, that is, the awareness ‘I am a male’ or ‘I am a female’. This term gender identity’ will be used in this paper rather than various other terms which have been employed in this regard, such as the term ‘sexual identity’. ‘Sexual identity’ is ambiguous, since it may refer to one’s sexual activities or fantasies, etc. The advantage of the phrase ‘gender identity’ lies in the fact that it clearly refers to one’s self-image as regard to belonging to a specific sex. Thus, of a patient who says: ‘I am not a very masculine man’, it is possible to say that his gender identity is male although he recognizes his lack of so-called masculinity. – International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1964, v 45, pages 220 – 226

I dunno, but it seems to me that the meaning of gender identity has been fairly consistent over the past HALF CENTURY or so.

Opponents of trans protections often claim that we don’t have exact definitions for gender identity because… Well, who the hell knows what that even means, amiright?


The term is as well defined as other terms used in policy – like, say sex. I could make equally preposterous arguments against any policy containing the term sex because, well… what exactly is sex anyway? Are we talking about genitals and if so, exactly how do we deal with the 1 in 500 intersex births? Are we talking about a binary chromosome set: XX & YY and if so, what does sex mean when dealing with the many other types of chromosomal configurations like XO, XXY, etc? Are we talking about whatever is put on your birth certificate and if so, what does that mean when 1000s of them are changed/corrected year year in America? Are we talking about socialization and if so, why would anyone oppose a trans kid in transitioning at an early age? Are we talking about secondary sex characteristics and if so, what does that mean when we talk about transsexual and/or AIS/PAIS people? If we are talking merely about the way a body functions to facilitate sexual reproduction, what does sex mean for the 1000s of kids born each year without this ability?

Any term we use in any bill or legal argument can be picked apart in this way. These arguments are called equivocation. Who remembers Clinton asking exactly what is is?

Fringe groups like to tout this rhetorical tactic around as if they have something really insightful to say.

What about those dreadful appeals to emotion? You know, those arguments that sound a lot like the following ridiculous appeal to have non-transgender women banned from schools and female hygiene facilities:


Look at the above image.

ALL of these are women born women and they’re dangerous. These non-transgender women are guilty of rape. They’ve even stalked their young victims and raped them at knife point. This is undeniable proof that cisgender women are a danger and for the sake of creating safe places, we need laws on the books that will keep kids safe from cisgender women. It’s not that I hate cisgender women; that’s not the issue. I support rational equality; and besides, this isn’t even an equality issue here… I’m not a bigot. From the evidence presented here, one can only rationally conclude that cisgender women can obviously be dangerous predators. The women in the image are just a small sample of the long, long list of womyn born womyn perverts.

The list goes on and on. Lives were ruined by these cisgender women perverts. This isn’t about the adults. This is about the safety of YOUR family. What would YOU do if one of your kids found themselves alone in the bathroom with a cisgender woman?!?

If you can stand it, read a sample of how disgusting a cisgender women can be:


I’m not saying that all cisgender women are perverts, but I just don’t want to risk the safety of my child around a non-transgender women. Would you risk your child? Of course not.

Did you know that non-transgender women are even organizing to expand their power in influence in society? They even hold annual gatherings to plot their next move. They’re already in the classrooms and the bathrooms picking their next victim. They’ve already used their position as cisgender women teachers to prey upon YOUR children. Again, this is a real issue that the media isn’t covering… and do you know why? It’s not politically correct to go on record as taking a stand against non-transgender women.

America has a long tradition of putting the well-being of children first. Who are you to tell my family that we have to suddenly tear down that tradition? Things have worked just fine and now our nation’s tradition of doing the right thing – the rational thing – is being discarded at the cost of safety, security and well-being.

Let’s cut through all the politically correct BS. Do you really want a cisgender teen or adult hanging out in the bathroom with YOUR child? What about your child’s school shower? Do you really want to take that chance? I know I don’t!!!

I know that you’ve heard media outlets make these very arguments against trans people. These BS appeals to emotion pimp out the actual suffering of very real and horrific violence, debasing the real hardships people have faced by using it in an effort to trick people into harming trans kids:

We’re talking about trans children and their ability to make it through school without dealing with the same institutionalized hate I faced. When you hear bigots try to sway you with equivocation and/or appeals to emotion and tradition, simply ask them:

In what way does gender equality nullify laws prohibiting rape, assault, stalking and/or public indecency/disturbance?  

It always seems to derail their rantings because you know what? It doesn’t.

A Shezow Game: Spot the TERF!

Views: 24646

Horror of horrors: there’s a cartoon wherein a boy puts on a ring that dresses him up like a female superhero. You just know that’s going to bring out the Right Wing/TERF fringe to proclaim that this show signals…


Here’s some reactions. I’ve taken these comments from a well-known right wing blog and a well-known TERF blog.

Which comment came from which? Can you guess correctly?

(answers at the end)

  1. Oh, that’s just so terrific. Maybe they can get our kids to want to mutilate their bodies and have a sex change operation by the age of 6.
  2. Cartoon Porn
  3. yuck
  4. Propaganda and indoctrination all in one horrific package. No thanks.
  5. Trying to indoctrinate children at a younger and younger age.
  6. My kids won’t be watching it. The Hub has now joined Disney Channel and Nickelodeon in the ban on certain unhealthy kid tv in my house.
  7. But the last thing we need is more boys getting the notion from the media that they are the wrong sex and that they can be “magically” turned into the opposite one, and that then they get to be girl super-heros.
  8. Yet another reason why I cut the cable and have strict controls over what my kids watch on TV.
  9. I’ll add that this whole business of preparing children for transitioning when they come of age, reminds me most unpleasantly of how children are groomed for prostitution.
  10. How many trannies are there out there? Is it even .05% of the population? This is just some trannie wanting to promote trannies

Need a clue?

Five of the comments come from the TERF site. Did you spot them all?

Scroll down for the answers…


  1. Right Wing
  2. Right Wing
  3. TERF
  4. Right Wing
  5. TERF
  6. TERF
  7. TERF
  8. Right Wing
  9. TERF
  10. Right Wing

How many did you get right?

The backstory:

Media is pushing the story that a new and/or the first transgender/transsexual/crossdressing (they can’t decide how they want to spin it) kids cartoon hero in coming to televisions soon.  The truth is that it’s not new (it’s been on TV for more than a year already) and it’s certainly not the first (I won’t list the many, many characters here).

Anyway, I wanted to see how the fringe was spinning the story and I wasn’t disappointed. Apparently this is all part of The Big Conspiracy (liberal, trans, patriarchy, godless, homosexual – take your pick) to screw with kids and make them do things, on behalf of the conspiracy, later in life.

Because You’ve Become Stupid

Views: 3580

So you believe Obama wants to redistribute your wealth because AM radio and FOX News told you so?*

FOX ‘News’

Here’s why your ‘news’ sources are making you stupid: They lie to you. Here’s the actual quote:

“Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policymaking. And neither necessarily have been the Chicago Public Schools. What that means, then, is, is that as we try to resuscitate this notion that we’re all in this thing together, leave nobody behind, we do have to be innovative in thinking, what are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live? And my suggestion, I guess, would be that the trick — and this is one of the few areas where I think there are technical issues that have to be dealt with, as opposed to just political issues — I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”

Yup. That’s right. You were duped. You were lied to. There is no quote wherein Obama talks about population wealth distribution. They edited the above speech and lied about what he was talking about… and you believed it. He’s clearly talking about moving resources from ineffective government agencies and redistributing those resources to agencies with “innovative in thinking, what are the delivery systems that are actually effective.”

Oh, in case you’ve swallowed the “you didn’t build that” anti-Obama meme, here’s the full quote:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

Unless the business you run built all the nation’s roads, bridges and the entire Internet, you didn’t build those three things. He’s clearly talking about the infrastructure that makes American business possible; but, because you listen to AM radio and watch FOX news, you think he actually said that if you built a business, government should get the credit… And you believed it because your trust is misplaced. In other words, you’ve been a fool.

The media sources you get you ‘news’ from are making you stupid.

* I’m making this post because it’s easier to point people to this post than to explain to each fool how they’ve been lied to and why their misplaced trust in right-wing media makes them stupid.

Nikki Araguz, Jewel Thief Extraordinaire

Views: 7728
Nikki and her husband Thomas

I’ve largely stayed out of the ruckus over the whole “Nikki’s a jewel thief” meme going on because it had little to do with the trans community. However, it’s gotten to the point where I think that bias has come into play. As many of you know, Nikki just spent 15 days in jail and was just given 50 additional days in jail for her role in the supposed theft of a watch.

The facts of the case are that Nikki and a lady went out drinking. Then, depending on who you believe, the drunk lady traded watches with Nikki or, if you believe the drunk lady,  Nikki took this lady out drinking as part of a plot to secretly drug her so that Nikki could then steal her watch… and in a stoke of genius, Nikki replaced the stolen watch her old watch.

My opinion is that the lady she was out drinking with made a drunk-trade (it happens). Under Texas law, you have 72 hours to back out of a contract (verbal or written) and from what I can tell, the drunk-trade lady wanted to back out of the trade within the 72 hour time limit. However, by then the watch had already disappeared.

So, instead of taking this to some small-claims court like any normal person would, the drunk-trade lady begins to ham it up in the media. She actually claimed to be the victim of a nefarious plot wherein she was suspiciously drugged and the jewel thief’s (Nikki) best and brightest idea was to replace the stolen watch with the thief’s own watch. The media pounced on the story without question and MANY people actually thought that this was the best, most probable explanation for what happened that night.

I suspect that this wouldn’t have turned into a 3-ring circus had the drunk-trade lady made a trade with just some random person that night and I’m sure that Nikki isn’t the first person to show up to court late. In the end, I think Nikki was guilty of not knowing the 72 hour rule, for being late to court, for not having the cash to pay for a criminal defense in this case and therefore having to instead accept a plea deal…  that’s all.

Is spending the better part of a quarter of a year in jail plus paying the ‘victim’ several thousand in restitution a reasonable outcome in this case? I’m thinking no… I can’t help but notice that there seems to be this sense that Nikki should pay for something… that she’s guilty of something and that it’s good that she’s finally getting her comeuppance. That collective feeling is called bias.

I mean, if people are really going to buy the  “drunk-trade lady is a victim of a nefarious plot” scenario as being the most reasonable explanation to what happened, then that seems (at least to me) to be a clear-cut suspension of critical thinking due to bias. I’m not sure that Nikki has ever had any real shot at not being automatically seen as some demon hell-spawn who eats mewing kittens for breakfast. Where did that bias come from? Well, these ideas were manufactured through the hard work of print and television media.

From August 2010:

Do you think that media treatment just impacts Nikki? Well, you’d be wrong: 

Therefore, I wanted to make a quick post and simply encourage people to use their critical thinking. She wasn’t found guilty; she has no money, can’t pay for a criminal defense and took a plea deal. Did any evidence ever arise supporting the idea that the drunk-trade lady was drugged? Nope. Was the reaction of the judge normal for folks who turn up late to court? I don’t know; I’ve never been late to any courtroom… but I’m betting that being late isn’t a rare occurrence. How common is it to know about the 72 hour rule? I don’t know… Did you know about the 72 hour rule?

Here’s an example of the way most of my conversations go when I talk about Nikki:

Random Person: It’s only right! This “woman” lied to her husband about being born a man! (Seriously, they’ve actually made the air quotations with their fingers)

Me: Actually Thomas knew, he used to accompany Nikki to my transgender clinic.

Random Person:  Erm, uh… Well, she left her poor husband!

Me: Actually, it turned out they were living together. Here’s a copy of their new lease signed just weeks before Thomas died.

Random Person:   Uh… okay… But she wants to steal the kids benefits!

Me: Actually, Nikki worked to get the kids their benefits – which they now have.

Random Person:  Okay… But her birth certificate clearly says she’s a man!

Me: Actually, it turned out her birth certificate says she was born female. Here’s a copy of it.

Random Person:  Oh hell. Can’t we just hate her without facts getting in the way?!?

I get it; there’s a lot of people out there who don’t like Nikki and I’m betting that they don’t even know why anymore. And that, my friends, is the entire point of this post.

About Work It

Views: 3536

Since people are having a hard time understanding why trans folk seem to take issue with Work It, let me put it in terms that more folks might understand. What follows is the exact “About” section from the show’s homepage. I’ve made just one change: instead of transface, the show is now about blackface:

Work It About Page

About the show

Lee Standish is a quick-witted and likable family man. His best friend, Angel Ortiz, is a hotheaded ladies’ man with no filter. The two of them worked at Pontiac — Lee as a top salesman and Angel as head mechanic — until the company went out of business. Out of work for a year, their job prospects don’t look too bright. They’ve learned the hard way that the current recession is more of a “man white-cession” and their skills aren’t in high demand. Then the almost-broke Lee finds out that Coreco Pharmaceuticals is looking to hire sales reps — female black sales reps. He takes a chance and goes into the interview dressed in heels, a skirt and make-up blackface. The transformed Lee gets hired — as a woman an African American.

Lee wants to stay true to his agreement with Angel that, if one of them is working, then the other will be too, so he tells Angel what he has to do if he wants a job at Coreco. Angel, who is miserable working at a fast-food dump, is desperate to make a change; he decides to swallow his pride and go for it. Unfortunately he tanks his interview, but when he fixes the boss’s car, he too is hired – also as a woman an African American.

To stay employed, Lee and Angel must put aside their alpha male racist selves and learn to navigate their all-female black workplace. Their presence at Coreco with their new female black coworkers initially raises a few eyebrows, but the company’s two newest sales reps find ways to put almost everyone at ease: Enthusiastic and sometimes naïve Kristin is excited when the female black Lee tells her that she, too, is a single mom. Kelly, the office party girl, is thrilled to have two more friends to hit the town with. Only Grace, the somewhat icy regional sales leader, keeps a suspicious eye on Lee and Angel, convinced that there’s something seriously wrong with them. To complicate matters, when Angel meets their new boss, Vanessa, he is immediately smitten with her. But there are some serious obstacles in the way of their romance: She’s his boss, and — no small detail — she thinks he’s a woman black.

For his part, Lee can’t disclose his feminine black secret to his wife, Connie, or to their 14-year-old daughter, Kat, so he tells them he got a job at a drug company – as himself. Connie notices that, since Lee has begun working at Coreco, he seems to be more understanding and sensitive to her needs. The opposite is true of Connie’s unemployed brother, Brian, who is also Lee and Angel’s drinking buddy. Sensitive and understanding he is not, so they definitely can’t reveal their secret to him.

Lee and Angel quickly realize how much they have to learn to get by in their new environment. It’s not just how to walk in heels and tighten up with Spanx do stereotypical black things . For the first time, they’re really listening to the women black people in their lives and opening themselves up to a whole new realm of experiences. In the process, they’re learning that to be a better man white person may mean having to be a better woman black person.

IMHO, this show is nothing more than a trans minstrel show:

Transface: This is funny

Blackface: This is not funny

Yah, yah, yah… I hear you. You’re going to say, “But this show isn’t about real transgender people!” As I relied Sunday:

In a minstrel show, the audience knew they weren’t watching a real African-Americans, they understood that this was a white person mocking the white perception of the black experience. Would the public support a show about two out of work white men who find both economic abundance and laughs while performing minstrel shows? Of course not. The point isn’t that this show mocks the real experience of trans folk; rather, the huge issue is that the show purposefully mocks the experience non-trans people think trans people have.

Do you get it? I understand that Work It isn’t a show mocking real crossdressers, transsexuals or any other type of trans person; the show’s stock-in-trade is inviting people to laugh at the EXACT representation right wingers claim to be the trans experience.  This show trades in the exact same imagery powerful right wingers regularly use to increase the suffering of trans folk.

This is cruel

Of course non-trans folk; I totally hear you! Mocking imagery like the above that has been used to subvert 14th amendment guarantees  for trans folk in employment, housing and medical care has absolutely, positively NOTHING in common with this show’s shtick. Sure… right.

Not cruel; cisgender people say so!

And Soul Man wasn’t offensive, white people said so (at the time)!

… until a number of years later…

Unlike Watermellon Man or Black Like Me, Soul Man uses blackface to portray the issue of crossing the color line as a farcical, frat-boy romp. Mark Watson’s indignities seem to be limited to suffering the occasional bigoted apartment manager or tasteless racist joke from fellow students – hardly an inconvenience when compared to the “benefits” that he derives from being black. Moreover, Soul Man presents these incidents as comic fodder, intended to amuse rather than provoke or disturb. As a result, the depiction of racist incidents in this film is stripped of affective power and validity and subsumed with Mark’s dominant gaze.

– Critical white studies: looking behind the mirror, page 271

Some claim that Work It is just another Bosom Buddies but I say that it’s actually just another Soul Man. Like  Soul Man, Work It uses  transface “… to portray the issue of crossing the [gender] line as a farcical, frat-boy romp.” Lee and Angel will suffer some indignities which will be “…  hardly an inconvenience when compared to the ‘benefits’ that [they] derive from being [female].” Moreover, Work It will present these incidents as “comic fodder, intended to amuse rather than provoke or disturb. As a result, the depiction of [bigotry] incidents in this film is stripped of affective power and validity…”