In Re: Jessica Davis

The third episode of Outlaw was very interesting. In between trying to pay off his gambling debt, Cyrus takes on the case of a white cis woman whose baby died when she accidentally left her in her car, revealing what circumstances could cause such a thing to happen. Meanwhile, his minion Eddie must defend a black trans woman who was wrongfully searched, found to have drugs on her person, and charged with drug use.

The main plot, that of the mother, was very interesting. Cyrus brings on a scientist who explains why such a thing could happen - the mother was exhausted, stressed out, and distracted by an untimely phone call, all of which caused her to forget that her husband had not taken the baby to daycare as he usually did. He explains - to the audience as much as the jury - that such an accident can happen to anyone, that "good parents" are not immune, and that for this reason a "zero tolerance" policy for the accidental death of a baby is simply unacceptable. The explanation made good sense, and I hope that more people will consider it when further cases crop up (as they invariably, sadly, will).

The emotional reaction on the part of the mother was also a factor. During most of the trial, Jessica Davis acted emotionless, preferring to comment on the details of her drive to work when the incident happened, an the quality of the bagel she ate after she arrived, making it seem like she had no grief for her lost child. Cyrus (being a magical attorney who could fix everything) managed to prove that she did grieve for the baby, and had dissociated herself from her emotions as a coping mechanism - which, he argued, was not proof that she had no love for the child.

This was especially poignant for me for the following reason: After I lost my faith, I dissociated myself and hard. I did it because I thought my strong emotions were the presence of their god - whom I no longer wanted anything to do with - and that atheists weren't supposed to feel like that - the result of my mother's brainwashing and my own naivete. So I cut myself off from those feelings. I spent the next two weeks in a miserable haze. It stopped me from feeling the pain of betrayal from learning that my god was not what I had been told, but it also stopped me from feeling happiness, or warmth, or really anything else. When my mother found out that I had left the faith, she came down on me hard for it. She accused me of putting on "fake happiness" (acting like I wasn't miserable so she couldn't use my emotions to "prove" that my choice was wrong) and of being hard and cold and other horrible things which proved that I had lost the light of God. She managed to break through to me a couple of days later, restoring my emotional status if not my faith, but neither of us really understood what had happened - until the therapist character explained the phenomenon. Whether Mum gets it, I can't say, but it was a relief for me to understand what had happened, and I hope that other people remember this episode when someone in their life acts the same way.

The major subplot of the episode featured Eddie and Lucinda taking on the case - as I mentioned above - of a black trans woman named Desdemona. She'd been getting sexual with a man in a car when a policeman had come up, searched her without provocation or warrant, found drugs on her person, and proceeded to claim that she had been smoking pot in the car and charge her with the same. The man she'd been with was the only one who could clear her name, but he was reluctant because he'd been seeing her behind his wife's back, and he didn't want their relationship to be known.

Eddie was very disrespectful of Desdemona at first. He treated her with barely-concealed disdain to her faced and referred to her with male pronouns behind her back. That is why I was pleased when - also behind her back - Lucinda took him to task, repeatedly correcting him on pronouns and such. Eventually he came around - especially when he saw the way she'd been treated during the night she spent in jail - and persuaded her lover to testify for her. In the end she hugged him, and while he was obviously uncomfortable, he seemed to recognize that it was a personal problem and handled the situation respectfully.

This, I felt, was an excellent example of how to treat a trans character in your show. She may have been in trouble for being trans - or for being black, or for the dual crime of being trans black - but it was not the focal issue. The focal issue was that she had been wrongfully accused, with appropriate coverage of her transgender status. Eddie expressed cissexist sentiments about her, and was forcefully and repeatedly shot down by Lucinda, making it very clear where the writers stood on the issue. My only complaint concern's Lucinda's ongoing comments about his "gender identity issues" - she seemed to think that his discomfort stemmed from him being a closet trans woman, possibly because he had been in a boy band and was hit on by the drummer. None of it made any sense, all of it was 100% Lucinda, and it just made me wish that someone would have been there to call her out on her nonsense. (In previous episodes, she has also accused him of being gay because he does not want to sleep with her - very irritating, and I hope this does not continue to be the only coverage of homosexuality.)

Garza continues to be misogynistic, flirting aggressively with his boss seemingly just because she has the nerve to be a hot woman. She takes it in stride, and in fact can tease him just as hard. Does that mean this is supposed to be okay? I'd love for them to explore that. But they probably won't because it's "funny."

Edit: In other news, Outlaw is on death watch. This cheeses me off on more levels than I can possibly express. I guess it's true: once you've alienated the Republicans and the liberals, you don't have much of an audience.

The Discrimination Litmus Test (The Easy Version)

Whenever someone points out a case of heterosexism/cissexism/sexism/racism/ableism/any form of non-imaginary discrimination, it's only a matter of time before this happens:

(Initial Argument): And that's why X's portrayal of Y is discriminatory.
(Rebuttal): That's not discrimination! That's just how X happened to portray Y. It's a joke/based on reality/just how that character is/a fluke/ironic.

We find these truths to be self-evident, but for easy reference, here is the most recent example. Scroll down to the comments where a Well-Intentioned White Liberal (we presume) immediately argues that Glee is not transphobic (read: perpetuating transphobia) because "Ryan Murphy likes to play with gender lines," not racist (read: perpetuating racism) because "Tina [the Asian girl] had a storylone(sic) before" and because it has "one of the most diverse casts on television," and not misogynistic (read: perpetuating misogyny) because "Artie is a teenage boy" and therefore he's expected to be misogynistic. Oh, and it's not heterosexist (you know how to read this by now) because its creator is gay. (They didn't touch the ableism, strangely.)

WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Here's how it works, guys. If a show portrays a stereotype or puts down a marginalized character and does nothing to combat it, it's discriminatory. Period. If a show portrays a stereotype or puts down a marginalized character, then attempts to combat it without actually empowering the character in question, it's discriminatory. Period. This is a complex issue that I could spend pages upon pages trying to explain, but who wants to read that? No one. Instead, I offer this quick-and-dirty litmus test that will allow you as a viewer/reader/other form of consumer to determine whether X's portrayal of Y is, in fact, discriminatory. Just a few simple questions and then you'll know.

Question 1: Is a stereotype being perpetuated? If not, is a member of a marginalized group being put down for their membership in that group, by the storyline or by another character? (Use your own judgment, but before you do, read the work of someone who belongs to that minority so you have some idea what you're looking for. For instance, a trans woman becoming a prostitute, a black teenager becoming involved in drug use, a teenage girl falling prey to a jerkwad boyfriend and being rescued by her father.)

Question 2: Is the character in question the only member of his/her minority to be portrayed?

Question 3: If yes, is the character in question the only member of the cast to fall under said stereotype/be put down? If no, are other characters belonging to the same minority treated the same way? (Protip: Using a stereotype or putting down a marginalized character for their marginalized trait is NEVER okay, but if the answer to either of these questions is "no," then you can safely say that the work is doing something to fight it.)

Question 4: Does the story, through plot or another character, obviously break the stereotype or re-empower the character? (If yes, and only in this case, is it safe to argue that the portrayal was "ironic" or "subversive." Examples of this happening would be a trans person finding a happy ending, an Asian pointing out that not all Asians are math geniuses, etc.)

Question 5: Does the re-empowerment of the character come at the hands of someone who is not a member of the same marginalized group? (If yes, it's not re-empowerment, and it's still discriminatory.)

Why are these things discriminatory? That's an extremely complex issue that would require multiple paragraphs to explain in-depth, so I'll sum up: To express an idea is to perpetuate the belief that that idea is valid. The only exception is when you express said idea with the direct cause of invalidating it - and even then, unless everyone knows that you are a past or possible victim of the idea you're expressing, it's risky.

Of course, there are other ways for stories to be discriminatory, even if they pass this test. This is nothing more than a quick way to weed out obvious instances.