Good Cause, Wrong (High) Horse

I can understand that when you want to see evil somewhere, you'll find it, but I'm so angry that I've got to growl a bit because of an Op-Ed I've just caught in The Advocate.

It's there... Go and read it for yourself. Perhaps you'll think that I'm the one who doesn't get it, but I've got to get this off my chest.

The author sounds pretty angry that some CSI characters deal with another character as a man, because he states that the character is clearly a transgender one. Erm... perhaps I didn't see the same thing, but it never occurred to me that this character was a transgender one. Never ever. It was clear that the character was a transvestite, and just that.

You can blame:

                         - casting

                         - wardrobe

                         - director (if you want)

BUT the writers meant to have a transvestite bloke with a broken teapot, or a medical condition, or... as it turned out, who was higher than a kite above the ISS.

There are so many real problems that it's a disservice to the cause and all transgender people who need love and protection, to see evil where there's nothing worth getting your underwear in a twist.

Perhaps the filming was really bad, and the make-up, and the dress, but once it's obvious that the character is short a few marbles, or something, the entire "I'm a woman and I'm pregnant" line takes a different turn and dimension.

Now... I surfed a bit, and until I caught the Op-Ed, no one saw the transvestite character as a transgender one being mocked. Granted, I found a few very disappointing "tranny" references, but that's all.

I'll admit that I'm angry. Not because I'm a CSI fan (I mostly lost interest when Grissom left), but because the author is directing his anger at something that doesn't deserve it.

I'll take for example the reference to the episode 8 of season 5: when the author mentions only the doctor who committed the crime that's being investigated, he doesn't say a single word about the way, throughout the entire episode, Grissom treats Mimosa, the gal who helps him find the truth. That character, Grissom, behaves like a gentleman, treats her like a lady and tries to cheer her up in the conclusion of the episode.

So, yes, the culprit was a MtF trans (for Body #1), but Body #2 was killed by her husband.

You see, between the blinkers the author seems to be fond of, and the blatant ignorance of positive points in plots, I ended up with my blood boiling.

Growling at a franchise for wrong reasons isn't going to educate the public and the happy bunch of idiots who insist on using the wrong pronoun (for whatever nutty reason) once a change is started. The trolls and thugs who physically and verbally abuse our trans brothers and sisters do so because they've got the brains of the average cavemen.

I find the CSI casting obvious and predictable and the plots are mostly going south, but the latest episode never was about a transgender character. FULL STOP.

If the author's group's been monitoring CSI, as it is said in the article, it looks as if they've never properly listened to the Grissom character, the one who told his team to look beyond the appearances.

Yes, people (viewers and various telly addicts) need to be shown good examples, but methinks someone's barking up the wrong tree...

*off the soap box*