Wednesday, May 19, 2010

O'Reilly Compares Transgender People to Ewoks

In the legal segment Tuesday evening on Fox New's O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly questions legal analysts Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle on the American Eagle decision to reverse its anti-trans policy.

In the short segment O'Reilly voiced his outrage over the fact that American Eagle caved and now allows "men to dress like women" and "women to dress like men" and to add insult to injury says that "men can now dress like Dolly Parton and be protected." Ms. Wiehl the voice of reason spoke about how gender identity is a protected class in New York state and that the clothing retailer made the right choice.

O'Reilly decided to go even further and raise the ridiculous question over whether "people should be allowed to dress like ewoks?". Wiehl attempted to respond to the insane assertion explaining how gender identity is different, but was cut off by the bullying and overpowering Mr. O'Reilly.

Complaints can be sent to


Buffy said...

Considering his kind run around with teabags attached to their clothing he has no room to talk about attire.

liminalD said...

Will somebody please admit that man to a looney bin or prison already and shut him up? I'm all for free speech and people having the right to express their honest opinions but being hateful and rude for the sake of being hateful and rude is something else entirely.

Anonymous said...

Whether gender identity is different than costume (*cough* dissertation *cough*), um, yes, I do have the right to dress as an ewok, thank you.

Anonymous said...

note from a punctuation freak:

please remove the unnecessary apostrophe. Plural ewok would simply be adding an "s" to make ewoks. Apostrophe-s, as you have it listed, is singular possessive, as in "the ewok's feet were sore."

of course feel free to delete this comment. but please do fix the apostrophe.


Anonymous said...

Why do people even agree to go on his show? If people just stopped appearing on his program he'd have no one to bully and harass. Don't people know that O'Reilly has no intention of allowing a civilized discussion with his opponents? Don't they know that they are there so that his right wing viewers can watch him patronize and belittle others? I don't get it.

Anonymous said...

Ok Ewoks? Mr O'Reilly. Welcome to the Ewok club! See, clearly your viewpoint is based on the adage "be who you were supposed to be in accordance with how/what you were born." Your hypocrisy shines bright and clear! You see, your vocal passing of gas can be confused with passing of gas from the other end. How?

Well, if one were to subscribe to your flawed logic, that is taken to its logical endpoint, then its high time to practice what you preach. Tomorrow, let nature take its course. Wake up when nature says its time to wake up. Alarm clock? Hey, we weren't born with one so why interfere with nature's natural process of waking you up when it deems its time? Microwave, stove, refrigerator? Hey, naughty naughty. If we were supposed to have needed this nature would have materialized them, not the consequence of inventive minds. But getting back to the Ewok moniker, don't even think about reaching for the razor in the morning. Be a real man, just as nature intended. Stop interfering with your facial hair----hey nature has declared that the male gender, of which I will skeptically have to assume is one you pertain to since respect of others who violate not laws or statutes is a characteristic of a real man--- for certainly real males are born with this natural instinct---as you instinctively reach for your razor----don't! I mean didn't nature proclaim that all men are to grow beards/mustaches? And your hair appointments...cancel them! Let nature let you be who you were supposed to be!

Iknow I've made my point. Who declared you the gender Czar? Must America subscribe to your hypocritical description of what constitutes a real man or real woman? Few will find argument that a shaved face is closer to appearance to a female face than to a "real" man's face adorned with natural, facial hair! Huh? So the gender lines get to be drawn according to Mr. O'reilly's declaration---the gender lines of demarcation? Thank you, for although you express verbal antagonism of male-expressed femininity, your nonverbal support of male femininity as expressed by your physical attributes speaks volumes! Amen! You forgot your rainbow pin!
Like Reply

D. Lomeli 38 minutes ago in reply to D. Lomeli
Permit me for this addendum....with Mr. O'Reilly's permission, the Gender Czar herself, allow my "natural" mind laden with unnatural estrogen and in acute chronic "pain" from the oh-so-welcome "un-male" characteristic of "hypo-testosterone"....let us turn the clock back----at the count of three everyone reach for the mouse and set the year to 1963....

I can imagine a dialogue with Mr. O'Reilly proceeding forth as follows:

So Mr. O'Reilly, your expression of free speech is protected by the U.S. Constitution but inquiry minds want to know....the Constitution declares "all men are created equal"..including persons with black/dark skin....yet today you said that "black people look like E_OKS and they also look like _ _ _ _!" Now, everyone reach for your mouse and turn your computer calendar back to 2010. Any discernible difference between those in the early 1960's who practiced hate-speech against dark-skinned members of our human species and those seeking gender equilibrium today? Isn't this battle being waged from those who look at others not from the spirit but from vision beginning at the optical nerve and ending at the cornea? Aren't there innumerable hidden burial sites and many not-so-hidden with many who have lost their civil right to life that has been the consequence of such bigotry? Or is my history book incorrect?

Anonymous said...

i'm 100% with you guys on this one. transgender people should be able to dress appropriate to their gender identity and bill o'reilly is a terrible, terrible person. but i was linked here from feministing, which said that o'reilly compared transgender folks to ewoks, and that's untrue. he was trying to make a point (a stupid point, of course) that the company has a right to make clothing workplace appropriate (his definition of appropriate being i'm scared of people who don't conform to my idea of societal norms so when i buy a t-shirt i shouldn't have to worry about that). he wasn't comparing them to ewoks. he was trying to say that the lawsuit amounted to an attack on business because it sets a standard for people to dress however they want, even like ewoks if they wanted to. obviously, it wasn't setting that standard, it was enforcing a non-discrimination law. by creating a post like this and saying that he thinks transgender people are like ewoks, you miss the point and resort to his tactics of sensationalism. criticize him based on merit (he's TOTALLY WRONG on this issue), not the fact that he mentioned ewoks in a conversation about gender identity.

Anonymous said...

"Will somebody please admit that man to a looney bin or prison already and shut him up?"

Will someone please stop using ableist language on a blog dedicated to equality?

Queers United said...

Maybe ORLY speaks from personal experience with a desire to dress as an ewok? Personally, I would be fine with him dressing that way on his show, it's not like I can watch that for anything other than pure entertainment or to yell at my TV.

Anonymous said...

"people should be allowed to dress like ewoks?"

Yeah, if I identify as an ewok.

Which I do.

Anonymous said...

Fuck you, Bill O'Reilly! How dare you try to oppress the Star Wars community! I can be an Ewok if I want to! First the Ewoks, but after it will be the Storm Troopers, and then the Sith. We need our whole community organized against this hateful anti-Ewok message.

Anonymous said...

Didn't he come back from vacation with someone else's Viagra?

Anonymous said...

So here we are. May 2010. Transgender and Ewok both used in the same breath by Mr. O'Reilly. OK WARNING! HOLD YOUR BREATH FOR THE FOLLOWING RUN-ON SENTENCE!! I am faced with two options: Place my brain in neutral and not make the implicit association between the two OR keep my brain in drive and make an intelligent deduction of the association that MR. OREILLY made between a fictional non-human character hideous in appearance with those of us who have NOT BY CHOICE but BY BIRTH always know who we are and reached deep down inside for intestinal fortitude not possessed by the average person??
How advantageous Mr. O'Reilly! With a captive audience numbering in the millions domestically and internationally, you CHOSE to express your PERSONAL and SUBJECTIVE opinion slandering millions of people who are undergoing, in most locales, a legal and medical process to seek personal happiness and fulfillment, two objectives that are instrumental for producing self-actualized citizens who form part of the building block of society.
So now that you have DEHUMANIZED by association, millions of us, SIR, shall we await our "TG" placard to be placed AT ALL TIMES around our neck visible to all as a SCOURGE of society that you have made us out to be?
Shall we start congregating in city parks to be marched out to railroad stations to await our boxcars that shall take us to wonderful and "secure" areas that will be encircled with concertina wire for our "safety" as we get registered, divided up by "gender" and age and sent to be "cleansed" in the showers???
Mr. O'Reilly, if this isn't hate speech, I will eat my computer and its mouse, tail and all.

Read more:

Post a Comment