In the discussion over at Bilerico, about what I and others found to be an offensive ad, someone argued that I and others who were upset were vilifying sex workers.

To clarify… I don’t think sex work is something to be ashamed of, nor should be ashamed of trans hookers. (Although I do have problems with people feeling they have to turn to prostitution because they’ve got no alternatives, as well as the human trafficking that’s frequently tied to prostitution.)

But the premise of the joke was that Jen (the mom) was utterly blase about something that we the audience are supposed to find freakish and probably shocking. You could’ve substituted a talking dog and the premise would be the same. Even in my rewriting of the ad (in my prior post), the joke remains premised on Jerry (the lawyer/hooker), being a “freak,” but at least my version tries to show something unexpected about someone who’s perceived that way. Similar to a “Sex in the City” episode I once saw where one of the characters was upset about boisterous trans hookers outside her apartment, but through some plot twist that I don’t remember ends up getting to know and discovers that they’re human too.

Now the objector did raise a fair point, that the ad could be viewed as “hey there’s nothing wrong with being a crossdressing lawyer/hooker.” And if there were a lot of other kinds of portrayals of trans people in the media I might agree with you. Or the scene had been played straight and not for laughs. But let’s be honest, the vast majority of Americans (even New Yorkers) do see prostitution as disreputable, and the ad clearly seems to be making her a hooker for the additional shock value.

But the other part of what makes the ad problematic is that it’s trafficking in stereotypes, i.e. someone’s trans, well obviously they must be a hooker. It’s similar to the historical complaints about blacks and Latino only getting roles that depict them as crack dealers and gang members, gays only getting roles that depict them as stereotypical caricatures, etc.