Shrek: a strange setting to promote transgenderism

by Fran Eaton

At the risk of sounding like a real ogre and with all pause, I'm going to have to give a thumbs down to this weekend's box office hit, "Shrek the Third." 

The lovable Shrek debuted the third in a series this weekend, and while the big guy is taking unfair hits for American children's skyrocketing obesity problem, there was another issue raised in the movie that I've seen no one yet address.      

For me, it wasn't the monstrous size of the lead character Shrek that was the problem with this newest release.  Shrek and his sweet wife Fiona are what's right with the story.  They are large positive role models of common sense, compassion and honesty in a bizarre world of revengeful, evil fairy tale characters. 

Shrek's personal dilemma of overcoming the fears of becoming a father for the first time endears us all the more to the big guy.  The ending is happy and prolife, which is great for kids and their fathers to see.

Shrek's not the problem.  It's the awkward inclusion of a transvestite and the uselessness of the character himself (herself?) in the story that is troubling.

Right in the midst of a warm "traditional family" setting,  the film writers place a man dressed as a woman in with Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Snow White (the good gals).  The crossdressing character simply doesn't make sense, except as a ploy to desensitize children and parents to transgenders.

Homosexual activists now are careful to not only use the term "LGBTs" as a unit, they are more boldly now declaring lesbians-gays-bisexuals-transgenders as a unit pushing together as one for civil rights.  Those confused about their sexual roles are pushing for equal rights to be free to publicly demonstrate their odd sexual behavior.  For transgenders, appearing to be a different sex in public is their particular turn on.  We need to understand that acceptance of this sexual behavior is just another step moving our world toward sexual chaos.

It's disturbing there's not more outcry about this sly tactic being used in a movie made for children.  But I suppose after being reminded this week of Jerry Falwell's concern about the Teletubbies characters' sexual orientations and the post-heaven going ridicule and hatred those who dare to question LGBTs tactics are likely to endure in the mainstream media after their passing, some have shyed away from publicly tackling the topic. That's understandable. 

But well-meaning parents who plan to take their kids to see a movie that grossed $122 million in the opening weekend should be aware . . . it's the subtlety of the movie makers' agenda to desensitize that could be more harmful to your children than encouraging them to eat sugary cereals in the morning.

Comments

[Tina]

As I see many times with neo natzi conservative web pages, a group of people are villified by conservatives that have no grasp of the facts, do no research into the topic being discussed, and try to enforce their own bigotry against those that are not viewed as "normal" enough to be included into the conservative agenda.
If the author had done his research, he would have discovered that transgender people generally do not wear clothes out in public for sexual gratification. While there are crossdressers that do dress for that reason, it is not usually in public. As to transexual people, there is no sense of titilation what-so-ever. In fact, if there is a sexual undertone to their dressing, they are not allowed to continue on to the surgery that many want.
Transgenderism in itself, is not gender confusion, but a mismatch between a brain of the opposite gender that their body represents. Through research, transgenderism has been shown to occur from biological conditions. The condition can, and has been replicated with lab animals. It has also been shown that there is no other effective means of treatment for Trans people, other than to transition. To not proceed with that is to invite severe depression and possible suicide. Now I know the author will not believe this, or research it on his own. He will prefer to remain in his safe, biggotted world. But perhaps, one day, someone will read the available research (over 100 years worth) and get past their phobia's of people who just want to exist without judgement from morons.

[Bob Schmidt]

I know nothing about the topic. But that is not necessary to observe that Tina is herself bigoted against people she disagrees with.

Why can't we disagree on a topic without putting nasty labels on our opponents?

If transgender don't cross dress in public, why is there (apparently) a cross dressed person in Shrek? Why do I see them in public?

Is it not probable that some do and some don't obtain sexual gratification from cross dressing? Who gave Tina the power to determine the sexual preferences of cross dressers and that they all must conform to one preference?

[Fran]

Tina,
Welcome to Illinois Review.
The concerns you raise deserve response. The name calling does not.

Since you make the accusation that I have no grasp of facts, could you please enlighten me as to how wrong my high school biology teacher was when he taught me there are two types of genetic IDs indicating sex: XX for females and XY for males. No amount of surgery or hormonal therapy can change those two facts. We are either female or male before we're even born, and our confusion over which sex is preferred is ours, not our Creator's.
Accepting that design is a choice, not a predetermined state of confusion.
Your points are interesting and I appreciate the issues you've raised. But they do not justify establishing civil rights based on a person's sexual activity preferences.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

[OneMan]

Any chance they included the character because they thought he was funny? Not as some sort of bigger plot?

[Tina]

Over 100 years of research into transgenderism has shown that there are different catagories. Transgenderism is an umbrella term that describes crossdressers, transexuals, and a variety of other peoples that have varying degrees of alternate GENDER identity. This condition has been shown to be about gender, not sex, not sexual orientation. For anyone to assume that they think that all transgender people (and yes, I am a transgender woman) receive sexual titilation from dressing, is bigotted and sophmoric. It goes against all available research. In the case of Male to Female trans people, hormones effectively reduces the libido tremendously. If I never have sex again in my lifetime, I would still continue to complete transition. As to the claim that the author did research, "my high school biology teacher", a high school level research gives you high school results. Did your teacher tell you about XXY or XYY? Did you research transgenderism, or the standard human condition? Did your teacher explain that there is no proven therapy, or hormone treatment that can eliminate transgenderism? Did your teacher explain that this condition is readily duplicated in lab animals, including primates? For anyone to make negitive assumptions about a group of people they know nothing about is the definition of bigotry. I do not apolgize for referring to bigots as morons, and as far as the term "neo-natzi" which refers to the website, The biggotted views about transgender people certainly is in line with their thinking, as it was during WW II. Your article shows your intolerance to all people different than you. Perhaps you would like to re-instill the idea of a master race. If you wish to intelligently discuss a subject matter, perhaps you can rely on a more in-depth analysis than something your "high school biology teacher" said in a comment that had nothing to do with the subject matter. If you want to talk about the Creator, try checking Isaah 56. A wonderful explanation of God saying there is room in heaven for Eunichs (historically recognized as being transgendered individuals for those that don't wish to do any research). Can you show me where god has preached bigotry, or said there is room in heaven for bigots?

[Fran]

One Man:
Including a crossdresser for levity doesn't cut it for two reasons, 1. The character simply wasn't funny, and attempts at humor were received with audible "Yucks" from the kids, and 2. Persons like Tina would be offended to be the butt of jokes.
My thoughts . . .

Tina:

In heaven we'll finally all be perfect. That's a tiny part of what will make heaven so heavenly.

I'm no expert on biology or psychology, I readily admit. You've obviously found comfort in the research you've done. You've found a way to justify rejecting the sex you were born as to become the opposite.

Your value as a human has nothing to do with your sex life. To think so is a sad commentary on the culture in which we live.

Your value is based on what you do with your time on earth to please the Creator who set this whole thing into motion. He says he created male and female and they were to complement each other which most often leads to them being fruitful and multiplying.

Adjustments to the lot we're dealt in life is a part of living in an imperfect world. But inflicting the issue of gender confusion on children and causing them to question things beyond their years is simply abusive. These complicated issues have no place in children's entertainment.

[Tina]

What was done in that movie was not a commentary on gender identity. It was no more harmful than Milton Berle dressing in drag in the 50's. I see the scenes for what they were intended to be, entertainment. However, if a child asks about the characters, all the better. It is a wonderful opportunity to show children acceptance. Just like the topic of sex being discussed with a child, it is all a matter of how it is presented, and what level of detail is expressed. I would gladly talk to my children (when they were small) about a baby being made from a loving mother and father, but I would stop there. Taake the opportunity to show acceptance, not bigotry. The world will be a better place.

[Tori Prevost]

Like Tina, I would implore everyone to do thier research before opening thier mouths to voice any opinion on any subject matter. Just as I would say to Tina...simple research of correctly reading the article and the byline would have kept you from erring on the gender of the author of this article...obviously Fran is a female.

To Fran, the author I would say, I cannot comment on the scenes in the new Shrek because i've yet to see this one but I do intend to do so. I can comment however on the fact that you may in the future consider knowing more about your subject matter before tackling it. Your article is nothing more a cleverly crafted attempt at (to borrow your own words) inflicting your conservative christian views on the world and in this case I would think simply abusive. Your abject ignorance with regard to the subject matter of transgender/transexualism befudles me. This subject matter, I daresay, requires considerable research and care so as not to sound like a complete idiot whilst showcasing your knowledge or lack there of.

To quote you once more, "Your value as a human has nothing to do with your sex life. To think so is a sad commentary on the culture in which we live." You are correct my value as a human has nothing to do with my sex life nor does it have anything to do with my internal gender. And for you to diminish my life because you belive that that your bible gives you the dirrection to teach hatred and bigotry, rather than showing you that the correct responce would be to show compassion and love for your fellow humans. I rahter think that God if he truly is the benevolent god that we are led to believe, then he will recognize, when i show up at heavens gate, that i have lived an honorable life and done those things which need to be done to be rewarded. I also believe that your pushing your biggoted, narrow viewpoint in the name of God, is a "sad commentary" on life in America which was settled by noce folks trying to escape "religious persecution" by those who believed differently than they.

As to your high school biology teacher, I only have this to say, he or she was wrong. Not that that person knew they were wrong, only that they erred on the side of ignorance. I am only guessing that you attended school many years ago and you should know that science continually evoves and the new discoveries are made every day. Remember that, only recently (with regard to the age of our world) has the world been shown to be round not flat as it was believed for 1000's of years. Also it was once believed that everything in the universe revolved around our sad little planet earth, now if that doesn't show testiment to how selfish/self centered humans are i don't know what is.

Thank You
Tori

[Jenny Howard]

Dear Fran,

When I, at the age of 53, told my Mom that I'm transsexual, her response was, "You'll have to send me a reading list." Did I mention that Mom is a retired librarian?

Sure, I'd be glad to share my whole Mom list with you, or anyone else who would like it. But, as I told Mom, if you read just one book, read "True Selves: Understanding Transsexualism" by Brown and Rounsley. The former is a psychotherapist, the latter a journalist (and before you ask, no, neither of them is transsexual). They have no agenda other than to inform people about the subject. I have given away numerous copies to friends, family, and co-workers.

Of course, if your opinion is based on something other than factual knowledge, then this book is probably not for you. I will try to find the time later today to address the religious argument (yes, He's my Lord and Savior too).

Kind regards,
Jenny

[Katie]

Do your research. For one, the term 'transvestite' is an outdated one that has fallen out of favor with the politically-correct crowd. For another, the vast majority of transgendered individuals do NOT dress and act contrary to their biological role (as defined by society) for sexual gratification. There are many reasons transgendered people exist. One is because of the influence of hormones at specific stages of their development. Another is because of brain growth that is contrary to their genitalia. There ARE full-blooded women out there with XXY, XY, and other chromosomal make ups.

They look, grow, and act like any XX female. However, their bodies developed as female without any sort of assistance from medications or surgery. What does that say for your design arguments?

[Boo]

For pete's sake, the character isn't even transgendered. She's one of the ugly stepsisters. The producers just thought they could convey the concept in a humorous way using Larry King.

And Fran, get your brain off sex for two seconds and actually go do some reading on the topic if you're going to spout opinions on it.

[Patrick B]

I imagine if Fran looked hard enough she would also find homosexual activists under her own bed. Another sad misguided review from the conservative minded who seek to read in whatever insinuations they wish. Do you see a conspiracy in everything that does not fit your taste? Lots of characters do not make sense in that film, as movies go it was a waste of money to begin with, but you center your attention on this character for no other reason then she does not fit your taste. Then you proceed to spin it into some homosexual activist brainwashing scheme launched against children. I haven’t read a review so off and so sad since similar ones about "Happy Feet."

While I question your understanding of Civil Rights, I wonder even more if you know anything on the topic you so daringly spout on about, beyond your own hypocritical and rather ignorant views. That’s not name calling, anyone who has even met some one who is Transsexual, which I am highly doubt in your case you have, would be quick to point out that your assumptions about such people are about as acuter as your conspiracy plot. You seem to confuse walking down the street, living there lives as freely as we live ours, not being misused or abused (physical or verbally) as the need to "publicly demonstrate their odd sexual behavior." And your assertion that "appearing to be a different sex in public is their particular turn on," only speaks to your blinding ignorance. I have to wonder if you are capable of telling the difference between a sexual fetish and gender identity? A fact only made more clear from your apparent inability to understand the differences between some one who is Transgender and some one who self identifies as a cross dresser.

Better luck next time with whatever it is your attempting to do. Save the children, bolster your own self-serving agenda.

[A. McEwen]

Hey, I am also shocked about attempts to add sex and such in popular culture. Cases in point:

Batman and Robin - Now this is a no-brainer. I always wondered why Batman made Robin dress in those tight green shorts, short shirt and cute green booties. Doesn't he know it ain't easy fighting crime when you are getting a perpetual wedgie.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - Snow White was nothing but a big ole "fag hag." Remember, those dwarfs lived together in that cottage in the woods before she showed up. Sounds kinda butch to me.

The Smurfs - Same case as Snow White. And didn't you wonder about that close relationship between Brainy and Clumsy Smurf? In their defense, we know that at least one of the Smurfs was bisexual. A year after Smurfette showed up, Baby Smurf mysteriously appeared.

Huckleberry Finn - Come on now. A big black guy and a little white twink alone on the raft in the middle of the Mississippi River? Now we know the real reason why Huck didn't want to turn Jim in.

Pinocchio - The story of a fairy, an old man who wants a "real boy," and a nose that grows and recedes like a penis. Somebody call Peter LaBarbera!!!!!

[Kascee]

I find it funny that you bring this up NOW. I mean, if you'd ever take the time to watch cartoons such as Sesame Street, Spongebob Squarepants and dozens of others, you will notice that these shows also include homosexuals. So why, are you not raising hell about those?

[hughman]

it's a cartoon. duh.

even if there were a "transgendered character" involved, are you also chastizing a cross dressing Bugs Bunny? are you so ignorant of the modern world that you omit other walks of life? wake up. nothing is as black and white as you see. welcome to the new awakening,

[Patrick]

Chances are a child will not understand or question any obscure references to gender identity or sexual orientation unless that child is ALREADY AWARE of such things ... i.e. being gay or transgender themselves, or have a family member who is.

However, I think your conclusions about Shrek are ridiculous. There isn't a "gay agenda" in the works here. Doris is the "Cinderella's ugly step-sister" character, a WOMAN. If you do your research you'll see that Cinderella's step-sisters have traditionally been played by older men in stage productions to emphasize the sisters' unattractiveness. Using Larry King's gruff voice for Doris is the same thing. She is NOT transgendered.

Instead of attacking cartoons, why not focus your energies fighting the pornography being peddled to our children all over TV. Why hasn't there been a Conservative Christian uproar over the extremely sexual Girls Gone Wild commercials? Because the girls are h-o-t?

[Louis]

This is simply dumb. "Watch out, Dreamworks is trying to force transgenderism down your kids' throats! Careful, lest they work in a character made of stem cells!"

Dreamworks has one agenda: siphoning as much money out of families' wallets as possible. End of story. I will personally put twenty dollars down on the filmmakers having no LGBT motives in any way. It would be worth $20 to find out I'm wrong.

[Anthony Foster]

To keep it as succinct as possible:

Hey. Funny? Yeah.

Bugs Bunny did the same thing on a number of occassions (much to Elmer Fudd's chagrin), and it was funny back then, too.

I mean, a movie doesn't NEED to be funny, but then, it does help. Especially if it's a comedy.

[Jason]

I think you're using Shrek as a platform to preach about your own beliefs Fran, which is fine. You're entitled, but why pick and choose? I've always been surprised that Shrek is labeled as a "kids" movie.
Why did no one raise flags in the 2nd Shrek movie when Puss n' Boots licked his own crotch?

[Ironjawedangel]

While I realize you are a conservative publication and platform for commentary, is it too much to expect that you would at least get your facts right? People who identify as being transgendered do not "get off" on appearing dressed as something other than their gender as you suggest. For many people who identify this way, it is beyond a fetish. Many people truly feel that they have been born in the wrong body and as the wrong gender. It is far more complicated and personal than simply appearing in public in clothes that do not align with the gender norm. To boil down such a difficult and personal struggle and journey to something as simple as a twisted fetish does not only the transgendered community a disservice, but also your publication. You are also using the terminology of the community improperly, which you would have realized had you bothered to do a quick Google search before writing this piece. You are entitled to you opinion and you are entitled to express it, but the next time you do, please make sure that you have your facts right before you set pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard).

[Nick]

I am really shocked by the obtuseness of the individuals trying to make such a claim about Shrek 3. Really, have you folks never heard of Miss Piggy (voiced by Frank Oz and later Eric Jacobson)? Come on, people. Cartoons and puppet shows have had men voicing female characters for years, and never have those characters been intended to represent a transgender identity. You take a female character who's supposed to be ugly and/or coarse and you give her a gruff, manly voice. Children are NOT going to be watching the movie and thinking, "Oh, that lady must have been a man who became a woman!" They're going to be laughing at her funny voice, knowing fully well that it's a man doing it, and that will make them laugh even more.

I'm not here to try to convince the author to accept transgendered people, as I understand that bigotry (and that is NOT name-calling--I would say the same about a person calling Christians neo-Nazis) is not easily swayed. What I am here to say is that the idea that the character Larry King provides a voice for is meant to be a transgendered woman or a cross-dresser based on that alone is a ludicrous argument, one that relies on willful ignorance to make its point.

[Alex]

For you (the author) to suggest that this is something new... well, you must have just fallen off the turnip truck yesterday. Doesn't ANYONE remember BUGS BUNNY, the original cross-dressing cartoon? Bugs always used his cross dressing ways and falsetto voice to his advantage in order to con and/or confuse. By the way, Bugs wasn't the only cartoon to do so, if you look back most cartoons employed this technique. And this was 65 years ago!!! My guess is that you didn't fall of the turnip truck yesterday, and that you may have seen some of these cartoons yourself, and probably grew up watching them like most people, including the current generation of youngsters.

So my question to you is, how did you turn out?

[Dan]

All I have to say is that all you self-righteous Holy Rollers probably have the MOST sexual dysfunction out of anyone and need to displace your carnal desires that your precious religion tells you are "wrong" by bashing on a CHILDREN'S CARTOON. And to Fran and all you other zealots out there...if God created Man in his own image, then I guess God likes to wear stilettos every now and then.

[JC]

Such RIDICULOUSNESS! WHO CARES.

What are you and everyone so afraid of? That all your kids are going to turn into little gay kids running around in dresses? That the "dark side" of the liberal, anti-jesus christ propaganda will taint your young innocent children? Would you rather have your kids sheltered and kept out of harms way from the Real World? From the UNIMAGINABLY HORRID rath of Islam and the democratic agenda?

It's time America grew up and stopped being so afraid of anything different or something opposed to their viewpoint. GROW UP and LISTEN to the opposite side. If you really think the "LEFT WING CONSPIRACY" is only using Shrek to instill images of "transgender-ness" in your kids, WAKE UP. I's a comedic childrens movie, most kids would laugh at Larry King's character. I bet they did!

So stop hiding out in your rural farm lands and isolating yourselves and your children even more. Jesus isn't real.

[jack]

As one person mentioned, the ugly stepsister is not transgendered; she is just an ugly woman with a deep voice and swarthy complexion. No, it's not particularly funny, but it's just an attempt at silly comedy.

On the other hand, Fran, there is a massive difference between a transvestite and a transgendered person. To interchange these terms, as you did, demonstrates that you wrote before you really thought through the issue.