No, you're the humourless victim because you don't understand sarcasm.

Who's arguing? Way up there I expressed my opinion about this article. It's my opinion. It has nothing to do with you. I have no idea what you're doing.

I'm glad you agree with me that Pat and Jim Crow are equivalents.

You LOL'd at the idea that there are 'all kinds of positive' depictions of trans people and I literally named all kinds of them. I refuted your point. I proved you wrong. You are a humourless professional victim. And no, nobody has LITERALLY gone to jail for making fun of someone. But if you and your humourless,…

I guess so. By your logic, without Pat, an androgynous character from 5 sketches on SNL 25 years ago there would be no Transparent. Jill Soloway should be sending the spectacular, sweet, funny Julia Sweeny a royalty check.

Not yet…

There is obviously plenty of room for improvement, but your LOL at the very idea that there has been a massive growth in positive portrayals is a big problem. This is a comment by the creator of Transparent. TRANSPARENT LOL. Orange is the new Black. LOL. Degrassi. Trans America. Tales of the City. Hedwig. Albert…

Here's the thing trans people. If you're going to be a part of 'the mainstream' with all kinds of positive depictions, you'll have to suck it up and accept the equal and oposite negative depictions. Movies need a villian. Sometimes it's a Russian mobster, a black gang member, a white cis Wallstreet billionaire, a gay…

So he managed to avoid a mixed metaphor, but careened right into a tossed salad metaphor.

$90,000,000 = just under one season of House Of Cards. No kidding.

There's nothing left in Downton but schmaltzy soap suds. It always had a light dose, but in the early seasons the focus was on historical plot points and the upstairs/downstairs dynamics. Alas, no show should really make it past the third season.