Talk:Mr. Garrison

Fired for Being Gay

What's it with the school firing garrison for being gay? the article says

Garrison adopted Mr. Slave in an attempt to be so offensive he would be fired so he could sue the school for discrimination, but to his disappointment no one seemed to have a problem with it, and he was instead praised for being "courageous.

but i remember having seen a scene in the headmaster's (or was it mackey's) office where garrison returned from beeing missed somehow, admitted beeing homosexual, the other characters in the room expressing their appreciation for the admittance, but then telling him the school can't employ homosexuals. --Jay1 17:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He was hired back later. And when he was told that he couldn't be fired "now" because he could sue them for a million dollars, that's when he got Mr. Slave. Dpark 04:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shooting Kathy Lee Gifford

What was it with mr. Garrison shooting Cathy Lee Gifford? I definately remember he killed her and she turned out to be an alien. Or did he shoot twice, killing Kenny as well? - 213.51.209.230 20:30, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There was an episode, "City on the Edge of Forever (Flashbacks)" (season 2, episode 7) in which one of the flashbacks featured Garrison actually shooting Gifford, revealing her true alien form. But the gimmick of the episode is that all of the flashbacks are remebered incorrectly. In the actual episode, he killed Kenny, but in the flashback he killed Gifford. Clever, eh? Peoplesyak 11:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

thanks - now I remember, flashbacks, that was it. Yes, clever, a double entendre, like many things in the SP series. 213.51.209.230 01:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mr. to Mrs.

Should Mr. Garrison have been the redirect page? As with many South Park plot lines, this one could change at any time. In addition, Mr. Garrison was a man for eight seasons. It is probably more appropriate to have Mrs. Garrision as the redirect to Mr. Garrison. -- Redfarmer 23:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

She's Mrs. Garrison now. You better get used to it.--Sonjaaa 00:24, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with me "getting used to it" and your lack of a meaningful response tells me you probably didn't put much thought into the move. No one is disputing the fact that Mr. Garrison's change into Mrs. Garrison should be documented and a redirect made. However, you are throwing eight years of the show's continuity out the door over a fairly recent plot development that you have no idea where it's going.

I'll give you another chance to give me a menainful response as to why you made such a drastic move. If you're not able to articulate one, I'll start the dispute resolution process. -- Redfarmer 20:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, as a compromise, we could move the article to Herbert Garrison and make both Mr. Garrison and Mrs. Garrison redirects. -- Redfarmer 20:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mrs. Garrison is one person, and she is female. She was known as Mr. Garrison before her transition. I'm aware South Park is just comedy and fiction, but transsexuality is a legitimate thing. We have many articles on famous transsexual people, such as Brandon Teena (female-to-male), Wendy Carlos, Gwen Araujo and Dana International (all male-to-female). Wikipedia consistently addresss the person under their correct new name and respects their new gender identity, which you must learn to do with Mrs. Garrison. I'd welcome some mediation or dispute resolution, if you still think she should be moved back to Mr. I don't mean to sound harsh, but refusal to accept Mrs. Garrison as female could be seen as transphobia.--Sonjaaa 21:27, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Your attacks on me accusing me of being transphobic are ad hominem and show a complete ignorance of who I am.

As to the real issue at hand, though, we are talking about a fictional character in a television series, not a real person. South Park has been on the air for nine years to date. During the first eight of those years, Herbert Garrison was a man, not a woman. This is why I proposed the neutral compromise. Putting the article under Herbert Garrison would be more accurate as it would reflect Mr./Mrs. Garrison througout the entire series' run.

You are consistantly attacking me for what you believe are character defects while ignoring the real issue at hand. If Herbert Garrison were a real person, I would be all for putting her under her new name. However, I may be wrong, but I believe having a transexual character change genders after many years on a television show may be unprecedented and, as such, we need to resolve how to deal with the issue without slinging mud at each other. -- Redfarmer 21:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added "In this article, she is referred to as he for events that took place before her transition, and she for events after." Do you think that works? It preserves her ex-identity for events that happened then. I don't mean to attack you. We just need to make sure we're addressing the issue of transsexuality properly and with respect. --Sonjaaa 21:49, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

The guidelines are quite clear when speaking about transgender people; the question is how it applies to fictional people. And I do think that three reasons speak for "Mrs Garrison" here:

a) Being an encyclopedia, we are supposed to take even the most ridiculously intended things seriously. That includes the quite consistant habit of WP articles about fictional people taking their subjects seriously, treating them, as far as possible, like real people. (Admittedly slightly more difficult with Southpart characters than with, say, a Dickens character.)

b) And if we treat fictional people like we do their real-world counterparts, then "naming according to identification" certainly beats "naming by what they are known by best".

c) Wikipedia is not paper. That means that first of all, the article is found no matter whether it is under "Mr. Garrison" or "Mrs. Garrison", and, more important, should the makers of Southpark decided that this person is a Mr. Garrison after all (or something entirely different), we can just move the article.

(This was written before the move to "Herbert") -- AlexR 22:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be dropping context, though. We're talking about a fictional character, not a real life character. The character does not identify as anything but rather only posesses qualities which the writers of the show endow him/her with at a particular point of time. Eight seasons of the show were produced with the character as a man. The fact can't be ignored that the majority of the series to date has featured Herbert Garrison as a man. -- Redfarmer 06:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK I see what you mean. You want the title to be Herbert Garrison to remove both Mr. and Mrs. so the article becomes more neutral and overspans both her identities. She seems to have kept her forename of Herbert. That's a good idea. I'll do the change you propose. Let me know if that solves your concerns.--Sonjaaa 21:51, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

It does solve my concerns. Also, please note that once more has been established about Mrs. Garrison's identiy throughout the new season, I would be willing to redirect the issue. -- Redfarmer 06:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I thoroughly disagree with this move - a "Herbert" hardly overspans both her identites, and I am rather surprised to see that move being done by somebody fighting so hard for the "Mrs". Or does Southpark indeed call "Mrs. Herbert Garrison"? In that case (and also in the case of a move back) somebody should check for double and tripple redirects. -- AlexR 22:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's only two episodes into the season and little has been established about Garrison's identification since his sex change. That's one of the main reasons I'm so opposed to doing a major move so soon into the season. South Park is well known for changing their plot lines majorly and in unexpected directions. For example, the "permanent" death of Kenny during season 5 and the subsequent establishment of Butters as the fourth child during the first half of season 6. Subsequently, Tweek replaced Butters and Kenny came back to life. Trey Parker and Matt Stone love to change the reality of South Park at their whim and I can only imagine what they will do with the Garrison plot line.

The relevance of these references is that we should not assume anything for at least a little while. Garrison was only seen briefly in episode 902 and I'm sure it will be dealt with more.

For the record, had I written the initial article, I would have published it under the title "Herbert Garrison" to begin with instead of using the titles. -- Redfarmer 06:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well I'd certainly favour moving back to Mrs. Garrison, since that's what she's called in the show now, and trans or not she is a woman. I only moved to Herbert to appease Redfarmer who was angry. But as far as is known, her first name Herbert does not seem changed.--Sonjaaa 22:30, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I imagine an episode or two could be devoted to the absurdity of moving around web pages because one thinks a fictional character who gets a fancy new vagina therefore becomes a woman. It's South Park. Next week he could be a four-assed monkey. Next week he could be Satan's butt-boy. He clearly wants a refund on the vagina, anyway. - Nunh-huh 20:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exactly my contention! So far, no one has addressed any real reason why the article should have been moved (especially without discussion first) and, instead, the people who support the move have been attacking my (perceived) character flaws instead of offering real arguments. -- Redfarmer 05:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why the current title (Herbert Garrison) is unacceptable. That is the character's name and should be used – for example, Kenny is at Kenny McCormick with Kenny being a redirect there. violet/riga (t) 17:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So, can we consider this resolved and remove the "ActiveDiscuss" and "controversial2" tags? As long as Herbert Garrison, Mr. Garrison, and Mrs. Garrison all exist, and two of the three redirect to the third, all the bases are covered. Or is there some other reason for those tags to remain that I don't see? -- Dpark 03:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we've really resolved anything but if the proponents of moving the article back to Mrs. Garrison aren't willing to clearly state their reasons for wanting to do that (other than treating a cartoon character like a real person), I think this is about as far as we can go we it. I say remove the tags and hope this doesn't come up again. -- Redfarmer 14:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll give it a few more days, and if no one else chimes in, I'll pull off the tags. -- Dpark 15:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed -- Dpark 00:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While I commend the attempt to be trans-friendly, I think that it's important to remember Mr. Garrison's transition from male to female was done in a way that was incredibly demeaning to transgendered people. He is portrayed as a gay man who became a woman on a whim in order to legitimize his attraction to men, not a person who feels that they are truly a woman. The message throughout the episode in which he transitioned was that changing genders is not possible, and that transsexuals are pretending to be something they aren't. Based on the fact that Mr. Garrison's new status as Mrs. Garrison was created to make fun of transgendered people, I don't think it's important to be respectful of his new gender role. To act as those his gender identity is as legitimate as that of a real life transgender person's is actually to insult real transgendered people, in my opinion. 67.119.72.122 04:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Transgender and transsexual people

At the risk of opening another can of worms, should this article really be classified in the category "Transgender and transsexual people?" I checked the category to be certain and Garrison is currently the only fictional character listed in that category. I remind everyone, once again, that Garrison is a fictional character despite your best wishes and intentions. He/she does not belong in a category with real transgendered people. -- Redfarmer 15:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since no one is contesting this, I'm removing the category. -- Redfarmer 03:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sentence doesn't make sense

As a male-to-female transsexual, she was known as Mr. Garrison throughout most of the series, until her sex reassignment in season 9, after which she became Mrs. Garrison.

I changed As to Currently and it was reverted. I don't think it makes sense as is. What gives? --Wasabe3543 12:04, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A trans person is considered to be trans both before and after their transition. She may not have been "out" as trans until recently, but she was still the same woman the whole time. She's just living as a woman now, and has also had reconstructive surgery to fix her female body.--Sonjaaa 19:37, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Is that NPOV though? Someone who hasn't seen any episodes in season 9 wouldn't know what you were talking about. -- Redfarmer 07:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Errr... He's not a "trans person". He's a cartoon character. Perhaps these decisions are best left to those who know the series, rather than those who are emotionally invested in enforcing politically correct speech. "She" was most assuredly not the "same woman" throughout the series. Cartoon reality does not conform to your preconceived ideas. - Nunh-huh 05:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's correct and current. There is a clear spoiler warning at the top.--Sonjaaa 15:06, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

It's POV and confusing, but you'll just change it back. Whatever, it's a cartoon. Matt and Trey are laughing at all of us.--Wasabe3543 06:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully, Sonjaaa will discuss changes rather than simply reverting them, and won't use edit summaries to call names. We shall see. - Nunh-huh 17:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see there's been another political reversion by someone clearly unfamiliar with the actual subject of the article. Please discuss the rationale for reversion on the talk page, not in vituperative edit summaries. - Nunh-huh 18:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've added quotations from Mr. Garrison's Fancy New Vagina to the description of the events of that episode. As can be seen, it is not clear that he has been or truly is transexual, only that he says so, once, and following surgery takes it back: "I'm just a guy with a mutilated penis!". He's hardly the poster-girl for transexuals. - Nunh-huh 19:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why are references to "she" being replaced by a gender-neural equivalent? Mrs. Garrison is clearly a woman and currently identifies as such. Please read the articles on woman and transsexuality if you are still confused. Your edits show ignorance on the topic of gender. You shoud leave the gender spects of the article to people who actually understand how gender identity works, e.g. Alex and myself.--Sonjaaa 02:43, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, right. You should leave the article to people who actually know the show. I imagine there's little chance of that happening, so gender neutral it is. Surely you prefer non-sexist language? -Nunh-huh 02:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you on a vendetta to make Mrs. Garrison the transexual poster child? For crying out loud, we're talking about a fictional character on an adult cartoon show. In fact, Mrs. Garrison is a parody of transexual people! You and Alex seem to be the only ones making such a big deal out of the language used. Everyone else commenting seems to be scratching their heads at your blatent illogic. -- Redfarmer 14:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I am most certainly not on a vendetta. Besides, what does it matter that Mrs. G is only a fictional character? And just why are you making such a fuss, when you are obviously not exactly familiar with transgender matters. Really, articles should become better by co-operation, not by fighting with each other; and name calling is sure not going to help, either. So why don't you get a clue about trans-matters, and a few manners, too, while you are at it. Alternatively, you could come up with an argument just why fictional characters should be treated differently from living persons. Because, you know, something like that has not appeared yet, either. -- AlexR 16:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The last comment I made was not directed to you, Alex. I directed that comment (even though I see I wasn't completely clear in my wording) to Sonjaaa. She is the one who moved the article to Mrs. Garrison initially without any discussion or even a reason why left on the talk page and when I asked her why, she told me I needed to "get used to it" instead of actually telling me why she did it. She still has yet to give anyone an actual reason why she has made any of the changes to the article she has and, instead, accuses anyone who questions her of being transphobic.

On the other hand, you have been very good about explaining your reasoning. I don't completely agree with your reasoning in response to this article but I can respect the fact you've made your points without slinging mud at anyone.

By the way, thank you for pointing out to me that I haven't been as clear as I should about my points on the article. I will clarify my points in my own mind and post them on this talk page in the next day or so. -- Redfarmer 04:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we should all take lessons on politeness from someone telling us to "get a clue" and lessons on cooperation from those who presume that "transgender matters" are their exclusive domain. - Nunh-huh 19:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If I would consider these matters to be the exclusive domain of a few people, there would be little point in telling you to get a clue, would there? But you know, trying to cover up your utter lack of arguments with insults and unfounded accusations is only getting you that far - and that is very far on Wikipedia. -- AlexR 22:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's hard to discern your point in telling me to "get a clue" other than to assert your contention that I am clueless. And following it up with an accusation of "covering up" is yet another insult and accusation on your part. To the extent that there is anything to discuss here, I submit the following points: The fictional character in "Mr. Garrison's Fancy New Vagina" is not a realistic depiction of a transgendered woman. Among the atypical points: the character has had numerous sexual orientations over the prior 8 years. The only indication given that he was "transgendered" was his assertion on the operating table that he was a "woman trapped in a man's body". There was no pre-operative counseling. There was no pre-operative living as a woman. There was no awareness on the character's part that the surgery would not result in menstruation, or that he would be unable to become pregnant following the surgery. There was an expectation on the character's part that his gay male lover would want to continue having sex with him, and no discussion with said lover pre-operatively. The character's naïvety is such that he can say to another character that he should just "stop being gay". In short, this is not a realistic depiction of human sexuality: it is an episode intended to mock transgendered people. Treating it as if it were realistic is incredibly wrongheaded, and responding to the depiction of transgendered people as if they were frivoulous dumbasses by making sure the Wikipedia article uses the pronouns you prefer for the character also misses the point completely. You show no evidence of having seen the episode, and yet you want to opine that the important thing here is to refer to Garrison as "she". Since you are the expert on these things, I am surprised that I have to point out to you the reaction the episode produced among those who are sympathetic to the rights of the gay and the transgendered...which, while not large, was generally negative. At least one GLAAD column decrying the use of the transgendered as the butts of joke appeared "Is Trans the New Punchline?; a previous Zogby/GLCensus Partners Poll of 1,931 U.S. residents who identify themselves Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual or Transgender found that Mr. Garrison of South Park was the choice of over two fifths (43%) for doing the "worst job" of portraying a gay man (no poll has been taken since this "gay man" "became" a "transgendered woman"). In short, this "fictional" person needs to be treated differently than a "real" person because there is nothing real about the depiction of Mr. Garrison as a transgendered woman, and insisting otherwise is the real cluelessness here. - Nunh-huh 05:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point here - depictions of transpeople in movies (and other media) are rather often rather clueless, not to mention that this is Southpark. I still don't see how that is supposed to be a reason to treat fictional characters differently from real ones, though. (Not to mention that, as embarassing as it is, pretty much of what you said has happend with real live transpeople, too.)

And, besides, my latest answers were made solely because of your personal attacks towards Sonjaa and also me, although I had kept out of the debate for a while. What do you expect? A "thank you"? Hardly ... -- AlexR 06:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't believe I'm "missing the point", and no, I don't expect any form of politeness from you, or Sonjaa. Now did you have something to say about the article, or not? - Nunh-huh 06:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What a surprise that Nunh-huh is once again at the center of one of the stupidest fucking debates I've ever witnessed. Don't you have anything better to do that to argue over a CARTOON CHARACTER? Who cares whether he/she/it is male, female, whatever? I know it's nice to take this seriously, but once more, you've taken it to the lengths of absurdity just to make yourself feel clever. Did it work? Mind, that massive chuck of argument you wrote was the funnyest thing I read in a long time, so cheers for that. Got a job? And the very idea that you should lecture people on politeness? Your one of the most unpleasant, cattiest people I've ever enocountered on this site. Do me, and everyone, a favour and just leave it out for once. Please? (BTW, this isn't really directed at the other people in this debate - AlexR,etc. - who were having a simple discussion, even if it was a bit silly).--Crestville 23:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since I don't recall interacting with you, I don't know where you encountered me before. But writing me unpleasant notes doesn't seem like a very good method of avoiding unpleasantness. - Nunh-huh 00:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could just be a means to an end. You might realise the error of you ways and stop being such a prat and winding people up. I'd like that. More likey, it might just piss you off, which I find equally agreeable. But most significantly, to be honest and upfront with someone - to tell them how you feel, however much unpleasentness that may require - is far more admirable an attribute that to be catty, back handed and concieted.--Crestville 00:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good enough. Consider me informed that you don't like me. -Nunh-huh 00:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cheers.--Crestville 00:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe they actually have a page for mr garrison on here! user:81.151.198.47

The amount of fancruft on Wikipedia is astonishing - but then, where else can you get information about that sort of think without wading through tons of pages that assume you have some sort of prior knowledge of the larger context it belongs to? Nowhere. -- AlexR 07:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Sex with a woman?

Did'nt Mr.Garrison, in the episode when Cartman is looking for his biological father, say that he once had sex with Mrs.Cartman? The Republican 01:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it's important to remember, as was revealed in the very next episode, that Mrs. Cartman is a hermaphrodite. With a penis. 4.253.45.67 22:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Attack on transsexuals?

Mrs. Garrison's character as a whole is a very nasty attack on transsexuals, and the episode in which "she" premiered was ludricous; comparing being turned into a dolphin and tall black kid to transsexuality. Never mind decades of research, never mind actually discovering that it's extremely likely Male to Female transsexuals actually do have female brain gender, never mind strong filtering to make sure only the afforementioned people get the treatment, never mind the fact that gender is a line a thousand times more blurred than species, and the fact that nobody can feel they're a "black person" in side because there isn't an inherent behaviour set programmed into that archetype that could cause such a dysphoria. I don't mind many of the "Liberal" parodies Matt and Trey do, but Mrs. Garrison is just ridiculous and offensive, and forcing an ignorant preconception on people who have no idea what transsexuals really are when that's the last thing they need, without being funny in the least. Unfortunately, transsexuals tend to remain quiet about anything for fear of being "discovered", so as such, nobody has made noise abut this.

Something can be considered funny by others even though it upsets you.

I've done a bit of work on what constitutes a trassexual and frankly, I found this episode hilarious. It's not making fun of people with genuine transgender issues, it's making fun of arsehole posers like Garrison. However, I would argue that they make a fine point that, no matter how much surgery you have, your still not a woman.--Crestville 11:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is an incredible offensive character. It's not realistic at all, it trivalizes transsexualtiy and further reinforces the negative stereotypes that transsexuals are messed up idiots. Its sickenning how irresponsible and mean spirited the creators of South Park are.

I can totally see how you would take offence, but Parker and Stone are two very intelligent men and quite sensetive to such issues. They use exaggerations like the overblown, rediculous Mr Garrison to express a point, to show how rediculous something really is, the hysteria that americans often build up around fairly simple subjects. However, in this case, I would suggest that, in a similar vein to Alan Partridge or Basil Fawlty, the joke here is not on transsexuals but on Mr Garrison, who is an absoluse twat. Obviously (or at least I hope to God) no one has ever had a sex change just so they can have an abortion. It's a rediculous idea that would only work with Mr Garrison. I think the point about still not being a woman despite surgery is one which is sad but true.--Crestville 14:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It is true that surgery does not make one become a woman, because Tran gendered females are females at heart even without needing any surgeries. However, there are real biological and psychological effects associated with taking “female” hormones and getting a surgery, which ensures that there will never be any erection ever again. I understand the joke here is not on transsexuals but on Mr Garrison but the fact of the matter is that the creators of the show used prejudices and transsexual stereotypes to make the “point” about a certain character. A lot of people are already ignorant about transsexuals issues and what transsexuals have to go through, the misinformation and stereotypes that is presented here would not do ANY good to anyone , especially those in the transgender community, it only further obscures and marginalizes the already very disadvantaged people in the society. Do you think people will really get it after the show and they will go on the net to find out what transsexual people are really like? I don’t think so. Its just one more chance to laugh at the poor tranny freaks. Its shameful and disgusting. It pissed me off even more that you suggest they are being "sensitive" when they are being OVERLY insensitive to the plight of transsexuals. Many people REALLY do think that transsexuals are jokes like "Mr. Garrison." To the many viewers, when they think of transsexuals, now they think of "Mr. Garrison" , how more sad can it be? But maybe it's my own stupid fault that I expect the show creators to show any shred of humanity or social responsbility to a group that is on the fringe of society. Silly me. Haha lets all laugh about it as we watch REAL LIFE transsexuals being fired by their employers, harrassed by cops, beaten and kiled by some idiots.

Bloody hell, get a sense of humour.--Crestville 14:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I am transgender and I laughed. Besides, people who think they can take anything from Soutpark and think it applies to the real world can't really be helped any more - and couldn't have been helped before, either. -- AlexR 02:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that I have no sense of humor if I do not find jokes that use stereotypes about transsexuals funny? Alex, if it has no bearing in the real world, than it wouldnt be funny. You are right that nobody consciously would take South Park seriously, but on some unconscious level, it only reinforces the negative beliefs that anti transsexuals people have. Laughing at these stereotypes DO NOT HELP people who are already against transsexuals to realize how absurd they are. It worsens the problem. I don’t think using shock values and every stereotypes on the book about transsexual is hilarious, it seems desperate and insensitive considering many people really have low opinions on transsexuals and the abuse that transsexuals do get in real life. Maybe we can relax a bit on these things when transsexuals in real life are not treated like piece of shits by the society. Dont'tell me to laugh at these stereotypical jokes when the same jokes are used to marginalize my existenece in the real world everyday.

I don't know who you are coz you didn't sign your quote, but most of the people slagging off this episode have sed something along the lines of "I find SOuthpark funny bt this..." simply because the epsiode involved an "attack" on you. That's hypocritical. The lads who make South Park have every right to mock whosoever they please. If you can't laugh at yerself, you lack an essential part of a sense of humour. I'm English, yet Pip was my favorate character (though he's not really in it these days). I'm a Catholic, but I don't see why the "Bloody Mary" episode was banned, etc. etc.--Crestville 15:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Being Catholic is not really a marginalized identity. I guess, its different, when people are in a really low social positions, they have no time to "laugh at themselves" because they are being LAUGHED at most of the time, and also being discriminated against legally, socially and economically. The reality of transsexuals, for me, is a tragic one, and unless we deal with the tragedy of it first, than i dont think its respectful to even laugh at it. Its like making a Diana joke right after she died or making a 9/11 jokes right after the twin tower fell down. Hello, people are still dying and hurting, its not fucking funny. Anyways, I agree that its important to laugh at yourself, but i believe in tasteful jokes and this is not tasteful at all.

Ah, maybe yer right, though I find it hard to find South park mean spritied because the two lads who make it seem so cool. There is no need for funny jokes to be tasteful - that's why there is such a strong fanbase for shows like South Park, Family Guy and the Simpsons. Also, I like Diana jokes coz I've no real fondness for her whatsoever, but that's another story. I stand by me point that people are more than ghappy to laught at things like this until it directly offends them too.--Crestville 20:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

So according to the OP, attacks on transexuals are not to be tolerated, but attacks on hispanic people, black people, jewish people, obese people, and much, much, more are perfectly fine? The show is ABOUT stereotypes. People still die by AIDs. Yet they made fun of it. People still die or get seriously hurt by racism, yet racism is a common source of jokes on the show. People are still starving in Ethiopia. And yet they still parodied it. Heck, they parody Jesus quite often! So if you are going to single one group out, add the rest. And then there will be no South Park. Mahare 23:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Attack on Gingers?

Cartman's character as a whole is a very nasty attack on gingers, and the episode in which "he" premiered was ludricous; comparing nazism to the way the ginners are treated. Never mind decades of research, never mind actually discovering that gwards are normal, never mind strong filtering to make sure only the afforementioned people get the bullied, never mind the fact that being a ginger nut is a line a thousand times more blurred than species, and the fact that nobody can feel they're a "ginger person" in side because there isn't an inherent behaviour set programmed into that archetype that could cause such a dysphoria. I don't mind many of the "Liberal" parodies Matt and Trey do, but ginger Cartman is just ridiculous and offensive, and forcing an ignorant preconception on people who have no idea what copper tops really are when that's the last thing they need, without being funny in the least. Unfortunately, carrot tops tend to remain quiet about anything for fear of being "discovered", so as such, nobody has made noise abut this. Or maybe it was funny, people with a sense of humour laughed and on the ehole no one gave a shit.

Mr Hat

Why doesnt mr hat redirect here when Mr. Twig has an articial . Mr hat has done alot more than mr twig (Gnevin 22:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)) I AGREE WITH THAT

Fictional Racists

Since when is Mrs. Garrison a racist? If it's because of the anti-gay thing, it is important to remember that homosexuality is not a race. -Merlin StormMerlin Storm 05:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

He was part of the KKK(through Mr. Hat.) At the end of the rich black people episode, he was racist towards them. There are some other examples that I can't think of. Nemu 15:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

He also hates Mexicans.

Present tense versus past

The events described in this article should be described in the present tense since they are ficticious. 63.171.32.222 21:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? Past tense, present tense, does it really matter? Plus, I have seen MANY things to describe a work of fiction as a past tense. Besides, if you actually READ the article, things that happened in the past on the show are in the past tense, or things that happened in episodes. There is present tense for his beliefs. It seems fine to me. Mahare 23:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No comment on this particular article, but fictional events should in fact be described in the present tense to distinguish them from non-fiction. This is standard practice in article writing. Mcr29 00:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)