I’m going to make this a short post and set aside the controversy GLAAD is causing by condemning the film after apparently endorsing it. Once the trans community got wind of the film and contacted GLAAD, they reacted like a typical political lobby by acting as if they’d just heard of the film. But that’s not my concern, and I’ll leave it up to the G and L of the GLBT political groups to bash GLAAD for being two-faced.
No, instead I want to talk about the flawed logic behind making this film and behind the offensive title choice. Ticked-Off Trannies With Knives is described as a “tribute to exploitation films.”
A tribute is a celebration of something good, and there was nothing in exploitation films worth celebrating. They took advantage of actors desperate for work, and they mocked the subjects they presented. Using words like “empowering” or “campy” may diminsh the impact of the word exploitation in some peoples’ minds, but this is still a film that exploits transgender people.
Some people are saying, “Hey you whiny transsexuals, don’t make a big deal out of it. This is just exploiting drag queens anyway.” That really is beside the point. First of all, tranny does not automatically equal drag queen. If the director wanted to make sure people knew his film was about drag queens, then he needed to make the title Ticked-Off Drag Queens With Knives. By using an emotionally charged word, he is exploiting transsexuals, transgenders, and transvestites, and he is doing so without consideration of how this will affect us.
But the second problem is, this film presents the idea that the answer to dealing with trans violence is by returning the favor. It doesn’t matter if Israel Luna thinks his film is funny. It isn’t a message worth sending out, even to a niche market.
Every defense of this film pretty much boils down to a dismissal of real trans concerns, and a pushing of the idea that we shouldn’t take this seriously because it’s a comedy. I find it telling that while real transgender people are offended, our so-called allies are telling us not to take it so seriously. Perhaps they might have felt different if the film was called Fired-Up Faggots With Knives. But since the director chose to pick on a smaller group, it’s all good.
If a white director made a comedy called Niggas Gleefully Shooting White People, should people of color just shut up and enjoy the comedy? No. The fact that Israel Luna is a gay man does not forgive his use of the term tranny in a negative manner. The fact that the actors are drag queens does not make it better either. Blaxploitation films are not okay just because they had casts full of people of color. Exploitation is wrong even if the actors condone it. Defending the exploitation also does not make it okay.
This is an exploitative film that sends out a message which is harmful to a lot more people than the cast and crew are willing to admit. Finally, it doesn’t matter if “only a few people will see this.” Again, let’s go back to my racial example. It doesn’t matter if only a few people see Niggas Gleefully Shooting White People. If the film reinforces negative stereotypes, it is an exploitation of the larger community.
This is why I support GLAAD’s decision to condemn the film, even though they initially supported it. They were not aware of how some of their political allies would react to the film. And, seeing as how it’s us trans folks being adversely affected, it would make sense for GLAAD to take our side once they knew our feelings.
If you are a gay or lesbian supporter of GLAAD who finds this unfair, then you’re suffering from a lack of empathy for the people who this film affects negatively. That’s all there is to it.
In conclusion, even if Israel Luna changes the title to Ticked-Off Drag Queens With Knives, it is still ” a tribute to exploitation.” It is still a celebration to a style of film-making which is best forgotten and buried in the past. If you decide to support this film, you are encouraging larger filmmakers to return to exploitation films, and there’s nothing to be happy about in this outcome. If you consider yourself a supporter of trans rights, then please, avoid this film.
I am a bisexual transsexual with bigender tendencies. I'm a former resident of Texas, but now live in Milan with my husband. I write in a variety of genres and have self-published ebooks through my 
Now I feel really bad, because Sugar Hill is one of my favorite horror movies of all time. Yes, I know it’s blax.
*Shrug* If it’s okay for you to watch it, okay.
This is an exploitation film, definitely. And comparing it to blaxploitation like Foxy Brown, Shaft, Black Mama/White Mama, Blacula, SUGAR HILL, Coffy, Black Devil Doll, on and on is way spot on! All of these films have spurred a great deal of effort to censor them – primarily based on the misguided belief that censoring disagreeable ideas will make the disagreeable realities go away.
Which, I’d argue, only serves to distracts people’s attention from addressing the real causes of social ills.
You say, “It is still a celebration to a style of film-making which is best forgotten and buried in the past.” in reference to exploitation – which is so sad! Exploitation has a long history of challenging censorship, stemming all the way back to “sex-cautionary” films like the 1930s Reefer Madness!.
As a trans person, I believe that our only hope of working to remedy oppressive attitudes depends on freedom of speech – which includes an artist’s liberty to protest, parody, and mock transphobia (as this film does).
One, I would disagree with your assessment on how much “help” exploitation films have provided, and two, I did not call for anyone to censor the film. I asked people not to see the film if they really support trans people.
I completely disagree with your assessment of the usefulness of exploitation films, and I find your assessment of Reefer Madness even less accurate. These films did not help contribute to any meaningful discussion of social problems, and you’re extremely misguided if you think parodies of problems result in serious discussions. You’re either ignoring history to make these claims, or you simply haven’t read enough to know the truth.
Either way, I’m sorry, but you’re completely wrong. This film won’t help open up new discussion about transphobia, nor will it lead to reduced violence against trans people. (The most recent of which is a trans woman decapitated in Mexico, her head found more than a mile away from her body, and her terrified facial expression proving that she was beheaded alive.) The film WILL foster more misconceptions about transgender people and ignore the fact that transgender is an umbrella term covering multiple groups. But hey, we’re all just trannies anyway, so what does it matter?
I take it you know by now that the movie stars three transsexual girls? they’re not to be considered drag queens just because they do a job (as a showgirl) that some drag queens also do.
right? So what that two drag queens also play trans girls in the film.
Should Boys Don’t Cry be retitled GirlDressed Up as Boy Doesn’t Cry?
Most of the ‘splotation movies were financed with Caucasian, Jewish money and led to profits for directors/writers involved. And If the actors felt exploited, why would they do the films?
“And If the actors felt exploited, why would they do the films?”
Because they need the money. Period. If you can’t find decent work with roles in major films, you work your way into other areas, like exploitation. And with the lousy pay and little to no respect for the topic being approached there’s a reason why it’s call exploitation. The definition holds here just fine.