
Two years ago, groups representing Italian Americans were up in arms over promos for an upcoming series that was seen as perpetuating stereotypes about the ethnic group and called upon the network to scrap it. The backlash continued even after the series, MTV’s Jersey Shore, premiered, with several advertisers, including computer maker Dell, pulling out. But several months later, all was forgotten and the reality show went on to become a ratings mega hit and a pop culture phenomenon.
Now, LGBT advocacy groups are up in arms over ABC’s upcoming cross-dressing comedy Work It, urging the network not to air it because it “reinforces negative and damaging stereotypes about transgender people,” according to the Human Rights Campaign. Like with Jersey Shore, the backlash is based mostly on promos (video below), which are chock-full of gags featuring the leads, played by Ben Koldyke and Amaury Nolasco, dressed as women, while the show itself is split evenly between the characters’ normal lives as heterosexual men and their undercover jobs as female pharmaceutical reps.
The outrage has zeroed in on a print ad for Work It featuring the two leads in drag, standing at urinals. An image like this will “make it more difficult for transgender people to gain full equality — including the important right to access public accommodations appropriate to their gender identity,” Mark Snyder from the Transgender Law Center wrote. “We ask that ABC … keep the show’s bathroom advertisement out of circulation, and seriously consider whether airing this show is worth the damage it has the potential to do,” GLAAD’s Matt Kane wrote in a post titled “Why ABC’s New Sitcom Work It Hurts The Transgender Community.” (In addition to promos, GLAAD has also screened the pilot.) “The fact is ABC should not air this show at all, as it will contribute to a climate in which transgender people are something to be laughed at, rather than treated with the respect and dignity that everyone deserves.”
While LGBT’s advocates’ point is valid, transgender people do deserve equality, the problem is that Work It does not feature transgender characters. The assumption of protesters is that the images of guys dressed in women’s clothes would evoke associations with transgender people. And while the print ad with the urinals can be accused of being in poor taste, I don’t think the offense rises to transgender discrimination. As for the laughing at part, this is a comedy series, comedies’ purpose is to make people laugh, and no social group is immune, including nerds (The Big Bang Theory), overweight people (Mike & Molly), Asian Americans (2 Broke Girls) and just about anyone (Family Guy & South Park). But again, the characters in Work It are not transgender, they are out-of-work heterosexual car salesmen posing as women to get jobs as pharmaceutical reps. The premise is actually identical to that in Tootsie where Dustin Hoffman’s struggling actor character too resorted to cross-dressing to land a job. And ABC should be the last network to be accused of intolerance towards transgender people — it was the first broadcast network to cast a transgender actor in a recurring, Candis Cayne on Dirty Sexy Money, the first to introduce a regular transgender character, Alexis Meade on Ugly Betty, and the first to have a transgender contestant on a major reality series, Chaz Bono on Dancing with the Stars.
While it may have deeper implications today than it did decades ago, men dressing like women is one of the oldest forms of comedy. It is at the heart of one of the best feature comedies ever made, Some Like It Hot, as well as several other classic comedy films, Tootsie, Mrs. Doubtfire and The Birdcage, and it has had a presence on TV, most notably with the 1980 series Bosom Buddies starring Tom Hanks, and Saturday Night Live where male cast members regularly impersonate female celebrities. And then there is the British school of comedy with Monty Python and Benny Hill. ABC’s president Paul Lee brought up his heritage when explaining his decision to pick up Work It to critics at the summer TCA press tour. “I’m a Brit, it is in my contract that I have to do one cross-dressing show a year,” he said. “I was brought up on Monty Python. What can I do?” As a fellow European who also grew up with Monty Python and Benny Hill, I can actually relate to that. Maybe it’s my upbringing but, despite the deafening negative buzz from critics, I found the pilot of Work It not as bad as I expected it to be. Yes, it is silly (maybe too silly for American audiences) and preposterous as the two guys, especially Koldyke, would never pass as women in the real world, but it has its funny moments. And, contrary to the LGBT groups’ suggestions, the show may actually send a positive message as, despite their far-from-perfect metamorphoses, the two men are accepted by their co-workers the way they want to be perceived, as women, with no disrespect or discrimination.
When Lee found himself under fire from critics over Work It during TCA, the complaints were all about the quality of the show, with no one suggesting a potential negative impact on the transgender community. Sometimes a silly show is just that, with no deep subtext or political agenda. “When you pick up pilots, there are many reasons,” Lee said back then. “Sometimes you pick up a pilot just because it absolutely makes you cackle with laughter, and that was the case with Work It. I make absolutely no excuses for that show.”
RELATED TCA: Cross-Dressing Comedy ‘Work It’ Steals Spotlight At ABC’s Executive Session
TV Editor Nellie Andreeva - tip her here.


I liked it when I first saw it when it was called “Bosom Buddies”.
This town is entirely out of ideas.
Except the idea that we must continue to promote variant modes of homosexuality and anti-maleness on America. That idea seem to be strong.
Way too strong. Men as women seems to be a theme, and a very bad one. It seems every single sitcom has a man behaving as a woman. They’re not funny. A terrible and sickening thing to see for many. But make a joke about gay people and GLADD explodes.Makes no sense whatsoever.
Yes! Ban “Some Like It Hot” & “Victor/Victoria” for this very reason! & Monty Python! & Tyler Perry (Ok, definitely get rid of him) & the hundreds of cross dressing movies that have been classics over the last century! Forget about the valuable themes these movies have contributed to society like men understanding the difficulties women face by living in their shoes.
Toss them all because a few frightened pathetic men see these films as a threat to their masculinity.
That’s how society should work!
Yay!
Yeah, with the “anti-maleness.” We so need to back to the days where women knew their place and men were actually legal allowed to beat them..yes how manly men were back in the good old days, right?
I’m not old enough to have watched Bosom but would have brought up the show anyway.
I think that it looks so stupid that it wouldn’t even appeal to me. It will be axed after 2-3 weeks and Cougar Town will come back. I look at it with a positive view.
ABC EXEC
So, let’s hear your pitch.
WRITER
‘Bosom Buddies’.
ABC EXEC
‘Bosom Buddies’ meets…?
WRITER
Nope. It’s just ‘Bosom Buddies’.
ABC EXEC
Brilliant!
The real offensive thing about this show is how painfully unfunny it looks.
Agreed. Giving it enough credit to even call it silly is the real offense.
The promos for this show are not funny.Bosom Buddies recycling. Anyway the premise ius totally bogus. Big pharma only hires very attractive female reps. These guys wouldn’t get an interview.
Awful. And the worst thing is ABC and Warner Bros. are telling themselves this show addresses the economic realities of today. These guys are willing to dress as women to get jobs and, hey, that reflects the desperation going on in America. What horseshit.
I have seen the pilot for this series. It is as painfully unfunny as any comedy I have ever had the misfortune of seeing. It is excruciating. It appears to take place in a world where human beings cannot see five o’clock shadows. It’s hard to imagine that a martian landing on Earth would not emerge from his spaceship, see these two guys in drag, and say “I’ve never seen a human before, but these two cannot possibly be women.”
But it is not offensive to transgendered people, except in the way it’s offensive to any human being with a brain: it’s terrible. But these guys are not transgendered people, they’re just two morons who put on dresses. There’s enough real prejudice around, it doesn’t serve anybody to cry foul where no foul exists. This show will disappear without a trace on its own. No reason to give it any more prominence than it deserves.
The most “discriminatory” thing about this show is that it’s based on an assumption that it’s easier to get jobs as a female when there’s still obviously a salary and hiring inequality. But that’s the premise of a silly comedy, not a deliberate ignorance of truth.
As a gay man, I can say with full honesty that GLAAD needs to go. It’s pathetic. They’re completely tone-deaf and unrelenting. It makes me embarrassed to be gay when there’s an advocacy group that is so obviously lacking in sense of humor.
The whole idea that men have to dress like women to get jobs is ridiculous. I think Nellie is exactly on point – it might even be a positive message that these guys are accepted as other women within the office – but it’s also not funny. I get why it might tap into some more British sentiments on humor, but I don’t think this show was picked up with an American audience in mind (where this type of humor isn’t as prevalent in the culture’s mindset).
I didn’t think it was that funny, but I also didn’t think it was any worse than Whitney, Last Man Standing, I Hate My Teenage Daughter, How to be a Gentleman, Man Up, or any of the other failed sitcoms we’ve seen this year. There was nothing exceptionally terrible about Work it – it was just bad.
I’ve learned far more about negative stereotypes from the people who complain about them, than from anyone who actually beleives them.
Groups like these, who try so hard to scour these images from our culture, only end up perpetuating the very thing they seek to erase.
this is why everyone hates the LGBT – pick your battles, idiots.
No, Polly, it’s just you folks out in Kentucky who hate the LGBT community. The rest of us evolved decades ago.
NOW who’s being discriminatory? Because I think the LGBT is stupid for picking this battle, I must be a redneck?
Who are the LGBT? The organization fighting this battle is GLAAD, a group, not the entire LGBT community. I’m sick of all this crap about the gay agenda, if a christian group complained about a show, you don’t say this why everyone hates Christians, its just this one group who they hate. And many people in the LGBT community, myself included, dislike the battles GLAAD often chooses to pick. So yes, if you hate ‘the LGBT’ for GLAADs decision to attack this show, they you are a redneck idiot.
The problem here is that the only joke in the show is guys in drag are funny (which they aren’t). Even worse, the promise seems to suggest that these two guys are utterly incapable of getting jobs as men, and it is only after applying to an office where the women are so completely clueless as to not realize they are men (which is so painfully obvious), are they able to find gainful employment. It’s nothing but a series of disgusting stereotypes and should never air.
What is this the 1980′s? This was already done to death on Bosom Buddies. What is the matter? Is the television industry running out
of ideas for new shows?
Agreed
This show is absolutely idiotic in content and has no business being on the air. What the hell is ABC thinking here and they actually think they’re going to generate ratings for this slop? They need to think again as this show will be done after 3 episodes when ratings will be at their lowest. ABC = ABsoulte Crap.
This is a thing? really?
I have said it before and will say it again – this is going to probably be a huge hit.
with this and Kelly Osbourn’s stirring campaign to eliminate use of the word “tranny,” these are heady days indeed for the Shemale lobby.
As a gay man, my main problem with this show, is that it looks stupid and unfunny.
If your commercials suck, I don’t have high hopes for the series.
“Sometimes you pick up a pilot just because it absolutely makes you cackle with laughter, and that was the case with Work It. I make absolutely no excuses for that show.”
If that’s the case than Lee must be easier to entertain than a three year old.
“two men. two dresses. shattering the glass ceiling has never looked this good!” – pitch
The leads in this show make Regis Philbin, Michael Gelman and Art Moore all dragged up on the “Regis and Kelly” look like Miss Universe Winners. Even the Wayon’s brother’s in “White Chicks’ were more pleasant to look at.
The advocacy groups for gay and lesbians may be up in arms but every gay person of any ilk sees this for what it is, just bad crappy TV. They are only offended that it’s sucking up a half hour of TV time where there’s far better fair.
It seems the only people who don’t understand that guys in drag is not the same as trangender are the people at GLAAD and the insane religious right. So maybe this is. who this show is made for, those two groups. That means there will be a hundred people tuning in. Good going ABC.
The religious right is insane? They have opinions just like you. They probably think far worse of you though.
I doubt that.
Oh and since you can’t read-he is grouping extreme LGBT groups with the insane religious right……so WTF are you saying that HE is like the extremist gay groups?
Your nutty religious people are so crazy! Not oversensitive! And no, I’m not gay but European. You come here with you bigoted rubbish and we’ll wipe the floor off you intelligent rational.
Oh, yeah. Europeans are so tough. (rolling eyes)
Anything with a penis shouldn’t be in women’s bathroom or dressing room… period. No matter what it calls itself.
Except for male service dogs. They should be allowed in the women’s room, as long as they’re dressed like girl dogs.
No, male service dogs are cool anywhere. They don’t have to be dressed in drag.
Holy shit, Rin Tin Tina may get post of the year. That was Data Lounge worthy.
You wrote: [... the problem is that Work It does not feature transgender characters.] The fact that you wrote this make you unfit to offer a valid opinion. While it is a fact that this show isn’t portraying transsexual people, it absolutely designed to repackage every negative stereotype about trans experience.
It offends because it plays out in public every mockery right-wing bigots hope to instill in the minds of the public so that nobody will care that trans people are specifically denied their 14th amendment guarantees. Leaving aside that a sitcom and reality TV represents 2 very different types of entertainment, herein lies the real problem with your fallacious comparison: there isn’t a very real, well-funded, powerful and fanatical theocratic movement attempting to strip Jersey people of their ability to work, obtain housing, obtain medical care or even walk down the public street without facing arrest. Your comparison is fallacious and exposes your almost complete inability to grasp the issue.
A more correct entertainment comparison would be a minstrel show. In a minstrel show, the audience knew they weren’t watching a real African-Americans, they understood that this was a white person mocking the white perception of the black experience. Would the public support a show about two out of work white men who find both economic abundance and laughs while performing minstrel shows? Of course not. The point isn’t that this show mocks the real experience of trans folk; rather, the huge issue is that the show purposefully mocks the experience non-trans people think trans people have.
Ehipassiko,
Your argument has more holes than a warehouse full of colanders.
I have seen the pilot — have you? — and, for all it’s abundant shortcomings, it does not even begin to “repackage negative stereotypes about trans experience.” Your assertion that it was “absolutely designed” to do so is preposterous and shows that you have a remarkable inability to grasp the obvious motives of both a show’s creators and the network that bafflingly chose to air it.
And speaking of “fallacious comparisons” your claim that the real parallel here is to minstrel shows is equally wrong. White entertainers once wore blackface in order to caricature and mock negroes (though many would have claimed the mocking condescension was to some degree affectionate). The cross-dressers in “Work It” are not mocking women, nor is the show. Like “Bosom Buddies” before it (a silly but likable show that “Work It” makes look like Moliere), what’s mostly being sent up is how bad the men are at pretending to be women.
This, as a previous poster noted, is the show’s most painful flaw. Unlike in, say “Tootsie,” the cross-dressers are so utterly inept that you can’t for an instant believe that anyone is fooled — let alone that their co-workers will continue to be hoodwinked for a full season’s worth of episodes, let alone the multiple years the show would need to run before its studio turned a profit. (To this extent the show does in fact mock women, though not in the way you’d claim, by showing them strangely incapable of recognizing a man in a dress when they see one.)
And what exactly are the “negative stereotypes” about trans people that you feel the show is enforcing? Most negativity about trans people stems from the bigoted belief that everyone should stay whichever sex “God made them.” Or do you find it prejudicial to believe that a certain male-to-female transexuals retain a somewhat mannish appearance? This is not a stereotype, it is a fact, and one that even films that are completely pro-trans have dramatized. (Think of Tom Wilkinson’s terrific performance in HBO’s “Normal.”) But films and shows that are about actual transexuals have nothing to do with silly comedies about straight guys donning dresses for various artfully or ineptly contrived reasons.
In the future please think twice before declaring anyone else “unfit to offer a valid opinion.”
@Dora: You wrote [I have seen the pilot — have you? — and, for all it’s abundant shortcomings, it does not even begin to “repackage negative stereotypes about trans experience.” Your assertion that it was “absolutely designed” to do so is preposterous and shows that you have a remarkable inability to grasp the obvious motives of both a show’s creators and the network that bafflingly chose to air it]
Here’s my reply: *Yawn*
You’ve offered up the logical equivalent of “nu-uh”. Simply asserting that my claim is “preposterous” doesn’t make it so.
You then go on to strawman my argument: [White entertainers once wore blackface in order to caricature and mock negroes (though many would have claimed the mocking condescension was to some degree affectionate). The cross-dressers in “Work It” are not mocking women, nor is the show.]
Railing against an argument you’re pretending I made is absurd, condescending and does a lot to expose your position as being aloof. Let me restate my point:
[In a minstrel show, the audience knew they weren’t watching a real African-Americans, they understood that this was a white person mocking the white perception of the black experience... The point isn’t that this show mocks the real experience of trans folk; rather, the huge issue is that the show purposefully mocks the experience non-trans people think trans people have.]
In order to honestly argue against this, you need to provide some evidence that this show does not “purposefully mock the experience non-trans people think trans people have”. Of course this show doesn’t mock the real, actual experience of trans folk. I never said it did. However, the show does portray and mock much of what MANY right wingers claim to be the trans experience. Would you like for me to quote you some of the disgusting statements powerful people regularly make about trans people? Must I really spend my time explaining to you in detail how how their propaganda beautifully matches this show’s shtick? Are you really this obtuse?
If you continue to pretend that I’m claiming the show mocks the actual experience of trans folk or continue to pretend that this show does not trade in the exact same imagery powerful right wingers use to increase the suffering of trans folk, I will have no choice but to conclude that you have no valid argument.
I stand by my assertion that your statement that the show’s “absolutely designed to repackage every negative stereotype about trans experience” is preposterous.
If it’s not then we have to assume that the series’ inception went something like this:
“Here’s a thought — let’s do a show where we take all the negative stereotypes about a maligned group. Say, black people, or muslims — ”
“No — transexuals!”
“Better still!”
“And then we . . . what? Repeat all the negative stereotypes?”
“Too obvious. Let’s ‘repackage’ them by using non-actual transexuals as our main characters — ”
“Which leaves our hands clean while still inflicting maximal damage on the psyches of real-world transexuals who will watch our straight guys in dresses and feel mocked as though by powerful right-wing demagogues!”
“I am LOVING this. Call ABC!”
. . . Or did you mean that the premise, whatever the writers’ intentions, can’t help but trade in cliches or misperceptions about trans experience? Which is a tad different than starting out with clearly defamatory purpose. If this is the case, forgive my responding to what you said (i.e. “absolutely designed”) and not what you may have meant.
And, as you failed to respond to it, I’ll repeat my question:
“And what exactly are the “negative stereotypes” about trans people that you feel the show is enforcing? Most [right wing and religious] negativity about trans people stems from the bigoted belief that everyone should stay whichever sex “God made them.” Or do you find it prejudicial to believe that certain male-to-female transexuals retain a somewhat mannish appearance? This is not a stereotype, it is a fact, and one that even films that are completely pro-trans have dramatized. (Think of Tom Wilkinson’s terrific performance in HBO’s “Normal.”)”
In short, exactly what vicious “propaganda” is this show legitimizing? If you want to consider the question “obtuse,” by all means do so; just answer it.
Finally what I find most infuriating about this whole brouhaha (apart from feeling compelled on principle to defend a show that couldn’t, on a purely comedic level, offer a more compelling case for censorship) is that people are so up in arms about it based on at best a pilot episode — though many are fulminating at the mere idea of it or the poster.
Until you’ve seen a show (and not just the pilot but how it develops from there) how can you know what it truly is or isn’t well enough to call for its prompt cancellation? Is it so beyond dispute that the show does and always will make a mockery of the transexual experience? Is it not possible (and, given, the outcry, even likely) that the main characters’ experience might make them more not less sympathetic to actual transexuals in transition? Or that actual trans characters might be introduced down the road as a counterpoint?
But why trouble to actually watch a show or urge that it develop in a positive direction when you can get off on flexing your muscle to see that it never even airs?
I’d love to hear your thoughts — if you’re not too busy rounding up all your friends’ copies of “Hairspray” and “Some Like It Hot” for immediate incineration.
You’re absolutely right, Ehipassiko, to make the comparison to minstrel shows. A century ago many of Nellie’s arguments could have been made about minstrel shows, the lesson being that just because it’s common in the entertainment industry doesn’t mean that it’s right.
Nellie is correct that there is a long tradition of cross dressing in the dramatic arts, and I believe she is correct to argue the intent in many cases is not to mock people who primarily identify or live as transgendered. That’s a pretty superficial point, however. The truth about gender representations on stage and screen is complex, and I suspect many characters that she puts forward as beloved by all are rather detested by some transvestites and transsexuals. If one can survey the history of comedic cross dressing and not be sensitive to that, then one has no business replying to the serious concerns expressed over “Work It.”
This is just a dumb idea that won’t last long. Nothing really funny about it. BUT IT IS NOT going to cause discrimination against people who are transgender.
Bosom Buddies did not cause problems and it was a really funny show. Cross dressing is just no longer something that can be successfully made fun of. Whoever greenlighted the pilot should be fired simply for not knowing what’s funny.
It’s awesome that GLAAD is giving this “comedy” a big boost in awareness and publicity. If it was under the radar before, ABC has to be pleased that the show will likely get a good sample.
yep will be tuning in otta curiosity. Wasn’t even aware of this show and would have ignored it otherwise.