Classic Star Trek fans may remember the gender-bending episode “Turnabout Intruder” where Intergalactic Horn Dog James T. Kirk gets his comeuppance when a transporter glitch accidentally places Jimbo’s heart and soul into a female form and his gal-pal nemesis ends up in The Captain’s Boots.
Widely recognized as one of Classic Trek’s worst episodes (with the Spock’s brain transplant show being the undisputed series nadir) it gave The All Time Undisputed Heavy Weight Champion of Ham Acting William Shatner a chance to show off his thespian chops playing in a woman in Kirk’s body.
Bad it was.
Now imagine a scenario where Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton switched out gender but not style or message for last fall’s debates.
Well, the wait is over, and the results are “surprising” only to liberals who were never paying attention to El Donaldo’s Deplorable Message.
From the NYU blog post creatively titled What If Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Had Swapped Genders:
After watching the second televised debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in October 2016—a battle between the first female candidate nominated by a major party and an opponent who’d just been caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women—Maria Guadalupe, an associate professor of economics and political science at INSEAD, had an idea. Millions had tuned in to watch a man face off against a woman for the first set of co-ed presidential debates in American history. But how would their perceptions change, she wondered, if the genders of the candidates were switched? She pictured an actress playing Trump, replicating his words, gestures, body language, and tone verbatim, while an actor took on Clinton’s role in the same way. What would the experiment reveal about male and female communication styles, and the differing standards by which we unconsciously judge them?
the project (assumed) that the gender inversion would confirm what they’d each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump’s aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton’s competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man.
Cutting to the chase, post performance de-briefings of the audience revealed that the folks in attendance (mostly liberal elite intellectual types) were finally able to “hear” Trumps message:
Based on the conversations after the performances, it sounded like audience members had their beliefs rattled in a similar way. What were some themes that emerged from their responses?
We heard a lot of “now I understand how this happened”—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back. The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.” Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created “hummable lyrics,” while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no “hook” to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate—you know, “I wouldn’t vote for either one.” Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don’t like, but you know is doing good things for you.
The article is pretty good and it stands a lot of “conventional liberal wisdom” on it’s head.
Read the whole thing here.