Argumentative Essay On Amy
LGBT representation is a touchy subject, and Amy Zimmerman is one of the few brave enough to explore the topic. Using a combination of logos, pathos and ethos, her position on the misrepresentation of bisexuals in TV is ineffective in persuading her audience, because of her lack of concrete evidence, misdirection of audiences, and contradictory statements. To begin, Amy made use of logos with data gathered by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation(GLAAD). However, Amy interpreted the facts in her favor, causing biased evidence. In paragraph four of her argument, she states a decrease in LGBT characters. Zimmerman wrote: “Six out of forty–six LGBT characters were bisexual, and only two were males.” (Zimmerman, 62) Not only is this research skewed because of the limited persons investigated, but is also inaccurate. In fact, according to the same GLAAD research, from 2013- 2014 the LGBT population did fall from 4.4% to 3.3%, but is an increase from 2011, in which LGBT characters were only 2.9%. The data does represent a decline, but could be for reasons such as maternity leave, or lack of time and money to invest in an acting career. The overall indication is a positive incline of LGBT characters on air.
…show more content…
Her use of words such as "manipulative psychopath" and "recyclable" stirs the feelings of injustice in lesbian, gays, and bisexuals easily. However, she effectively ignores the very audience she is trying to convince of her position- people who are not pro-sapphic/queer. She aims her argument at a very broad audience, trying to relate to LGBT and trying to convince people who do not. Her efforts would be more effective if she had reached out to only LGBT, and pro- LGBT audiences. If she had, their experiences with similar issues and their willingness to lend an ear, would make it easier to harmonize with her
Her use of words such as "manipulative psychopath" and "recyclable" stirs the feelings of injustice in lesbian, gays, and bisexuals easily. However, she effectively ignores the very audience she is trying to convince of her position- people who are not pro-sapphic/queer. She aims her argument at a very broad audience, trying to relate to LGBT and trying to convince people who do not. Her efforts would be more effective if she had reached out to only LGBT, and pro- LGBT audiences. If she had, their experiences with similar issues and their willingness to lend an ear, would make it easier to harmonize with her