There’s an interesting discussion about “Lola” on Andrew Hickey’s blog, mainly about whether or not it’s problematic in its depiction of trans people:
I’ve dreaded writing about this song, because it’s witty, clever, and one of the catchiest things Ray Davies ever wrote, but it also perpetuates some negative stereotypes about trans people. However, it also shows more respect to trans people than any other pop song I could think of
Which might just be laying too much weight on what’s largely an ironic song gently mocking a young boy having his first encounter with what I always thought was a male transvestite, what with the last line of the song being “But I know what I am I’m glad I’m a man and so is Lola”. It’s the old story of boy meets girl, boy discovers girl is also a boy, boy discovers he couldn’t care less: well, nobody’s perfect.
If you look at it unfavourably, I guess you could say that it enacts that hoary old homo and transphobic fear of straight men being “tricked” into having sex with somebody who’s “really” a man, something that used to be a staple of bad American raunch comedies (or even the Police Academy series).
But I think that’s completely missing the point of “Lola”, which is really about love conquering all, gender not mattering and becoming fluid anyway (“Girls will be boys and boys will be girls, It’s a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world except for Lola”). It’s all done with a wink and a smile, but at its heart it is accepting of trans people more than you could say it is damaging.
Andrew Hickey
May 17, 2012 at 6:48 amI actually pretty much agree with you there — but I think it’s *simultaneously* doing the love-conquers-all thing and the “oh my god, that chick’s a dude, dude!” thing, in about equal measure. I think it relies for much of its effect on an expectation that the audience will respond to the idea with revulsion or humour, before adding on the additional layer of “well, I don’t mind”.
As for whether Lola is a male transvestite or a trans woman who hasn’t had an operation, I frankly don’t think Davies himself was clear on the distinction at the time (and the distinction itself is a fairly fluid one for many people).
Broadly, I think it’s on the right side, but I thought there was an obligation at least to consider the negative readings, because I’m generally tin-eared enough to issues of offence that I could have easily missed the point.