Title pretty harsh. It sounds like an old Perry Mason episode. Here a man who, through no actions on his part, is shamed into suicide. Now that transgender people have a voice, this seems like the ultimate in insensitivity. The second has to do with the early days of the Las Vegas we know today, where a Native American body is found on a construction site. Both involve mistreatment by big businesses. Not the greatest, most enlightening story.
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (TV Series)
The Case of the Cross-Dressing Carp (2007)
User Reviews
Review this title6 Reviews
Water, Hormones and Indian Cemetery
claudio_carvalho6 March 2023
Warning: Spoilers
When a teenager is found hanging to a tree, Capt. Brass, Grissom, Nick and Warrick investigate the murder. They believe that it might be a hate crime, since the victim has breasts. They find also a cell phone with messages between the victim and PCYDEN and they identify the victim is the eighteen-year-old Brian Towne. Warrick and Brass go to his mother's home and they learn that Brain worked in the water treatment plant and his contact is his friend Paul Cyden, who was like a father to him. When Warrick asks if the money he found in Brian's room is for a sex change operation, his mother says that her son was not a freak and sends them away. Soon they learn that Paul is researchng the quality of the water provided to the residents. When Paul is found dead by Catherine, the CSI team discovers what is happening with the local water. Meanwhile, Sara, Ronnie and Greg investigate a body discovered under the Rampart, and Sara suspects that it might be an Indian cemetery.
"The Case of the Cross-Dressing Carp" is an episode of "CSI" with a strange lead story and a reasonable segment. The teenager with breasts caused by hormones in the water sounds credible and maybe explains why the world has a third genre these days. The segment with Sara and Greg is funny. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "The Case of the Cross-Dressing Carp"
"The Case of the Cross-Dressing Carp" is an episode of "CSI" with a strange lead story and a reasonable segment. The teenager with breasts caused by hormones in the water sounds credible and maybe explains why the world has a third genre these days. The segment with Sara and Greg is funny. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "The Case of the Cross-Dressing Carp"
P. Cyden
xbatgirl-3002918 November 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I really wanted to write a review because I just figured out Paul Cyden's name abbreviates into being Poseidon. LOL.
Anyway, yes, the episode hasn't aged well. Lots of things don't. To claim it can never be shown in reruns because it "spreads misinformation" is ridiculous on more than one level. You have to watch with a historian's eye and acknowledge the past with context. That's like saying you can't learn about any bad time in history (which is most of it), because it teaches impure ideas or something.
Also, just because a character in a show says something, that was the writer's choice for that character. It does not mean the entire staff of the show endorses that point of view. You'll notice in this episode, Nick says what is now an offensive term. That's the type of guy the writers felt Nick was. You'll notice Grissom has a different point of view, and so does Doc Robbins. So are they endorsing every competing point of view at once? The writers may have had a completely different view from all of them. People have no sense of context.
Also, the CSI team did not "ignore a crime just because a woman did it", like one reviewer says. You'll notice they did take the case to the DA. As Grissom always says, they don't judge. They just collect the evidence. It was the DA's office who decided they'd never get a jury to convict. Which is something completely different.
Anyway, Poseidon!
Anyway, yes, the episode hasn't aged well. Lots of things don't. To claim it can never be shown in reruns because it "spreads misinformation" is ridiculous on more than one level. You have to watch with a historian's eye and acknowledge the past with context. That's like saying you can't learn about any bad time in history (which is most of it), because it teaches impure ideas or something.
Also, just because a character in a show says something, that was the writer's choice for that character. It does not mean the entire staff of the show endorses that point of view. You'll notice in this episode, Nick says what is now an offensive term. That's the type of guy the writers felt Nick was. You'll notice Grissom has a different point of view, and so does Doc Robbins. So are they endorsing every competing point of view at once? The writers may have had a completely different view from all of them. People have no sense of context.
Also, the CSI team did not "ignore a crime just because a woman did it", like one reviewer says. You'll notice they did take the case to the DA. As Grissom always says, they don't judge. They just collect the evidence. It was the DA's office who decided they'd never get a jury to convict. Which is something completely different.
Anyway, Poseidon!
Didn't age all that well
pikach_kay5 July 2016
Having seen this episode in 2016, I found myself constantly cringing at the wording involved in the case focused on the potentially inter-sex boy and his mother. Now, a lot has changed between 2007 and 2016 and i'm sure it wasn't as bad at the time. However the language is definitely outdated and misinformed. As a result this episode spreads that misinformation every time it plays as a re-run.
I'm new to reviewing through IMDb, but I wanted to put this out there for people who might see this in the present or future like myself. This is a warning to people who might be language sensitive, especially to transgender slurs. Such language can be particularly harmful as well as triggering to some people and the mature subject matter warning doesn't quite prepare someone for the "T- word" being used in the first 5 minutes of the episode and then regularly throughout.
Both cases were pretty interesting to follow though and seemed to flow particularly well. I was definitely interested and didn't feel the need to turn it off in the long run. Low rating for outdated language. A decent episode otherwise.
I'm new to reviewing through IMDb, but I wanted to put this out there for people who might see this in the present or future like myself. This is a warning to people who might be language sensitive, especially to transgender slurs. Such language can be particularly harmful as well as triggering to some people and the mature subject matter warning doesn't quite prepare someone for the "T- word" being used in the first 5 minutes of the episode and then regularly throughout.
Both cases were pretty interesting to follow though and seemed to flow particularly well. I was definitely interested and didn't feel the need to turn it off in the long run. Low rating for outdated language. A decent episode otherwise.
There Must Be Something In The Water
ccthemovieman-114 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The title to this episode kind of clues you in that it is going to be another weird one.....and it is.
An apparent "tranny" is found with his boobs slashed and hanging from a tree near a lake. That's crime number one. Crime number two is a dead body from the sand where the Rampart Hotel/Casino used to be. Construction of a new hotel is beginning but has to be halted to figure out if this is some 40-year-old mob hit or an old Indian burial site.
Case number one involves environmental pollution at a water treatment plan, where the victim worked. The hate-crime victim, it turns out, wasn't murdered; he "hated" himself and killed himself. His mother then kills the person she thought was responsible, even though he was a good guy. But, because she's a female and has cancer, CSI isn't interested in punishing her. Wow, good thing for her she wasn't a man. What a sexist show! The other crime involved an Indian-turned-reporter. He, too, was going to blow the whistle on his corrupt bosses and was killed.
Veteran TV actress Anita Gillette guest-stars as "Sam"s" wife and "Catherine Willow's" mother. She gives some important information which helps solve the case involving the hotel owned by her late husband.
Boy, there is a lot of Liberal comments in this episode, but that's no surprise. This is the way it was in the fifth and sixth seasons but last year it stayed away from left wing agendas and concentrated on crimes, which is what it is supposed to be.
P.S. Oh, by the way - Gil proposes to Sara while they are in beekeepers clothes and head protection. Yeah, it's an odd program.
An apparent "tranny" is found with his boobs slashed and hanging from a tree near a lake. That's crime number one. Crime number two is a dead body from the sand where the Rampart Hotel/Casino used to be. Construction of a new hotel is beginning but has to be halted to figure out if this is some 40-year-old mob hit or an old Indian burial site.
Case number one involves environmental pollution at a water treatment plan, where the victim worked. The hate-crime victim, it turns out, wasn't murdered; he "hated" himself and killed himself. His mother then kills the person she thought was responsible, even though he was a good guy. But, because she's a female and has cancer, CSI isn't interested in punishing her. Wow, good thing for her she wasn't a man. What a sexist show! The other crime involved an Indian-turned-reporter. He, too, was going to blow the whistle on his corrupt bosses and was killed.
Veteran TV actress Anita Gillette guest-stars as "Sam"s" wife and "Catherine Willow's" mother. She gives some important information which helps solve the case involving the hotel owned by her late husband.
Boy, there is a lot of Liberal comments in this episode, but that's no surprise. This is the way it was in the fifth and sixth seasons but last year it stayed away from left wing agendas and concentrated on crimes, which is what it is supposed to be.
P.S. Oh, by the way - Gil proposes to Sara while they are in beekeepers clothes and head protection. Yeah, it's an odd program.
The cringiest episode to ever cringe at cringeworthy dialogue
fasanodavid10 January 2024
This is probably one of the worst aged episodes of any TV show produced in the 21st Century. Did the researchers not find that even when this was written that these terms were wildly offensive and bigoted? They're supposed to have medical and criminal experts for this stuff. I guess they were out on a smoke break.
While the issues surrounding chemicals in our water supply emanating from our corporate overlords has been prescient for decades, did they have to tie that to a completely unsubstantiated side effect in humans?
Where did they get their facts? Alex Jones? This is miserable and really needs to just be removed. It's not even that interesting of an episode on its own.
While the issues surrounding chemicals in our water supply emanating from our corporate overlords has been prescient for decades, did they have to tie that to a completely unsubstantiated side effect in humans?
Where did they get their facts? Alex Jones? This is miserable and really needs to just be removed. It's not even that interesting of an episode on its own.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
