The Danish Girl - Transgender Issues in the 1920s

[dreng3]

Well two things, the way the article put it is kinda vague... The main character was asked to pose as a female model for a portrait painting, through this they discover that womanhood fits them. Either way a lot of trans folk have discovered they're trans through some form of cross dressing, especially before the internet, and this rings doubly true for people who felt such things before transgender even was a term.


Possibly as a period piece, still it's not all that difficult to make a female actress look like a man at any rate. The point is partially validation on the premise of gender identity being what makes a man, a man, or a woman, a woman. More importantly trans women tend to show more feminine behavior, so having a cis woman play a trans woman would be closer to how a trans woman experiences the world and holds them selves, both externally and internally(not biologically). Still that's a half measure to have a cis woman play a trans woman, or a cis man play a trans man, because from an acting stand point they realistically can't express the deep feelings of a trans person. There are plenty of experiences and deep emotions that can be acted, gender dysphoria is not one of them. So trans characters should be played by trans folk, because that's we're the ones with the most authentic experiences to bring to that performance.

Not really sure I get this, as it stands the movie has a male actor playing a role where someone born with a male body transitions to female. Are you suggesting that it would be better to have a woman play a man who in turn transitions back to woman?
Isn't that something like double sexism, or triple?
I agree with the sentiment that they could've coached or instructed the actor better, as most of the acting felt rather forced, but in the end he is an actor, which means he takes on the roles of people he has nothing in common with all the time.

 

[kekkres]

Typical, they make a movie that's about a trans woman and get a cis man to play the role. Heaven for bid they at least get a cis woman to play the role, to make it somewhat more authentic, or you know actually get a trans woman to play the role. It's roles like these that are made for trans folk, yet not only do trans folk never get seriously considered for these roles... They insist on putting cis men in the roles of trans women and cis women in the roles of trans women. Some times it feels like they intentionally do this bad casting to give trans folk a bad image...

Just depressing, especially considering the movie isn't particularly good and over fictionalized.

Honestly with what an extreme minority trans people are, and the fact that most usually dont broadcast their status i wouldn't be surprised if they couldent find any skilled trans actors who fit the role. Also remember in the time period sex reassignment surgery, did not exist, so having a women in the role would be hard to sell; (although it might be really neat if they cast two actors, a male and a female for the role, for scenes where they are being perceived by others or by themselves respectively, but that might be hard to pull off)

 

[Silvanus]

Honestly with what an extreme minority trans people are, and the fact that most usually dont broadcast their status i wouldn't be surprised if they couldent find any skilled trans actors who fit the role.

Given the sheer number of actors available, I don't think that could be true.

Remember, it doesn't have to be a household name.

(although it might be really neat if they cast two actors, a male and a female for the role, for scenes where they are being perceived by others or by themselves respectively, but that might be hard to pull off)

That's... an interesting idea, actually. Let me think about that.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'd rather have a competent actor than a shoehorned trans person for the sake of PC.

Except the two aren't mutually exclusive, and it's not for the sake of "PC."

I would note that we're expected to feel the pain of every straight white dude when a black guy gets cast as a white character, even if their ethnicity isn't of import. Or oh no, they made a Green Lantern gay.

Honestly with what an extreme minority trans people are, and the fact that most usually dont broadcast their status i wouldn't be surprised if they couldent find any skilled trans actors who fit the role.

Have you tried Google? Serious question. It's not hard to find trans actors in the public eye already, let alone trans actors in general.

 

[Silence]

*reads the discussion*

Yeah, it's the same as having non-disabled actors play disabled people, which in part, went as far as damaging the public perception of people.
I didn't really think about it when reading the article, but it is kinda shitty.

 

[Tortilla the Hun]

*snip*

First off, I think calling it akin to blackface is extreme hyperbole. Yes there exists a stigma against trans people, transphobia is a very real thing and very frightening in the extremes but to put it on the same level of the racism that has existed (and to a far greater extent) is just wrong. That's my feelings on that particular matter.

Now, onto the casting choice for the movie, without having seen the film I don't see any issue casting a cis man as a transgender woman, especially considering the role wasn't played off as 'haha, she's really a man.' It seems the film portrays transitioning in a more serious light and while I can't speak for the talent of Eddie Redmayne, I think the choice in casting is hardly inappropriate let alone being malicious.

Edit made here due to misunderstanding of who was actually cast.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly see the merit of having a trans woman being portrayed by a trans woman, it's easy to portray that transition because they've experienced it. They've been through it. However, I do not believe it's absolutely necessary to do so. That'd be like asking Gary Sinise to actually cut his legs off to better portray Lt Dan after his double amputation just to understand the struggle of the handicapable. But he wasn't asked, and he didn't have to. Because as an actor, he does a very, very good job at acting.

On a final note, why is it offensive for a man to be cast to portray a woman (post-transition) but not offensive for a woman to be cast to portray a man (pre-transition)? Wouldn't it be just as derogatory for Nicole Kidman to don a suit with a baritone voice and 'be a man' for the first half of the film? It seems a bit of a double-standard to criticize one and not the other. But that's just my two cents.

 

[step1999]

On a final note, why is it offensive for a man to be cast to portray a woman (post-transition) but not offensive for a woman to be cast to portray a man (pre-transition)? Wouldn't it be just as derogatory for Nicole Kidman to don a suit with a baritone voice and 'be a man' for the first half of the film? It seems a bit of a double-standard to criticize one and not the other. But that's just my two cents.

I'm not an expert, but from what I've seen, the attitude among trans people is that before they realized they were transgender, they were still mentally that gender, they just didn't realize it yet (which is consistent with what we know about gender dysphoria). So for the first half of the film she would be a woman in a male body, not a man. (Note that people's opinions probably differ on this, this is just the concensus I've seen)

 

[Tortilla the Hun]

On a final note, why is it offensive for a man to be cast to portray a woman (post-transition) but not offensive for a woman to be cast to portray a man (pre-transition)? Wouldn't it be just as derogatory for Nicole Kidman to don a suit with a baritone voice and 'be a man' for the first half of the film? It seems a bit of a double-standard to criticize one and not the other. But that's just my two cents.

I'm not an expert, but from what I've seen, the attitude among trans people is that before they realized they were transgender, they were still mentally that gender, they just didn't realize it yet (which is consistent with what we know about gender dysphoria). So for the first half of the film she would be a woman in a male body, not a man. (Note that people's opinions probably differ on this, this is just the concensus I've seen)

While true, I imagine this varies from person to person. Not being familiar with the story myself however, the character may have identified as a man until they realized they were more comfortable identifying as a woman. From what I gather the crossdressing acted as a sort of trigger for their transition, but up until they point they were still a man both in body and in mind. But again, I'm not familiar with the story and I could very well be wrong.

I also feel the need to clarify that this only extends as far as the film, I'm not nearly well-read enough on the subject to speak of gender dysphoria as a whole.

 

[Something Amyss]

While true, I imagine this varies from person to person.

Yes, but you asked why this was more an issue one way. Even if we afford for the notion that there are transwomen who felt like men beforehand (yet to meet one, but I can't preclude it), this is the larger issue. The commonality between transwomen and men is their genitals at birth. The commonality between transwomen and ciswomen is pretty much everything else.

 

[Tortilla the Hun]

While true, I imagine this varies from person to person.

Yes, but you asked why this was more an issue one way. Even if we afford for the notion that there are transwomen who felt like men beforehand (yet to meet one, but I can't preclude it), this is the larger issue. The commonality between transwomen and men is their genitals at birth. The commonality between transwomen and ciswomen is pretty much everything else.

I can certainly see it as being less of a leap for a woman to portray a man pre-transition as one could say their identity before that realization was already an act of sorts seeing as they weren't their true selves. And again, there is no doubt great merit for casting a trans woman, or even a cis woman for the role. But ultimately, even though it would have made a much greater impact and would have been a more wise choice overall, I don't believe it was absolutely necessary to have done so.

Edit:

To elaborate, I feel what this really all comes down to is Eddie's portrayal of the character. If it was done well, it only goes to show the range of the actor. If it was done poorly, it would be at best, simply a misunderstanding of gender dysphoria and the transition of one's gender identity, and at worst, complete ignorance and lack of sensitivity trans women. Not direct malice of the filmmakers.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't believe it was absolutely necessary to have done so.

Is anyone saying otherwise?

I think people are disappointed they're being utterly ignored. In a movie about people in a shared demographic.

And yeah, I'm kind of disappointed, too. It's disheartening to know that even if I did something like cure cancer tomorrow, I'd probably be played by a dude. This might be no big thaing to you, but I've spent most of my life invisible.

We get massive threads complaining that Hermione is black, or the Gunslinger is black, or the Kingpin is black. We get big threads on why Bond and The Doctor can't be black or a woman. Honestly, I would think that a transwoman playing an explicitly trans woman would be a lot more understandable than traits even the authors often don't care about (Rowling, King, Doctor Who writers).

Except I forget myself. We're a very tiny minority and it's still acceptable to punch down at us.

While I'm on the subject:

First off, I think calling it akin to blackface is extreme hyperbole. Yes there exists a stigma against trans people, transphobia is a very real thing and very frightening in the extremes but to put it on the same level of the racism that has existed (and to a far greater extent) is just wrong. That's my feelings on that particular matter.

You know, a lot of those white people thought they were being positive to black people. It's easy to forget how being in the majority can blind one to certain things. But really, have you looked at the death rates for trans individuals? Suicide rates? The only way it's not on the same level is that blacks outnumber us by orders of magnitude. I would bet real money that parity between the two would paint a much different picture. This is not to diminish anything blacks have been through, because I still wouldn't want to be black in the US. Especially not in a place this white. But I'm betting the main reason you feel this way is because one group gets coverage and the other is ignored.

And that goes right back to why we might want some sort of presence in media specifically about us.

But this was about a double standard, and I'm not really sure I see one. You effectively asked why we were more comfortable with women playing women rather than men playing women. Well, this is why.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Now I may have misinterpreted what they said but my understanding is they were saying they would rather have the best actor/actress they could get. NOT that there are no great trans actors/actresses. Simply putting it: There are way fewer trans actors/actresses so getting one to play the role would have been harder, at the same level. I do reject the notion that you have to have the actor be what they're playing, that's why it's called ACTING. I played the pope in shows (I'm not even catholic), I've played a murderer (I'm not one of those....), and I've played many other parts that I am not. Would it have been played better by a person who was those? Probably, but then again I'm not an A list actor. If someone can portray the character well I don't care what they are in real life.

That being said: I haven't watched the movie nor do I particularly care to (rarely watch movies), but how was the acting by the person chosen?

To boil it down to it's most simple essence, gender dysphoria is one of the very few things that it's basically impossible to portray without having actually experienced it. Also when it comes to trans folk, having a man portray a trans woman is exactly the opposite of useful, because the commonality between men and trans women is genitals, where a cis woman and a trans woman have most everything else in common. Basically in both ways a cisgender man really can't effectively bring across the essence of a trans woman, a cisgender woman on the other hand, at least has the experience of identifying as a woman. You wouldn't ask a man to play Susan B Anthony, or a woman to play Abraham Lincoln for example. So if cis actors must be used the casting method needs to change, have cis women play trans women, and cis men play trans men, it's not hard and even that little bit would show a lot of respect and understanding. The way they do it now is basically quaint and backwards.

I'd say that Redmayne came off a bit stiff, pretty unconvincing, very forced, and didn't put any honest emotion into the role, all in all it felt pretty hollow.

Not really sure I get this, as it stands the movie has a male actor playing a role where someone born with a male body transitions to female. Are you suggesting that it would be better to have a woman play a man who in turn transitions back to woman?
Isn't that something like double sexism, or triple?
I agree with the sentiment that they could've coached or instructed the actor better, as most of the acting felt rather forced, but in the end he is an actor, which means he takes on the roles of people he has nothing in common with all the time.

It's very simple, trans women identify and feel that we are women, therefore we have a lot more in common with women mentally, as opposed to what we have in common with men, which is genitals. The same is true with trans men regarding what they have in common with cisgender men, versus women. Because of that there is nothing sexist about asking a woman to portray a trans woman, because we're talking about authentic emotional portrayal, not what genitals they happened to be born with. To put it bluntly to think of a trans woman as a man who transitioned to being a woman is the exactly wrong way of looking at it, because it requires viewing someone who has never really been a man as a man. That's how casting directors keep looking at this sort of thing and it's exactly wrong.

Now sure actors play people they have nothing in common with all the time, but you'd call it insulting to cast a man in a role in any narrative where the character is supposed to be a woman. This is exactly the same thing, trans women are not men, never have been men.

Honestly with what an extreme minority trans people are, and the fact that most usually dont broadcast their status i wouldn't be surprised if they couldent find any skilled trans actors who fit the role. Also remember in the time period sex reassignment surgery, did not exist, so having a women in the role would be hard to sell; (although it might be really neat if they cast two actors, a male and a female for the role, for scenes where they are being perceived by others or by themselves respectively, but that might be hard to pull off)

First a quick google search will show you plenty of trans actors and actresses. Second it's plenty easy enough to make up a trans woman, or cisgender woman look like a man, they do it all the time, so it wouldn't be a hard sell to put a woman trans or cis in the role. As for the two actors playing the same role? Well they do that all the time in movies where a character appears at different ages, it's not hard to pull off. Still having a man play a trans woman pre-transition is still asking a man to play a woman's role, in film that's not done unless the character is trans, or we're talking about a really bad comedy.

*reads the discussion*

Yeah, it's the same as having non-disabled actors play disabled people, which in part, went as far as damaging the public perception of people.
I didn't really think about it when reading the article, but it is kinda shitty.

Apples and oranges really. It's a lot better to cast a cisgender woman for the role of a trans woman, than it is to cast a cisgender man for that same role. In basically any other circumstance you could never cast a man to play a woman, so here it's a double standard. Besides that, the reason I'd like to see trans actors and actresses casted to play trans folk, is because that's basically the only role they could reasonably get in any mainstream film or television currently. So basically the only roles that trans folk could ever be considered for in mainstream are given to cisgender men. That's not insulting at all, nope.[/sarcasm]

I can certainly see it as being less of a leap for a woman to portray a man pre-transition as one could say their identity before that realization was already an act of sorts seeing as they weren't their true selves. And again, there is no doubt great merit for casting a trans woman, or even a cis woman for the role. But ultimately, even though it would have made a much greater impact and would have been a more wise choice overall, I don't believe it was absolutely necessary to have done so.

Really it's a double standard, after all you'd never expect some on to cast a man in the role of Margret Thatcher, or any other cisgender woman, that would be offensive. Yet it's never considered offensive by the mainstream to have a man play a woman when that woman is trans. So saying it's not absolutely necessary to cast a woman, cis or trans, as a trans woman to me sounds like it's not necessary to cast a woman in the role of a historical figure that's a woman. Which in practice would really alienate the vast majority of people.

Edit: Got ninja edited...

Edit:

To elaborate, I feel what this really all comes down to is Eddie's portrayal of the character. If it was done well, it only goes to show the range of the actor. If it was done poorly, it would be at best, simply a misunderstanding of gender dysphoria and the transition of one's gender identity, and at worst, complete ignorance and lack of sensitivity trans women. Not direct malice of the filmmakers.

It was done poorly and I have yet to see a cisgender man ever play the role of a trans woman convincingly.

Also at worst it's complete ignorace and lack of sensitivity to trans woman? No there are plenty of instances where a cisgender man was cast to play a trans woman purely out of transphobia, so as to make the character look bad. Jared Leto's character in Dallas Buyers Club is a perfect example, especially because the character was originally a cisgender gay drag queen, which makes the whole thing doubly offensive.

 

[Tortilla the Hun]

I don't believe it was absolutely necessary to have done so.

Is anyone saying otherwise?

The poster I initially responded to sure made it seem that way. Apologies if that came across as being directed at you.

I think people are disappointed they're being utterly ignored. In a movie about people in a shared demographic.

And yeah, I'm kind of disappointed, too. It's disheartening to know that even if I did something like cure cancer tomorrow, I'd probably be played by a dude.

I'm not sure that's an apt comparison. If it was a story of how you cured cancer, I've no doubt you would be portrayed by a woman because that is how you identify and it's a story about you curing cancer, which would be the focus. The Danish Girl, however, is a film about the transition. That is a central part of the story which it revolves around. And to me it would make sense for the character's pre-transition masculinity to be represented by a man and see the point he realizes that he feels more comfortable as a woman through crossdressing and later identifying entirely as a woman.

This might be no big thaing to you, but I've spent most of my life invisible.

We get massive threads complaining that Hermione is black, or the Gunslinger is black, or the Kingpin is black. We get big threads on why Bond and The Doctor can't be black or a woman. Honestly, I would think that a transwoman playing an explicitly trans woman would be a lot more understandable than traits even the authors often don't care about (Rowling, King, Doctor Who writers).

Except I forget myself. We're a very tiny minority and it's still acceptable to punch down at us.

While I'm on the subject:

First off, I think calling it akin to blackface is extreme hyperbole. Yes there exists a stigma against trans people, transphobia is a very real thing and very frightening in the extremes but to put it on the same level of the racism that has existed (and to a far greater extent) is just wrong. That's my feelings on that particular matter.

You know, a lot of those white people thought they were being positive to black people. It's easy to forget how being in the majority can blind one to certain things. But really, have you looked at the death rates for trans individuals? Suicide rates? The only way it's not on the same level is that blacks outnumber us by orders of magnitude. I would bet real money that parity between the two would paint a much different picture. This is not to diminish anything blacks have been through, because I still wouldn't want to be black in the US. Especially not in a place this white. But I'm betting the main reason you feel this way is because one group gets coverage and the other is ignored.

And that goes right back to why we might want some sort of presence in media specifically about us.

But this was about a double standard, and I'm not really sure I see one. You effectively asked why we were more comfortable with women playing women rather than men playing women. Well, this is why.

It could very well be that I'm not as exposed to the hardships of transgendered individuals, or that I don't see the abuse those individuals endure. I'll chalk that up to me living in one of the more progressive parts of the US.

Now, having said that, I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume things of me and my experience. Because while I may not have the same level of exposure, I am well aware of those hardships. I have a good friend that recently transitioned. She is fortunate to have had the level of support that she has had. I briefly dated a woman who hadn't so easily transitioned. She didn't have the support from her grandparents (with whom she was living with at the time) and unfortunately she became depressed.

This will probably come across as one of those, "it's okay, I have a black friend" defenses but I'm telling you so you'll know I'm no stranger to those hardship. Though I'm just been an outsider looking in, I still have an understanding of what it is a person can go through in a period of transition.

And this wasn't about a double standard, though it was something I had brought up and conceded that it wasn't as I had initially thought, something that we had discussed just prior.

What this was about was whether or not the representation of trans women was a positive one in regards to the casting decision for the main character of the film. And in that regard, I still believe it really comes down to how the character was portrayed rather than who the character was portrayed by. I'm certain there are many trans actresses that could've played the role just as well, and likely even better, but it was a creative decision not to. Not a political one.

I can certainly see it as being less of a leap for a woman to portray a man pre-transition as one could say their identity before that realization was already an act of sorts seeing as they weren't their true selves. And again, there is no doubt great merit for casting a trans woman, or even a cis woman for the role. But ultimately, even though it would have made a much greater impact and would have been a more wise choice overall, I don't believe it was absolutely necessary to have done so.

Really it's a double standard, after all you'd never expect some on to cast a man in the role of Margret Thatcher, or any other cisgender woman, that would be offensive. Yet it's never considered offensive by the mainstream to have a man play a woman when that woman is trans. So saying it's not absolutely necessary to cast a woman, cis or trans, as a trans woman to me sounds like it's not necessary to cast a woman in the role of a historical figure that's a woman. Which in practice would really alienate the vast majority of people.

I feel that there's a bit of a difference in taking the role of someone who was, for the entirety of their life, both biologically and mentally a woman, and a woman who had been born male, experienced a period of dysphoria, then coming to the realization that they are not the same gender they were at birth. It's the transition that this movie is focusing on. That's how I see it at any rate.

To elaborate, I feel what this really all comes down to is Eddie's portrayal of the character. If it was done well, it only goes to show the range of the actor. If it was done poorly, it would be at best, simply a misunderstanding of gender dysphoria and the transition of one's gender identity, and at worst, complete ignorance and lack of sensitivity trans women. Not direct malice of the filmmakers.

It was done poorly and I have yet to see a cisgender man ever play the role of a trans woman convincingly.

Also at worst it's complete ignorace and lack of sensitivity to trans woman? No there are plenty of instances where a cisgender man was cast to play a trans woman purely out of transphobia, so as to make the character look bad. Jared Leto's character in Dallas Buyers Club is a perfect example, especially because the character was originally a cisgender gay drag queen, which makes the whole thing doubly offensive.

John Lithgow's character in The World According to Garp seemed to do so with critical approval. And I think it's hard to say what's 'convincing' given how diverse people can be. There's not really a mold for trans people or any lines they need to be colored within to be 'convincing'. Unless of course you're talking about the performance of the actors rather than whether or not the women they're portraying would be considered 'passable'.

And you can't really say that it was done 'purely' out of transphobia. Granted there are numerous examples of transphobia in film, it's more likely that it was ignorance than active oppression. And I'm not defending that ignorance, just trying to draw a line between anti-trans and just not pro-trans.

At the risk of digressing, I'm curious as to how Jared Leto portraying a character that is the same gender, is gay, and crossdresses doubly offensive offensive in comparison to him portraying a trans woman? Is it because it would be a straight man portraying a gay man? A man who (I assume) doesn't dress in drag portraying a man that does?

 

[dreng3]

It's very simple, trans women identify and feel that we are women, therefore we have a lot more in common with women mentally, as opposed to what we have in common with men, which is genitals. The same is true with trans men regarding what they have in common with cisgender men, versus women. Because of that there is nothing sexist about asking a woman to portray a trans woman, because we're talking about authentic emotional portrayal, not what genitals they happened to be born with. To put it bluntly to think of a trans woman as a man who transitioned to being a woman is the exactly wrong way of looking at it, because it requires viewing someone who has never really been a man as a man. That's how casting directors keep looking at this sort of thing and it's exactly wrong.

Now sure actors play people they have nothing in common with all the time, but you'd call it insulting to cast a man in a role in any narrative where the character is supposed to be a woman. This is exactly the same thing, trans women are not men, never have been men.

Trans women are women who were born with the physical characteristics of a man, but identifies as a woman, so wouldn't it make sense to have man play the character as we're talking about someone with a male body?
Wouldn't a woman playing the character be even stranger as trans women in the 1920s wouldn't have access to modern tools of transitioning?

 

[josemlopes]

Typical, they make a movie that's about a trans woman and get a cis man to play the role. Heaven for bid they at least get a cis woman to play the role, to make it somewhat more authentic

I agree with the trans woman to play a trans woman, but if you want autentic having a cis woman is a step backward because outside of his perspective of identity he was once a man and then a trans woman, he wanst a cis woman.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I can certainly see it as being less of a leap for a woman to portray a man pre-transition as one could say their identity before that realization was already an act of sorts seeing as they weren't their true selves. And again, there is no doubt great merit for casting a trans woman, or even a cis woman for the role. But ultimately, even though it would have made a much greater impact and would have been a more wise choice overall, I don't believe it was absolutely necessary to have done so.

Really it's a double standard, after all you'd never expect some on to cast a man in the role of Margret Thatcher, or any other cisgender woman, that would be offensive. Yet it's never considered offensive by the mainstream to have a man play a woman when that woman is trans. So saying it's not absolutely necessary to cast a woman, cis or trans, as a trans woman to me sounds like it's not necessary to cast a woman in the role of a historical figure that's a woman. Which in practice would really alienate the vast majority of people.

I feel that there's a bit of a difference in taking the role of someone who was, for the entirety of their life, both biologically and mentally a woman, and a woman who had been born male, experienced a period of dysphoria, then coming to the realization that they are not the same gender they were at birth. It's the transition that this movie is focusing on. That's how I see it at any rate.

It's the mental part, not the biological part, that's important, the mental differences are so much more a part of any trans person's experience. So in this case a cis woman is a better fit because on a deeper mental emotional level she understands what it means to be a woman. Contrary to popular belief, acting is mostly mental profession, you have to get into the head of the character you're performing, you have to understand their motivations. Using a cis man to portray a trans woman is always, always the incorrect choice, because it's focusing on physicality, it's focusing on the transition, not the whole sum of a trans person's experience. This is what makes it akin to black face, this is what makes it horrendously offensive to trans folk, and thats why these portrayals always absolutely and totally suck. Because they do not represent trans folk, or our experiences, period.

To elaborate, I feel what this really all comes down to is Eddie's portrayal of the character. If it was done well, it only goes to show the range of the actor. If it was done poorly, it would be at best, simply a misunderstanding of gender dysphoria and the transition of one's gender identity, and at worst, complete ignorance and lack of sensitivity trans women. Not direct malice of the filmmakers.

It was done poorly and I have yet to see a cisgender man ever play the role of a trans woman convincingly.

Also at worst it's complete ignorace and lack of sensitivity to trans woman? No there are plenty of instances where a cisgender man was cast to play a trans woman purely out of transphobia, so as to make the character look bad. Jared Leto's character in Dallas Buyers Club is a perfect example, especially because the character was originally a cisgender gay drag queen, which makes the whole thing doubly offensive.

John Lithgow's character in The World According to Garp seemed to do so with critical approval. And I think it's hard to say what's 'convincing' given how diverse people can be. There's not really a mold for trans people or any lines they need to be colored within to be 'convincing'. Unless of course you're talking about the performance of the actors rather than whether or not the women they're portraying would be considered 'passable'.

And you can't really say that it was done 'purely' out of transphobia. Granted there are numerous examples of transphobia in film, it's more likely that it was ignorance than active oppression. And I'm not defending that ignorance, just trying to draw a line between anti-trans and just not pro-trans.

At the risk of digressing, I'm curious as to how Jared Leto portraying a character that is the same gender, is gay, and crossdresses doubly offensive offensive in comparison to him portraying a trans woman? Is it because it would be a straight man portraying a gay man? A man who (I assume) doesn't dress in drag portraying a man that does?

Critical approval in cases regarding trans folk generally means dick, because I'm not aware of a single mainstream trans film or television critic. There are some lines you can easily paint in, one is that in the mental and emotional spheres, trans women are basically women with the wrong genitals. How "passable" the person is doesn't matter anyways, especially not when you can make a woman less passable with make-up and camera tricks. Those are all excuses used by PC media to get a pass on casting cis men as trans women, excuses that don't fly with the trans community.

I can't say that all of these decisions are done out of transphobia, but I can say that a lot of them are, generally because the people involved aren't trans folk, but people who have worked in doing trans portrayals in the past. Those past trans portrayals are generally not even trans, but drag queen material, and most of the time any actual trans portrayal that's not in a trans interest film is horrifically transphobic. As in played for the; "lulz it's really a man" joke. When it is trans interest, a lot of people who do directing and casting have a history of making it offensive intentionally. So they get their lulz, and a big fat PC pat on the back.

The character Rayon, which Jared Leto played in Dallas Buyers Club was written as a drag queen, Jared Leto put up a fuss and had the character redone as trans. That's what makes it offensive and transphobic, basically equating trans women to drag queens, which while some trans women are drag performers, that persona stays purely on stage. Drag queens in general portray an image femininity that's extremely exaggerated, usually for comic effect, and most are cisgender gay men who leave anything related to womanhood behind when they take off the costume. Equating trans women to drag queens is a pretty typical, pernicious and malicious transphobic stereotype. So changing Rayon in Dallas Buyers Club from a drag queen to a trans woman was an inherently offensive, insensitive, and transphobic thing to do from the word go.

It's very simple, trans women identify and feel that we are women, therefore we have a lot more in common with women mentally, as opposed to what we have in common with men, which is genitals. The same is true with trans men regarding what they have in common with cisgender men, versus women. Because of that there is nothing sexist about asking a woman to portray a trans woman, because we're talking about authentic emotional portrayal, not what genitals they happened to be born with. To put it bluntly to think of a trans woman as a man who transitioned to being a woman is the exactly wrong way of looking at it, because it requires viewing someone who has never really been a man as a man. That's how casting directors keep looking at this sort of thing and it's exactly wrong.

Now sure actors play people they have nothing in common with all the time, but you'd call it insulting to cast a man in a role in any narrative where the character is supposed to be a woman. This is exactly the same thing, trans women are not men, never have been men.

Trans women are women who were born with the physical characteristics of a man, but identifies as a woman, so wouldn't it make sense to have man play the character as we're talking about someone with a male body?
Wouldn't a woman playing the character be even stranger as trans women in the 1920s wouldn't have access to modern tools of transitioning?

How many times do I have to repeat this? Focusing on the physical characteristics instead of the mental and emotional ones is exactly ass backwards, especially in acting. Also how many times do I need to repeat this? With makeup and props you can easily make a woman look like a man for film, that's not exactly difficult. It's so believable in fact the trope of a woman posing as a man and everyone is accepting of that in universe is ubiquitous. So there is no reason that a woman shouldn't take the role of a trans woman, but every reason a cisgender man shouldn't. Not least of all because it's reinforcing negative stereotypes about trans folk, that we're the sum of our genitalia, not who are as people.

Looking at the physical aspect, which you change is exactly the wrong aspect when dealing with trans issues, especially when it's easy to make a female actress pass as a man.

In short: People need to stop focusing on the physical aspects of gender, especially in stage and film where they can be changed with make-up and acting, because: The physical aspect isn't the important part, it's the emotional and mental parts that are important here. This is the point of acting. People are still arguing here to put a man in a woman's role, which if the character wasn't trans that would be un-freaking-thinkable.

Typical, they make a movie that's about a trans woman and get a cis man to play the role. Heaven for bid they at least get a cis woman to play the role, to make it somewhat more authentic

Spoiler

I agree with the trans woman to play a trans woman, but if you want autentic having a cis woman is a step backward because outside of his perspective of identity he was once a man and then a trans woman, he wanst a cis woman.

Well I can see exactly where you got everything totally backwards and wrong, like using male pronouns to refer to a trans woman at all.
So please understand the following:
A trans woman, regardless of weather or not they've transitioned is NEVER EVER a MAN, period, end of story.

Because on a deep emotional and personal level trans women are essentially to be treated and respected as a woman, therefore, a cis woman would perfect in the role.

Next and this is really important: Never refer to a trans woman with male pronouns, or a trans man with female pronouns, it's called misgendering, and doing it intentionally is never cool. It's offensive and it's basically admitting, in not as many words, that you reject that person's gender identity and refuse to respect it. Whenever referring to a trans person you use the pronouns of the gender they identify as, or the pronouns they tell you they prefer. That applies even to when you talk about their past life. Trans folk never identified with the gender of their birth generally speaking, using the incorrect gender to refer to them in any context isn't correct, ever.

 

[wulf3n]

In short: People need to stop focusing on the physical aspects of gender, especially in stage and film where they can be changed with make-up and acting, because: The physical aspect isn't the important part, it's the emotional and mental parts that are important here. This is the point of acting.

It seems like you're the one most fixated on the sex of the actor. As you said it's the emotional and mental parts that are important. This is the point of acting. The sex of the actor is irrelevant if they can adequately portray the emotional and mental characteristics of the character.

People are still arguing here to put a man in a woman's role, which if the character wasn't trans that would be un-freaking-thinkable.

Not really. [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107756/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_15]

That has a man playing Queen Elizabeth and a woman playing a nobleman so...

Admittedly I don't remember Queen Elizabeth being in the movie for very long, but I did watch it over 20 years ago so my recollection may be a little off.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

In short: People need to stop focusing on the physical aspects of gender, especially in stage and film where they can be changed with make-up and acting, because: The physical aspect isn't the important part, it's the emotional and mental parts that are important here. This is the point of acting.

It seems like you're the one most fixated on the sex of the actor. As you said it's the emotional and mental parts that are important. This is the point of acting. The sex of the actor is irrelevant if they can adequately portray the emotional and mental characteristics of the character.

Well this would be relevant, if there were really good portrayals of trans women done by cisgender men, or if we had any examples of cisgender and transgender women in similar roles portraying trans women equally poorly. Since we only have a history of these roles being given to cis men, who fail and look like men, reinforcing transphobic stereotypes... Also considering that I'm trans... Yeah I'm a bit fixated here, because these things are supposed to represent me and people like me and utterly fail every single time.

People are still arguing here to put a man in a woman's role, which if the character wasn't trans that would be un-freaking-thinkable.

Not really. [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107756/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_15]

That has a man playing Queen Elizabeth and a woman playing a nobleman so...

Admittedly I don't remember Queen Elizabeth being in the movie for very long, but I did watch it over 20 years ago so my recollection may be a little off.

Well that's not really a Hollywood, it's a Europen produced film, and a rather obscure example of one no less, plus it was a box office flop too so... Aside from that back in the Early 90's there was this huge kerfuffle about Queen Elizabeth being potentially intersex, that still comes up today from time to time. So I'd kinda exempt this film from that standard because of those factors. (European, obscure, historical questions about Queen Elizabeth's sex status. Edit: It being an art-house film.)

Edit: If it were any big budget picture, instead of what seems to be an art house film, then Elizabeth would have been played by a woman.

 

[wulf3n]

Well this would be relevant, if there were really good portrayals of trans women done by cisgender men, or if we had any examples of cisgender and transgender women in similar roles portraying trans women equally poorly.

Have you seen the movie? If so fine, if not, doesn't it seem a bit premature get upset at the actors offensive performance before actually seeing if the performance is offensive?

Well that's not really a Hollywood, it's a Europen produced film, and a rather obscure example of one no less, plus it was a box office flop too so... Aside from that back in the Early 90's there was this huge kerfuffle about Queen Elizabeth being potentially intersex, that still comes up today from time to time. So I'd kinda exempt this film from that standard because of those factors. (European, obscure, historical questions about Queen Elizabeth's sex status. Edit: It being an art-house film.)

Edit: If it were any big budget picture, instead of what seems to be an art house film, then Elizabeth would have been played by a woman.

You didn't really specify hollywood, you just said it was unthinkable, but someone did think of it. Maybe I'm being too literal, but it's kinda what I do.

 

[Lodgem]

Sorry, but I really don't understand the issue here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the movie is about someone who physically appears male, but realises that she is actually female. As she appears physically male it makes sense to hire an actor who appears physically male.

On a slightly non-related note this reminds me of an interview with Ian Mckellen. I can't remember the exact words he used but one of the things he said that he wanted to achieve was to remove the idea that a gay man couldn't play a straight man. To me it seems obvious that there is no problem with a homosexual playing a hetrosexual (or bisexual, asexual etc). While sexuality is innate the outward result of this can be mimicked by a decent actor.

Similarly with gender. While gender is innate the outward appearance of this can be mimicked by a decent actor. What is harder to mimic is the physical appearance. Since the character has a physical appearance that outwardly looks masculine it makes sense to hire someone who also appears physically masculine.

It would be considered stupid to hire a cis man to play someone like Margaret Thatcher or some other cis woman because they are unlikely to look the part. I'm not arguing with the trans people here who point out that the physical aspects are not the most important part of being trans, but it is the mental and emotional parts of a character that an actor is trained to portray. What is harder to portray is their physical appearance. While that may not have been so important to the character it is none the less part of what needs to be considered when making a live action movie.

On a completely non related note, is it just me or is it unusual that chrome seems to recognise the spelling of the words 'homosexual', 'bisexual' and 'asexual' but not 'hetrosexual'? My spelling isn't that bad is it?