The Danish Girl - Transgender Issues in the 1920s

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

-snip-

I'll be perfectly honest you: You put a lot of effort into a post that highlights the fact that you don't understand, not only how things are for trans folk, but the history of civil rights and the battles for positive representation. You want to pin things on the trans community because we're "complaining", well let me tell you something about representation in film and television that's effected other groups. Lesbians and gays haven't gotten better representation in media by sitting down and shutting up, they've gotten it by standing up and shouting about the bad representation. What about black folk, they didn't quietly sit on the side lines and accept the negative stereotyping done to them in film and television representation, they stood up and demanded better. The very argument you've used here was used against the gay movement, it was the same argument used against the black civil rights movement, hell it was the same argument used against the women's rights movements.

It's always the same argument and it always translates to basically two words: "Shut up!" It's always the same with groups who control the societal power, telling the group that wants better treatment that: "You just need to calm down, quiet down, and wait for things to get better." That's however the problem, it's exactly why we need to raise such a big stink, weather we're Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or a racial minority, or oppressed because of our sex, or gender identities. The problem is that this is a platitude given by people who aren't going to actively participate in helping us win better treatment and equal rights, we're told we have to wait. Because we're subjected to these platitudes is why marginalized groups have always had to fight tooth and nail for our rights, to stand up and be visible, to demand fair treatment. That's the only way things ever get better, we have to be loud, stomp our feet, and tell society we're sick of being treated like crap. Because if we shut up, sit around, and wait for things to get better, they won't, no group fighting for their rights and for their fair treatment has ever gotten it by shutting up and waiting.

When it comes to these forums, they're not a terrible place, they're not innately transphobic, or hateful. Still I've run into a lot of casual unintentional transphobic behavior, people downplaying or dismissing issues that the trans folk on these forums bring up. I don't begrudge people for that generally, because the people doing it don't understand, they don't understand that for us every day is a fight for even basic levels of tolerance. I only get annoyed with people when they obstinately cling to dismissing and downplaying trans issues when they come up, because it's them telling me that it's not a problem for them, so naturally I'm the one that needs to shut up. Now I have experienced some open, blatant, and very intentional transphobic vitriol on these forums, but that's a real tiny minority of the people I come across here, who usually get warned, sometimes banned for their behavior. So all in all these forums are find, the majority of people here are great, but they don't listen and they'd rather argue the point, instead of trying to see it from our prospective. Which is something I encounter all the time in the real world too, so it's not like it's alien, it's pretty normal, which is more depressing than anything else.

On a side note that's why I'm speaking as much as I have in this thread: Using cis men to portray trans women in trans positive roles is a casual unintentional form of trans phobia. The reason is that it shows that people are still in some ways trying to show that they still view trans women as men, not women, which is exactly what we're working against.

Still you say you want to stand shoulder to shoulder? That's fantastic, that means you're showing commitment in terms of wanting to be an ally, but there is something that I need to ask. There is one responsibility that all allies have first and foremost: Listen. That means when a trans person tells you about an issue you don't dismiss it, you don't downplay it, you don't compare your experiences in not facing such issues, and you don't argue about it. You just listen to what we have to say about it, then if you're not sure you understand, or just have questions, then ask those questions and listen to the answers. Is that too much to ask? Really because dismissing the issue, arguing it, downplaying it, telling us how it's not an issue for you, telling us that we're complaining too much... That's not helpful in addressing the societal and legal issues we face, it's just more platitudes telling us to sit down, shut up, and wait for things to get better. The problem is by sitting down, shutting up, and waiting for things to get better, that puts us back into the shadows, it pushes back all of the work and awareness we've built... It puts us back into the most dangerous place, where we're victimized, marginalized, ignored, and left to languish in a hopeless situation where things never get better.

In fact this is one of the biggest reasons we ask you to be patient and listen:

It's these "offended by everything related to the trans community that isn't done exactly perfectly as trans people see it" moments that make me go silent at the holiday dinner table while some older grandparent switches gears from the common gay bashing and goes for the rarer trans people are queer line.

That experience is an every day experience for trans folk, it's not just the holiday dinner table where we face it, we face it all the time from every direction, and it's exhausting. I've had close cisgender friends bring moments like that up, which half the time catches the attention of a stranger in a public place, which starts a transphobic tirade. It's a really depressingly common occurrence and it never occurs to anyone arguing against our points, that the reason we complain so much is because every single little thing in our daily lives is an uphill battle. For most of my trans friends those uphill battles can easily turn violent for them, leaving them beaten in an alley way. We're already being silenced by threat of violence, rape, and murder, we don't need our allies telling us to shut up too.

That's pretty much the whole point, we don't want to be treated with kid gloves, we want to be treated with respect, to be treated as equals, and to have our rights protected. We don't get any of that even federal gay rights legal protections don't cover trans folk, we're extremely vulnerable. So we ask our allies to listen and to back us up at where we draw the line, not where our allies would like us to draw the line. We're fighting the same battles that the gay rights, black rights, womens rights, and other civil rights movements have had to fight, and we have to fight the same way, by demanding it. None of these movements have ever gotten anywhere by asking politely, so neither will ours. So of our allies we ask they stand with us, to support our experiences, not downplay, dismiss, explain away our issues, and basically tell us to shut up. It's issues that we trans folk face that need to be addressed, they don't get addressed when we're told to shut up.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Typical, they make a movie that's about a trans woman and get a cis man to play the role.

Wait a minute...
They got an actor to play someone he's not?
What will they think of next?!?

Point well missed there friend.
It's not an actor being an actor and doing his job that's the issue here. The issue is that it's supporting the damaging narrative that trans women are really men, when they put a cis man in the role of a trans woman.

 

[Vanilla ISIS]

Point well missed there friend.
It's not an actor being an actor and doing his job that's the issue here. The issue is that it's supporting the damaging narrative that trans women are really men, when they put a cis man in the role of a trans woman.

OK, a few things:
1. Where do you get this "damaging narrative" thing?
2. How would you even tell whether someone was a man playing a trans woman or an actual trans woman in a movie without looking into the personal life of that person?
3. How many trans women actors are there?

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Typical, they make a movie that's about a trans woman and get a cis man to play the role.

Wait a minute...
They got an actor to play someone he's not?
What will they think of next?!?

Point well missed there friend.
It's not an actor being an actor and doing his job that's the issue here. The issue is that it's supporting the damaging narrative that trans women are really men, when they put a cis man in the role of a trans woman.

I don't disagree with your position, at all really. In fact I feel you're 100% Transgendered roles in films should go to transgendered people. This is like putting Leonardo Dicapro in a movie about a little person and using SFX to make him appear little instead of hiring a little person actor who's stuck playing an Elf at the mall. Ya know, the same shit the Game Of Thrones guy went through. And even before anyone says otherwise, like if their isn't any "good" or "skilled" trans actors out there it's because they aren't getting the work. Patrick Stewart didn't get Patrick Stewart good after taking a class, Acting takes years of practice and skill.

However I have a sticking point, however slight: Like how do you this actor is Cisgendered? How the hell do we presume ANYONE is? Not everyone lays their cards on the table, either for safety or because of their career choice or even their own just personal reasons.

It's ultimately a minor thing I'm picking on, so feel free to ignore it, just irked me enough to point out. Like homeboy probably is Cisgendered, but c'mon that was a snap quick judgement (that admittedly is justifiable)

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Point well missed there friend.
It's not an actor being an actor and doing his job that's the issue here. The issue is that it's supporting the damaging narrative that trans women are really men, when they put a cis man in the role of a trans woman.

OK, a few things:
1. Where do you get this "damaging narrative" thing?
2. How would you even tell whether someone was a man playing a trans woman or an actual trans woman in a movie without looking into the personal life of that person?
3. How many trans women actors are there?

1. It's basically the most common transphobic "argument" used to discredit trans women and invalidate our identities. A lot of people unconsciously support it not meaning any harm, but it leads to things like casting cis men as trans women and treating trans women like men. The reverse is true for trans men, when society isn't busy ignoring that they even exist.
2. A trans woman would be credited with a woman's name, not a man's. Unless she was still in the closet... But that's getting into murky territory. A closeted trans woman would likely bring a ton authenticity to such a role though, so when she did come out it'd be kind of unsurprising. Although a closeted trans woman would likely avoid roles of trans women and drag queens like the plague.
3. Dozens that I can find by a google search, seems though that most resources only talk about trans women who act, but not trans men though. Which is kind of a shame.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Typical, they make a movie that's about a trans woman and get a cis man to play the role.

Wait a minute...
They got an actor to play someone he's not?
What will they think of next?!?

Point well missed there friend.
It's not an actor being an actor and doing his job that's the issue here. The issue is that it's supporting the damaging narrative that trans women are really men, when they put a cis man in the role of a trans woman.

I don't disagree with your position, at all really. In fact I feel you're 100% Transgendered roles in films should go to transgendered people. This is like putting Leonardo Dicapro in a movie about a little person and using SFX to make him appear little instead of hiring a little person actor who's stuck playing an Elf at the mall. Ya know, the same shit the Game Of Thrones guy went through. And even before anyone says otherwise, like if their isn't any "good" or "skilled" trans actors out there it's because they aren't getting the work. Patrick Stewart didn't get Patrick Stewart good after taking a class, Acting takes years of practice and skill.

However I have a sticking point, however slight: Like how do you this actor is Cisgendered? How the hell do we presume ANYONE is? Not everyone lays their cards on the table, either for safety or because of their career choice or even their own just personal reasons.

It's ultimately a minor thing I'm picking on, so feel free to ignore it, just irked me enough to point out. Like homeboy probably is Cisgendered, but c'mon that was a snap quick judgement (that admittedly is justifiable)

Apparently a few trans actors and trans actresses end up getting roles of cis people form what I'm seeing? At least in shows on premium cable television.(Edit: And in stage productions, can't believe I forgot to mention that!) Which is a very positive step, but it's also kind of skipping a step if you ask me. We need trans folk playing trans folk for the sake of awareness you know.

Well in the case of The Danish Girl I'd assume that Redmayne who is fairly experienced to do a much better job in the in role of a trans woman. That might just be bias on my part though.

Aside from that I'm relatively certain that any trans actor or actress who is either in the closet, or stealth, would avoid playing the role of any trans person like the plague. Mostly because of the possibility of them being outed against their will.

 

[Something Amyss]

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

No, I wanted to know if anyone had said that. Mars is understandably pissed that it doesn't happen, but it seems like a far cry to call it essential. However,t he question I responded to was why it was offensive, and she is absolutely right that we're generally cast and treated as men.

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.

I'm glad one of us is certain of that, but that's absolutely not how trans people are portrayed in media. Have you watched Stonewall?

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.

From what I understand, that is not the case here. This movie covers a period during which this is not true, since the real person had been presenting as a woman at least part time for a decade or more. The fact that this is how it's portrayed in the movie's also a little insulting. No, a lot insulting.

Generally speaking, this is not something that happens overnight. It seems sudden to the outside world, I understand. I've dealt with a friend recently who was shocked that I was trans because I seemed like a "typical guy." And that confuses the hell out of me, because I don't know how, but that's another story. This is a big demarcation for him. I've known I was trans (though not the word) since as far back as I can remember, at the latest the age of four. There may have been some time where I actually "felt like a man," but I would have had to have been like two with a limited sense of self.

Ideally, we could just say something's wrong and get it treated. In reality, I learned by the time I hit Kindergarten that this was something bad, something to hide. I spent the next thirteen/fourteen years trying to change, fight, suppress it. But I was never a man, far as I can remember. Something did change in me, but not my masculinity. And even then, I was more worried about survival. Hell, even now, I'm so terrified of being what I am that I have this desperate urge to just dive back into a male (false) identity--even my old username--and go "just kidding! totes a dude here!"

Except I can't. It was killing me.

And this is someone born almost 100 years after the woman portrayed here.

I don't know her experience entirely, but the idea presented here is reductive at best.

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.

I live in one of the bluest states in the US. I'd share with you some of my experience with progressives, but the last time I went into any detail here, I had a breakdown and made one of my friends cry. Seriously, after writing that I realised I was tasting blood, because the stress of even referencing my life experience caused me to bite into my lip without even realising it. And yes, this shit happens in Seattle as well.

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.

Well, I don't really have much in the way of black friends because I live in a super white state, but I do have some Muslim friends. And while I'm aware on some level of the issues they face in the US, I wouldn't even begin to presume to understand what they go through. Why? Because I'd be wrong. And frankly, it'd be tone deaf of me to try and say otherwise.

It's great that you're sympathetic and supportive, but don't conflate that with experience. I have to at least partially agree with Kyuubi here: I don't think trans people are unique, but there is a very large gap between seeing and living. I think it's ridiculous to paint transfolk as i any way unique here, but the rest is valid. On my worst day, I don't know what it's like to be black and pulled over by the cops. I don't know what it's like to be an Arab American surrounded by white folk in a nation that views them as terrorists.

I do know what it's like to be trans in a progressive state, and the shit that goes on even under the noses of my allies.

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.

You know for a fact that it was a practical one? Because I don't.

And this sounds a lot like "the right person for the job," which is something that generally means the right white man for the job. This usually only serves to enforce the status quo, and lasts just as long. Idris Elba is a fantastic actor, but people are upset that he's been deemed the best person to be the Gunslinger in a movie.

And if trans people could have done the job better, wouldn't it have been better to go that route?

That's how I see it at any rate.

And yes, I know this was aimed at someone else. But the point? People are telling you why it's wrong to paint that perspective. People with perspective on the issue. We may know a thing or two about this.

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'.

This comes off more as "I have black friends." Trying to explain to trans people how Lithgow getting critical acclaim means...what to us exactly? Should I feel better that Lithgow's character is how cisgender people see me? Or that you seem to think there's validity there?

And you can't really say that it was done 'purely' out of transphobia.

You just insisted that a decision was done creatively, not politically. Pick a standard, either one. Either she can't know and you can't either, or you can both make such claims without base.

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.

But the example you give is still transphobic. Acting out of ignorance and fear s still the same, whether you have malice in your heart or not.

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?

I would agree this is a double standard. And I'm mostly stating this to emphasise the fact that we all may have blind spots and be ignorant with regards to people who are not us and don't share our experiences. Trans people can, unsurprisingly, be racist, sexist, homophobic and even transphobic. The double standard here aside, a character starting as a drag queen and becoming a transwoman is absolutely worth being called out.

 

[Areloch]

So, just to be sure: we're all in agreement that the ideal state of affairs would be to have a trans person play the role of a trans person.

But given that - for whatever reason - that did not happen, it's problematic that a male actor is playing a biologically male character that has the female gender idenity?

I know I'm just the big dumb transphobic monstrosity for not comprehending the problem here, but it'd strike me as being more truthful to the circumstances and difficulties that would arise from such a circumstance, would it not? They didn't have reassignment surgery back in that era, so Lili was going to be biologically male for the rest of her life.

I mean, one would presume that a movie like this would focus on the duality of the mental and physical sides not lining up and it sounds like this movie doesn't really, but I'm having an extraordinarily hard time understanding why having a male actor play a biologically male character going through an inner turmoil that never, in the end, affects the body's physiology due to the era.

Honestly, it strikes me as being less truthful to the entire thing to get a female to play a male who has the gender identity of a woman, because that sort of misses the point of the physical/mental struggle does it not?

I just can't understand how having the actor's sex align with the biological sex of the character being portrayed in a movie covering the duality of physical and mental states being something that propagates stereotypes and hatred to trans people.

But again, I'm probably just the big dumb transphobe in this conversation, so what do I know.

Edit: Melodrama aside, it does feel like being wrong about this sort of topic at all is a good way to make oneself out to be the bad guy. Case in point being this thread, where the movie doing it "wrong"(which as covered above, I still don't understand at all) propagates stereotypes and hatred of trans people. If merely casting to type is enough to perpetuate something like that, then I can't help but feel any ignorance at all could be likewise casted in such an extreme negative light.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

So, just to be sure: we're all in agreement that the ideal state of affairs would be to have a trans person play the role of a trans person.

But given that - for whatever reason - that did not happen, it's problematic that a male actor is playing a biologically male character that has the female gender idenity?

I know I'm just the big dumb transphobic monstrosity for not comprehending the problem here, but it'd strike me as being more truthful to the circumstances and difficulties that would arise from such a circumstance, would it not? They didn't have reassignment surgery back in that era, so Lili was going to be biologically male for the rest of her life.

I mean, one would presume that a movie like this would focus on the duality of the mental and physical sides not lining up and it sounds like this movie doesn't really, but I'm having an extraordinarily hard time understanding why having a male actor play a biologically male character going through an inner turmoil that never, in the end, affects the body's physiology due to the era.

Honestly, it strikes me as being less truthful to the entire thing to get a female to play a male who has the gender identity of a woman, because that sort of misses the point of the physical/mental struggle does it not?

I just can't understand how having the actor's sex align with the biological sex of the character being portrayed in a movie covering the duality of physical and mental states being something that propagates stereotypes and hatred to trans people.

But again, I'm probably just the big dumb transphobe in this conversation, so what do I know.

Nobody is accusing anyone of being a transphobic monstrosity here, and I'm not saying that you're a transphobe at all.

Really Lili was one of the first people ever to receive any sort of sexual reassignment surgery. Still as it stands all trans folk today will be biologically the sex we're assigned at birth until we die, unless someone comes up with post-birth genetic engineering and the ability to clone human organs for transplant using the recipient's own DNA... But that's beside the point.

The reason the entire concept of using a cisgender man to portray a transgender woman is a problem is because it's reinforcing the idea that trans women are actually men. This is the argument used by biological essentialist people, like Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists(TERFs), which enforces the idea that biological sex and gender are the same thing. This position is meant to erase the identities and experiences, to invalidate us as people. Basically it's exactly the opposite of everything the trans community has been trying to establish, because the entire concept of biological essentialism erases the existence of trans folk. Which is a false reality because trans folk undoubtedly exist, you know, if we didn't I wouldn't be here.

As for getting a woman to portray a trans woman as being less truthful than a man in the same role, that's not even remotely true, no cis person can honestly portray the conflict that gender dysphoria causes in a trans person. Having said that a cisgender woman can at least grasp and present the identity of a woman, because cis women are women, a cisgender man simply can't do that. A cisgender woman can't accurately express gender dysphoria, because she's never experienced it and it's a deep psychological trait of trans folk, one that effects on virtually every level. On the other hand she can at least accurately rely half of the experience of a trans woman, that is identifying as a woman, because that's a deep psychological trait that effects every level of both cis and trans women.

Besides all that casting a man in the role of a trans woman is a none to subtle way of saying that the only trait that matters is a penis, which isn't even remotely true.

 

[Areloch]

But given that - for whatever reason - that did not happen, it's problematic that a male actor is playing a biologically male character that has the female gender idenity?

Yes, because the established standard is correlating the gender identity of the character with an actor or actress. Character is a man? Get a man. Character is a woman? Get a woman. We don't do genital checks or map people's genomes before deciding to cast one way or another. The "biologically male/female casting" is faulty on every basis that you might consider the biological standard to be, of which by the way the common definitions of "biological male" and "biological female" don't hold up to scrutiny.

Oh by the way, Lili was intersex so even if you did get a definition of "biological male" and "biological female" that functioned properly it wouldn't even apply to Lili anyways.

They didn't have reassignment surgery back in that era, so Lili was going to be biologically male for the rest of her life.

What do you think Lili is most known for exactly? Its even stated in the article.

Ah, re-reading it, I did actually miss the

that of one of the first people in the world to have sex reassignment surgery

part somehow. The rest of the article doesn't really cover that event happening, so I don't know if it takes place during the movie, or a later point in the character's life. The context was a bit vague if it actually came about or not by the end of the film, and I'm not familiar with the REAL story, so this article is pretty much all I had to work with there.

Honestly, it strikes me as being less truthful to the entire thing to get a female to play a male who has the gender identity of a woman, because that sort of misses the point of the physical/mental struggle does it not?

If you're going to puport authenticity then why do you consider it a good decision to cast a person who has never experienced gender dysphoria?

Well, you may note that I actually did put:

So, just to be sure: we're all in agreement that the ideal state of affairs would be to have a trans person play the role of a trans person.

There's at least a moderate chance I think that that's the preferred route, maybe?

However, if the character is biologically male, as mentioned in the article, for at least part of the movie, how is it less authentic to get a male actor to play a male character during those segments?

 

[Tortilla the Hun]

No, I wanted to know if anyone had said that. Mars is understandably pissed that it doesn't happen, but it seems like a far cry to call it essential.

So it's about semantics? While yes, it wasn't expressly stated verbatim that "trans characters absolutely always must be portrayed by a trans actor, no exceptions" you can't say that wasn't the notion that was being put forward. Otherwise, what is there to get all up in arms about?

By saying it's not absolutely necessary to have a trans actress cast as a trans woman is already opening up to the idea that a trans character can be portrayed by a cisgendered person. Then it only becomes a matter of whether or not cross-gender acting is appropriate. And if you think it isn't, then I know plenty of theater actors/actresses you can take that up with.

NOTE: It's gonna seem like I'm glossing over a large portion here, and to be frank I sort of am. This discussion is going into places I'd rather not go into largely because it's diverging from the original discussion here and, because I consider myself to be a sympathetic person, there's not really any way I can effectively nod and 'mhm' through the screen.

But I will state again, I will make no claim to know those hardships through experience. Though I admit to having struggles with my own sexuality (something I'd rather not discuss beyond that) I still can't say I understand what it means to go through what someone transitioning goes through to the fullest extent, I understand what it means to face ridicule and social stigma.

I hope to draw a line here and hopefully prevent this from being a personal discussion as it isn't the place for it.

Idris Elba is a fantastic actor, but people are upset that he's been deemed the best person to be the Gunslinger in a movie.

And those people would be wrong. He is a fantastic actor, and if he can land the role of Roland then more power to him.

I find it interesting that you draw correlation between race and gender, only to suggest that criticism for the portrayal of that character not being 'true' (in regards to race/gender) as invalid.

This comes off more as "I have black friends." Trying to explain to trans people how Lithgow getting critical acclaim means...what to us exactly? Should I feel better that Lithgow's character is how cisgender people see me? Or that you seem to think there's validity there?

The point I'm trying to get across is that his role wasn't about, "hey, everybody, it's a transgender woman!" It was about, "hey, everybody, it's a person! An actual character that just so happens to be transgender but isn't written so it's her only defining characteristic! See how she's an actual person with her own struggles and ambitions!"

And if you ask me, that's how it should be. It's part of acceptance. In order for gender to not be an issue, it has to become a non-issue.

You just insisted that a decision was done creatively, not politically. Pick a standard, either one. Either she can't know and you can't either, or you can both make such claims without base.

I've read articles, I've looked into how it was that Eddie Redmayne came into the role and I can say, with no small amount of certainty, there was nothing detailing it was 'because we needed a white cisgendered male'. Redmayne was offered the part because of his talent and good work history with some of the people working on the film. So there was something of a base, but take that as you will.

I would agree this is a double standard. And I'm mostly stating this to emphasise the fact that we all may have blind spots and be ignorant with regards to people who are not us and don't share our experiences. Trans people can, unsurprisingly, be racist, sexist, homophobic and even transphobic.

This is certainly something that I agree with. I've stated that true equality is recognizing that anyone, regardless of race, religion, age, affiliation, gender, or geography, can be the absolute worst person. Mind you it was said facetiously, but I consider it to be right. Discrimination isn't confined to certain demographics. But that's neither here nor there for this discussion.

The double standard here aside, a character starting as a drag queen and becoming a transwoman is absolutely worth being called out.

I'm not going to refute that. I don't know Jared Leto's motivations behind requesting that change. Perhaps it was with good intentions but ultimately misguided. I don't know.

But I will argue that, seeing many of the criticisms against Leto seemed to revolve around his appearance, it's a very shallow criticism. It's been picked apart that Leto's character looked like a man in drag. And to be fair, the character did. But the reality is (and I fully expect to take flak for this) some trans women do. That's right, I said it. Sue me. Burn me at the stake atop the altar of political correctness if that makes you feel better, but it's the truth.

Do I hold judgement against those women that do have that appearance? Of course not because I'm not an asshole. I respect their identity, I respect them as a person, but that doesn't change the fact they've retained some masculinity in their physical appearance. That's just genetics. I would never say anything so crass to those women's faces because, again, I'm not an asshole. And to be honest, for most it doesn't make them unattractive. But once more, that's neither here nor there.

I'm just going to sum up my feelings on this whole cisgender male portraying a transgender woman because I find this discussion mentally exhausting and think it unlikely I'll be posting in this thread further.

I don't think there is any more issue for a man to be in the role of a woman than there is for a woman to portray a man, whether it's in film or on stage. Nor is there any issue for voice actors, many of which take innumerable crossgender roles. The same goes for a black actor portraying a white character.

Right, black face is just a practice to take acting jobs away from black people while making unrealistic, degrading and malicious portrayals of them. Completely unlike trans face, where nobody is ever ridiculed for their gender identity. Its not like trans actors and actresses are actually turned down from trans acting roles for "not looking trans enough" or anything because the person/people in charge of casting believe the "ugly tranny" depicting to be the one and only accurate representation. Its not like they skip over actual trans folk and attach prosthetics to cis people when they play the role of a trans person because they have to make a trans person "look believable". Its not like somebody won an Oscar for simply slapping the label "transgender" on a character that was written as a drag queen, ab libbing most of the changes in the role while ignoring all of the hired consultants on trans issues that offered advice and purporting this to be some sort of groundbreaking representation when they happened to get a lot wrong.

Aside from that Hollywood bullshit that certainly doesn't exist, no siree, its not like trans folk have faced basically every single form of bigotry that black people in the western world have except fo slavery. Its not like even to this day trans folk make up over half of the hate crimes directed at the LGBTQ+ community despite making up less than one-tenth of it.

Ah. Sarcastic dismissal of my argument. Great start.

For me its not even necessarily a trans woman playing a trans woman (though in the case of a transgender pioneer that probably should've been what happened because DUH) but rather a woman playing a woman and a man playing a man.

This seems to be the central argument here so I'm just going to address this and not jump through your 'name ten' hoops you've so kindly put up for me.

Now if I'm to understand correctly, the issue doesn't lie within whether or not a transgender female character (because she is a character from a work of fiction, even though the character in the novel is about a real person) is portrayed by a transgender or cisgender person, but does lie in whether or not the female character is portrayed by a male or female?

If so, I'd like to respond to that with a question. Should the same apply to theater? Is the very act of crossgender acting inherently wrong or offensive? Does that extend to voice acting as well? Why should gender be a limitation for creative expression?

 

[Areloch]

So, just to be sure: we're all in agreement that the ideal state of affairs would be to have a trans person play the role of a trans person.

But given that - for whatever reason - that did not happen, it's problematic that a male actor is playing a biologically male character that has the female gender idenity?

I know I'm just the big dumb transphobic monstrosity for not comprehending the problem here, but it'd strike me as being more truthful to the circumstances and difficulties that would arise from such a circumstance, would it not? They didn't have reassignment surgery back in that era, so Lili was going to be biologically male for the rest of her life.

I mean, one would presume that a movie like this would focus on the duality of the mental and physical sides not lining up and it sounds like this movie doesn't really, but I'm having an extraordinarily hard time understanding why having a male actor play a biologically male character going through an inner turmoil that never, in the end, affects the body's physiology due to the era.

Honestly, it strikes me as being less truthful to the entire thing to get a female to play a male who has the gender identity of a woman, because that sort of misses the point of the physical/mental struggle does it not?

I just can't understand how having the actor's sex align with the biological sex of the character being portrayed in a movie covering the duality of physical and mental states being something that propagates stereotypes and hatred to trans people.

But again, I'm probably just the big dumb transphobe in this conversation, so what do I know.

Nobody is accusing anyone of being a transphobic monstrosity here, and I'm not saying that you're a transphobe at all.

Really Lili was one of the first people ever to receive any sort of sexual reassignment surgery. Still as it stands all trans folk today will be biologically the sex we're assigned at birth until we die, unless someone comes up with post-birth genetic engineering and the ability to clone human organs for transplant using the recipient's own DNA... But that's beside the point.

The reason the entire concept of using a cisgender man to portray a transgender woman is a problem is because it's reinforcing the idea that trans women are actually men. This is the argument used by biological essentialist people, like Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists(TERFs), which enforces the idea that biological sex and gender are the same thing. This position is meant to erase the identities and experiences, to invalidate us as people. Basically it's exactly the opposite of everything the trans community has been trying to establish, because the entire concept of biological essentialism erases the existence of trans folk. Which is a false reality because trans folk undoubtedly exist, you know, if we didn't I wouldn't be here.

I suppose? I mean, I can see what you mean there, but it feels odd to conclude that something is unacceptable because a small group of dickbags use the same logic to make everything terrible.

To attempt to gain further clarity, suppose someone was filming an in-depth documentary around a trans person as they come to realize who and what they are, and end up getting a sex change and all that.

Would it make sense in that context to have a male actor in the first part, during their "physically male, but internally a woman" part, and then after the transition have a female actor fill the role of the post-transition person as they are now physically female?

As for getting a woman to portray a trans woman as being less truthful than a man in the same role, that's not even remotely true, no cis person can honestly portray the conflict that gender dysphoria causes in a trans person. Having said that a cisgender woman can at least grasp and present the identity of a woman, because cis women are women, a cisgender man simply can't do that. A cisgender woman can't accurately express gender dysphoria, because she's never experienced it and it's a deep psychological trait of trans folk, one that effects on virtually every level. On the other hand she can at least accurately rely half of the experience of a trans woman, that is identifying as a woman, because that's a deep psychological trait that effects every level of both cis and trans women.

Besides all that casting a man in the role of a trans woman is a none to subtle way of saying that the only trait that matters is a penis, which isn't even remotely true.

So it's about the mannerisms that a female is likely to have that a male would not?

Alright, I can see that I suppose.
It still fades into that horrible fog of "What makes a man or a woman" that shrouds pretty much everything about gender identity, so I'm not entirely sure I get what a woman actor would bring to the table that an equally skilled actor who is a man could not. But as said, that disappears into murky waters, so I'll acknowledge that that's a fairly reasonable point.

 

[Tortilla the Hun]

Not necessarily but context does matter. They've got a man playing a woman. When do men play as women in movies? Either when its a cheap visual gag "oh ha ha its really a guy in a dress" performance or when its a trans woman. Those are basically the only instances that it ever happens. If things were different and women were commonly cast to play men and men were commonly cast to play women I'd probably feel differently but thats not the world we inhabit so I don't.

So it shouldn't be attempted to break that mold at all just because previous performances have been played for laughs? If anything, Eddie Redmayne taking this role is going against the status quo because it's not some big joke. This could be a role that brings real positive change for public perception of transgendered people but instead you're dismissing it saying, 'oh it's been done as a joke in the past, therefore it can't possibly be anything but.'

You're right, and while we're at it why should we stick solely to humans when casting characters. Lets start casting chimpanzees to play characters. It'll only be limited to characters who are black but of course thats just a coincidence and nothing more,right? Sorry John Boyega, Bobo is going to be playing Finn in the sequel nows.

Lets not stop there. We should take this "creative freedom" to voice-acting too, since you brought that up. Next time there's a human character in a game we should bring a chimpanzee into a sound studio and just have it make a bunch of noises. Oh whats that, they did that before? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_Cleansing_(video_game)] Damn, what a fine piece of totally-not-bigoted creative expression that is. Anybody who dares call that racist should be ashamed of themselves.

This is the most extreme hyperbole and (I certainly hope intentionally) a gross misunderstanding on your part. You keep bringing up chimpanzees in relation to black people and use an example from a white supremacist group's game as if that somehow relates in any way to this discussion. I'm not going to dignify your response with further interaction, so I leave you to your racist fixations and hope you have a wonderful day.

 

[Areloch]

However, if the character is biologically male, as mentioned in the article, for at least part of the movie, how is it less authentic to get a male actor to play a male character during those segments?

Because we don't cast based on whether somebody is "biologically male" or "biologically female". We cast based on their gender identity. A man plays a man and a woman plays a woman. Even if there were definitions of "biological male" and "biological female" that were consistent with how Hollywood castings actors and actresses (there aren't any) they wouldn't apply to Lili anyways since she's intersex. Additionally, Lili isn't a male character. She's a woman. She was "assigned male at at birth", or "AMAB", but she was a woman. Thats kind of the whole thing about trans people in the first place, they don't identify as the gender they were erroneously thought to be at birth.

I'd thought sex and gender were considered separate and distinct now?

Male, as in the major biological markers that make up the male sex. Testosterone, the physical changes that come from testosterone with puberty, generally larger physical frame, thinner hip ratio, pronounced adams apple and deeper voice, penis, etc. Are all pretty standard, notable components that make up the male sex. Obviously not exclusive to, but very generally accepted as the components that come together to make the male sex. Which is - as far as my understand was - distinct to the components that ostensibly make up the 'woman' gender identity.

So yes, as far as I can understand, you CAN be male but a woman, because sex is not the gender. You even point out that she was "assigned male at birth"(though that seems to be a bizarre statement from a biological standpoint given that she WOULD be male until a point advanced mental development starts to curb their person towards being a woman, ie gender dysphoria), so she was still definitively male for at least part of her life, yes?

 

[Areloch]

Male, as in the major biological markers that make up the male sex. Testosterone, the physical changes that come from testosterone with puberty, generally larger physical frame, thinner hip ratio, pronounced adams apple and deeper voice, penis, etc. Are all pretty standard, notable components that make up the male sex. Obviously not exclusive to, but very generally accepted as the components that come together to make the male sex. Which is - as far as my understand was - distinct to the components that ostensibly make up the 'woman' gender identity.

So does Hollywood have people's testosterone levels tested before they considered them for a role? Did they call Meryl Streep saying "Yes, hello Miss Streep, we were considering you to play John F. Kennedy but then we got the test results back and found that your testosterone levels are way too low for the role. If you can raise your testosterone levels to a certain point we'll hire you for the role but otherwise we'll have to consider other options. Scarlett Johansson's levels were rather high enough that she'll fill in for the role if you decline to pursue building your testosterone levels." No, they didn't do that? They don't do that for any roles/ Then its not a consistent treatment of all actors and actresses. Its a double standard.

Ok, level with me here. Are you actually wanting a conversation, or are you just going to launch into pointlessly extreme hyperbole any time any conversation gets going?

Just let me know if we should actually bother continuing or not.

So yes, as far as I can understand, you CAN be male but a woman, because sex is not the gender. You even point out that she was "assigned male at birth"(though that seems to be a bizarre statement from a biological standpoint given that she WOULD be male until a point advanced mental development starts to curb their person towards being a woman, ie gender dysphoria), so she was still definitively male for at least part of her life, yes?

That is absolutely not how it works. I'm not even going to get into it because I don't have time to explain Trans 101 every time the subject matter comes up. Hell, it already should be obvious without such teaching that such logic is faulty.

Alright then, I guess we're done here.

Sorry for being such a disgusting failure that I don't comprehend one of the single most nuanced and complicated issues in human history.

 

[Areloch]

Ok, level with me here. Are you actually wanting a conversation, or are you just going to launch into pointlessly extreme hyperbole any time any conversation gets going?

Just let me know if we should actually bother continuing or not.

Well if you're unable to provide a definition of "biological male" that is wholly consistent with Hollywood casting practices then perhaps you should drop the point and admit that there's a double-standard depending on the characters that are going to be portrayed?

Ok, are you talking *exclusively* what would consititute a biological male in context of at-glance visible descriptors which would be the important aspect of casting for a movie?

Ok then, that's different. I thought you were handwaving the very concept of there being a thing as biological male, so hopefully you'll understand what the was a tad mindboggling.

I would say that in general terms, however, yes, there are still definitely physical traits that at-a-glance typify the males of the human species, such as the aforementioned larger builds, more readily defined muscles, broader torso and slimmer hips, adams apple, taller, etc.

Obviously you'll get females with varying samples of the above traits, but generally speaking, there are traits that are definitely particular to the male or female sex that are fairly visually distinct when it comes to humans.

That said, this entire thing seems to have come from "it's insulting for a biologically male actor to portray a biologically male character who happens to have the gender identity of a woman.

In this, why is it an insult to have their biological sex match in context of the framework of the movie? Why is it less insulting for the actor to be the opposite biological sex, even if as pointed out makeup would be applied along with propwork to make it impossible tell in the end.

That's where the entire confusion about the selectiveness of the actor's sex comes into play here. If the end result would ultimately look the same, why is it such an offront for the actor to be male, especially if it accurately aligns with the character per the story for at least part of it.

Sorry for being such a disgusting failure that I don't comprehend one of the single most nuanced and complicated issues in human history.

It was already stated earlier in this very thread (and its only a two-page thread) and at the top of this page no less. Multiple times. It was even bolded with red text:

"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."

That said, if you don't understand Trans 101 you probably shouldn't comment on trans issues to begin with. You posted in what appeared to be bad faith, I answered your questions, you rebutted, I pointed out the flaw in your overarching logic as well as making an observation that you don't understand trans issues enough to jump immediately into this one and now you're getting upset that I'm telling you you're wrong. If you want to participate in the conversation there's plenty of good resources about trans folk out there but I'm not going to stop and do a Trans 101 lecture to every single person who pops into a thread about trans issues and bring the conversation to a grinding halt. Frankly, this applies not just topics about trans issues but topics about really anything everything. I'll just let this comic strip explain my position if my words have done a poor job of doing it so far:

Spoiler: Comic in question.

and this oneis about the general frustration of this sort of thing happening all the time:

Spoiler: Comic number two

Okay, real fast for me:

Is MALE the exact same thing as A MAN and is FEMALE the exact same thing as A WOMAN to you?

Because you keep falling back on talking about 'man' and 'woman' which would be, as far as I'm understanding, gender, while I'm talking 'male' and 'female', which would be the physiological sex as per aforementioned standard biological markers.

Because it's fine to say that a transgendered woman was never born a man, but it strikes me as an entirely different thing to say that she was never born MALE. What with the whole having a penis thing, and if left to go through puberty would develop along the standard male sex development path due to genetics and how the human body works.

So I just want to know if we're even actually talking about the same particular sub-subject or not because that would probably clear up a lot.

Also,

That said, if you don't understand Trans 101 you probably shouldn't comment on trans issues to begin with. You posted in what appeared to be bad faith, I answered your questions, you rebutted, I pointed out the flaw in your overarching logic as well as making an observation that you don't understand trans issues enough to jump immediately into this one and now you're getting upset that I'm telling you you're wrong.

I would say I'm more annoyed that it's less "you're wrong" and more I'm having a hard time keeping up with the flow your logic is taking because you keep using different terms than me(vis a vis the male vs man sex/gender thing I keep trying to get clarified) and then you basically go "Well just go google it".

I mean, sure, that's alright to say, and you're not wrong persay, but going "Don't talk about it unless you've done X amount of prerequesite research" on the single most nebulous, vague and ever-shifting topic I've ever encountered is a poor way to get someone invested in the subject so they even care enough to do the research.

I get it, it's frustrating to restate stuff over and over again, everyone's had to put up with it, but shooting off into absurd hyperbole and the like is an incredible way to sour people on a subject when everyone else was having a pretty on-point discussion on the subject.

But hey, I'm obviously in the wrong for not knowing enough, so I guess I'll just bow out here. Have a good afternoon.

 

[Batou667]

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.

Yeah, damn James McAvoy and Patrick Stewart, acting in disabledface to mock actual paraplegics. They only way they could have portrayed Professor Xavier in a respectful way would be to have McAvoy do his filming, and then *actually* paralyse him from the waist down for the later scenes. There are plenty of deep emotions and experiences that can be acted, physical disability is not one of them.

 

[visiblenoise]

The only insight I've picked up from my short time skimming this thread is that Eddie Redmayne is a chimpanzee??

 

[anthony87]

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.

Yeah, damn James McAvoy and Patrick Stewart, acting in disabledface to mock actual paraplegics. They only way they could have portrayed Professor Xavier in a respectful way would be to have McAvoy do his filming, and then *actually* paralyse him from the waist down for the later scenes. There are plenty of deep emotions and experiences that can be acted, physical disability is not one of them.

Don't forget My Left Foot.

What an evil evil film.

 

[RJ 17]

Wow...I don't think I've ever seen one of Marter's movie reviews get a comment section this big.

Of course, considering the nature of this film, I was fairly certain that it would attract this kind of response.

Oh internet, you're so hilariously predictable. :3