Mortis Nuncius said:
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?
Well, among other things, that the characters almost NEVER are, which is part of what Mars explicitly, literally, factually said?
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.
When you can list another instance of playing cross gender in a minority, do get back to me. But unless you're trying to argue someone else's point with me, I don't see why you switched to "you."
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.
Most of this came up because you seemed very much reductive towards the topic at hand. Skimming over it doesn't really have a positive effect.
But I think the real problem is summed up here as well:
I consider myself to be a sympathetic person
What you consider yourself isn't usually very helpful. Few people think of themselves as the bad guy. Even rapists and murderers often feel justified in their actions. You might consider yourself sympathetic, but you're basically arguing with the remaining active population of trans Escapists. Oh, and my SO, also trans, is actually kind of pissed off. We don't agree on everything, but you certainly come up as a common point of contention. FFS, I largely stay out of these discussions because of the associated stress.
At this point, I would suggest reflection. Why do we not see you as an awesome and sympathetic person? I mean, it could be that all of us are crazy or something, and one person has already gone so far as to say that we've validated their prejudices against trans people. But perhaps, just a mild chance, maybe you are doing something that's not helpful? Or something that repeatedly comes off as condescending? Maybe there is some element of your behaviour that does not match up with your self-perception?
This comes off as telling people what an awesome ally you are. And odds are, if you have to say, you're doing something to indicate otherwise.
What I'm trying to get at here is that you should listen and learn.
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.
This still comes off as amazingly tone deaf.
I hope to draw a line here and hopefully prevent this from being a personal discussion as it isn't the place for it.
Which comes off as dismissing personal experience, which is kind of an important element here.
Do keep in mind, you were the one to pull the "I know trans people" thing, which makes this personal. It's an attempt at ethos establishment. I decided to tell you exactly where I'm coming from, especially since you tried to play the "progressive" card. Living in a progressive state and hearing that leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth.
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.
I find it disingenuous that you would conflate comparing the reactions to comparing the things itself.
However, I would also point out that even Stephen King has said that the character is not informed by race. The Danish Girl is a story that is inherently informed by gender identity. You made this case yourself. Dark Tower is not, to my knowledge, about being black.
Which brings me back to the "never" argument, because I'm not necessarily seeing it. We're talking specifically about trans people and trans roles in media about being trans. You have repeatedly made that distinction, too. Mars' examples have gone to that end, no less. Why do you think this is a universal rule?
But also, keep in mind that I actually did say that I do not think the trans experience is unique in the issue with outsiders understanding. One of the examples I
just gave was of race. It looks like you're holding against me a position that is not mine.
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.
I would agree that's how it should be. The problem is, that's now how it was in Garp, and not how i usually plays out. I refer you bacjk to the "best person for the job" argument.
Further, the idea that gender has to not matter sounds great. Unless you are actively being ignored.
Being colour blind often means blinding yourself to any systemic issues. And being "gender blind" is not what you want to be when addressing gender issues.
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.
And that's great, if it's mandatory for prejudices to be openly stated. It's not. That might reassure you, but it doesn't mean anything for us. The fact that he has a good work history is an issue that comes up a lot with minorities, in that they don't get to get to that point due to never being considered in the first place.
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.
Again, if you want to come off as sympathetic, it's a bad idea to say any transwoman "looks like a man," whether they pass or not. It's worse to then rail against political correctness. That does not sound like someone trying to be helpful, and to be honest, you had me to that point.
And you say you don't hold it against them, but making that point is the opposite of sympathetic.
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.
Must be nice to be able to disengage from the subject solely because it's exhausting. I wish I could do that.
As disappointing as this is, I'm not sure what can be gained from further discourse. You seem unwilling to actually listen to the group at hand. You're too busy insisting that you're here to help.
