I understand that without having to read the articles. Still it's a slow timid baby step in the right direction that still deserves to be criticized for what it got wrong. If we don't do that, then things don't improve.Mortis Nuncius said:
The Danish Girl - Transgender Issues in the 1920s
- Thread starter Marter
- Start date
You think The Danish Girl is a joke? You really think that the writers, producers, publishing studio, the entire acting cast, all came together in collusion and spent months of filming time and a $25 million budget creating a risky, niche-interest film - not because they wanted it to be a critical or box office success, or because any of them were in any way invested in raising historical trans awareness, but because they all either consciously or subconsciously wanted to denigrate trans people. Riiiiight. You don't sound at all irrationally paranoid.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
What was Hanlon's Law again? "Don't attribute to malice what could be attributed to simple error", or similar.
On the subject of apples and oranges, why is everybody comparing Redmayne's portrayal here to blackface? It's very obviously not comparable, either in intent or outcome. Well, aside from in the eyes of a few perpetually outraged people who are apparently impossible to please.
I don't think you're wrong in believing the film would've come across better with a trans woman in the lead role. It certainly would have carried more impact. I just don't think it's inherently wrong that there wasn't.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Rebecca Root, the woman cast as the nurse in the film was elated that she was cast as a cisgender person. I imagine this comes from being typecast as a trans woman and I felt happy for her. Because she was no longer in a pigeonhole where her title was preceded by 'transgender'.
And I believe she's right in saying that it's going to lead to more trans people climbing the ranks of Hollywood. I believe she's right in saying this movie is a positive thing. I know there's people in the trans community that don't agree with that, and their experience is no less valid. I'm just more inclined to share Roots' opinion.
I've been trying to put my feelings on this movie into words for a while now. But it is hard to explain. It's complex.
I wish I could like this movie. I am sure the intent was good. And hell, it'll probably even do some good. It might even be necessary. But I don't like it.
To quote one trans critic, "It was the kind of safe, syrupy-tragic movie that cis people are supposed to like and feel good about liking."
This is art by cis people for cis people. It is, at it's best, only about a trans person. It is a sanitized movie that takes no risks but will be lauded as brave and courageous. It is a shallow, surface level look at trans issues but is already being reported as a deep exploration.
Media like this is just so damn exhausting. I really wish I didn't have to care about this movie. But I do, because for the next two years at least I am going to have to deal with people talking down at me and ignoring me because they totally get trans issues, they saw The Danish Girl and everything.
If this is what we have to swallow before we can get real trans representation then I can handle it. I can even be glad media like this is happening for the ultimate end it could lead to. But I don't have to like it.
I wish I could like this movie. I am sure the intent was good. And hell, it'll probably even do some good. It might even be necessary. But I don't like it.
To quote one trans critic, "It was the kind of safe, syrupy-tragic movie that cis people are supposed to like and feel good about liking."
This is art by cis people for cis people. It is, at it's best, only about a trans person. It is a sanitized movie that takes no risks but will be lauded as brave and courageous. It is a shallow, surface level look at trans issues but is already being reported as a deep exploration.
Media like this is just so damn exhausting. I really wish I didn't have to care about this movie. But I do, because for the next two years at least I am going to have to deal with people talking down at me and ignoring me because they totally get trans issues, they saw The Danish Girl and everything.
If this is what we have to swallow before we can get real trans representation then I can handle it. I can even be glad media like this is happening for the ultimate end it could lead to. But I don't have to like it.
I never once said The Danish Girl it self is a joke, I did imply that most trans portrayals in film; however, basically are "haha man in a dress" and "ugly tranny" jokes. If you had paid attention to what I said that's what you would have gotten from that post. That trans issues are usually treated with derision and mockery in film, that there is a long history of trans folk being presented that way. Unlike how people with disabilities are generally portrayed, both in modern film and historically speaking. But it seems some people are bound and determined to misread anything on this subject, so that they can feed conformation bias and discredit what the trans people on these forums say and feel.Batou667 said:
Though there is Hanlon's Razor which states: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity", with the history of trans portrayals, I don't think it applies. Mostly because it's not stupidity that drives the casting of cisgender men in the roles of transgender women, it's ignorance, status quo, and a history of equating drag to transgenderism.
On the subject of comparing "trans face" to black face, it's really not about Redmayne, nor how good or bad his performance was. It's the same spirit that black face often used: An offensive image of trans folk is being presented, even though it's used in a positive light, it's still doing it wrong and reinforcing negative stereotypes. Plus like with black face, "trans face" is a method of excluding trans folk from the spot light. Using someone who isn't trans to portray trans folk in a sanitized way which cis people use to pat themselves on the back. while saying; "look how tolerant and great we are!" Thats the exact same way that black face was used as, while excluding black people from the spotlight.
Attributing trans people criticizing this portrayal to "people who are constantly offended"... Did you ever stop for a moment to think why it's only cis folk who defend this sort of thing, when the trans folk of the forum are upset about it? Did you ever stop for a moment and think to your self; "gee this is an issue I don't face and that isn't representing my life, so maybe I shouldn't discredit the people it does effect"? No, you just use a bias to claim we're perpetually offended so that you can tell us what everyone else tells us, which is this: "This doesn't effect me, so obviously it's not a problem." Where if we take the actual intent behind what's being said it translates simply to: "SHUT UP!"
This is the among one of the most off the wall threads I've seen on here in a while. Speaking of which, the same people cry about having a 'cis' person plays a 'trans' person are the same people who fling the term shitlord around when people complain about female Thor, or female Jimmy in the new Superman films.
That maybe one of the most nonsensical things I've read in a long time. Now with MarsAtlas, ThatOtherGirl, and Something Amyss, along with myself, I've never used nor seen the the other trans folk on this forum use the term "shitlord" to refer to someone who was against the idea of female Thor, or female Jimmy Olson. So at best that's putting words in people's mouths, which is a really rude thing to be doing.Jarek Mace said:
Now if you paid any attention the reason this is offensive is because they keep getting cisgender men to play the roles of tras women. It's been explained in detail why those of us the trans community finds that sort of thing offensive. Then again putting trans and cis in single quotes sure shows a lot of respect, also it's incorrect grammatically, you should have used full quotes.
How about why it's different from female Thor and Jimmy Olson? Well The Danish Girl is at least based on a real person, who just happens to be one of the first people to ever receive sexual reassignment surgery, Lili Elbe. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lili_Elbe] Thor and Jimmy Olson on the other hand are fictional characters in fictional universes, they can be(and probably have been) written as anthropomorphic animals, if that's what a canon writer wants to do. Comic book superheros and their friends do inhabit really complicated multi-verses, in a medium that's already prone to artistic interpretation. Funny that too, people only pitch a fit when characters get gender swapped from male to female, like women are some how viewed as less capable, or a threat to male dominated media. Sure that's not a double standard put foreword by people trying to cover up blatant sexism. Right.
How would having a woman make it more authentic? The Danish "girl" is still a man.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
You seriously overestimate the way disabilty is portrayed in media. It's true, it's not depicted for laughs as much as trans is (still, Big Bang Theory is a huge offender for example), but in other ways? It sure as hell is utter shite.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Considering Rainman is the general view of autistics in the public ... while Rainman is not even an autistic, and people often don't believe autistic people that they are autistic because they only saw rainman.
Dwarfism is played for laughs far more often than it is not.
Physical disabilities are either played for pity, or for "inspiration" ... you rarely see a normal, realistic depiction.
You overestimate the "positive" portrayal of disabled people.
(well, to be fair, it was, afaik, way worse in germany than it was in english-speaking countries).
Still - you said it's bad not to let a trans actor play a trans person. I said the same is true for disabled people. I heard a speech of a CP actress who said she was not allowed to play a CP person in a play - because non-disabled actors could portray it better. Seriously what.
Militant crusade? Really? So trans folk are running around heavily armed and demanding people accept us? Not so much, the trans community is basically still asking for the same respect that others get by freaking default. People said the same sort of things about the women's rights movement, the civil rights movement, and the gay rights movement. Funny thing is those people were wrong and holding on to backwards ideas based on maintaining the status quo that benefited them, while harming the groups in question. Those people were wrong about how they treated the womens rights, civil rights, and gay rights movements, and they're still wrong today with how they dismiss and devalue the trans rights movement.Mudman1234 said:
Well considering your previous post, along with the kind of transphobic attitude a statement like that shows... Yeah if we're gonna sit here and argue over the biological essentialist stance, which is pretty well and truly debunked at this point. I think I'll just ignore you rather than engage in a pointless debate with someone who has already made their mind up on the subject.Mudman1234 said:
Well considering the way you've put it here, also considering that I suffer from a few disabilities of my own, like chronic arthritis in just about every joint... I'm going to concede the point, you've made a lot of good points, and I happen to agree with you on the subject. The portrayals of the disabled are far from perfect, as people with physical disabilities, especially those who have been maimed, get played for pity, or as inspirational figures, rather than as normal folk. So perhaps I have overestimated the portrayal of the disabled quite a bit. They also tend to use able bodied actors to the exclusion of disabled actors, which is also damn shame.the silence said:
So I suppose you're right, while disabled people might not be excluded as much, or portrayed as badly when compared to trans folk, they still get a pretty raw deal. There isn't any excuse for that either.
I just took issue with how @Batou667 framed his contribution argument, it seemed a bit sarcastic and dismissive.
Yeah; I've only been reading bits and pieces, and I'm still not sure whether it's being recommended or not. To be honest, I think I'm going to continue avoiding it - much like I'm mostly avoiding this thread. Way too much drama.Alleged_Alec said:
What's astounding is that those Three Little Letters haven't been mentioned.
Situations like this really illustrate the key issue facing meaningful trans discussions today. Far too much focus is put on the physicality of being trans when the genuine defining trait of trans individuals, especially those who undergo transition, isn't physical it's mental. Being 'trans' by DEFINITION means that at some point you were considered cis by everyone else around you. How long you were considered cis really varies by individual, but for all we know the actor playing this role could come out as trans next year and it would, in fact, be a trans woman playing the role. There's no real way to tell at this point in science.
Speaking from my own experiences as a trans person, as well as being friends with and dealing with many trans people of varying degrees, it has been made apparent time and time again that being trans isn't about dressing, presentation, or 'passing'. It's about being so completely disenfranchised from your existence that you must rearrange your physiological furniture to make it the slightest bit livable.
Being trans is like being dumped into a house where someone else committed a grizzly murder, the blood is still all over the walls, there's a rotting body in the corner, and the furniture is all upturned. You do your best to live with it because everyone else thinks the house looks fine from the outside and they all think you must be nuts for wanting to move out. Of course in this metaphor 'moving out' means killing yourself, but most would rather not do that. So what do you do instead? You bury the rotting corpse in the basement, scrub the blood out as best you can and rearrange the furniture so it's as comfortable as it can possibly be. You'll never get all the blood out, the basement may be a little haunted, but you've made it the best home you can to live out your life. Using this metaphor dressing, presentation and 'passing' are all extremely superficial, like changing the curtains or buying a new sofa set. They're things you do to help make the home cozier still, but they're not the reason you have trouble sleeping at night and hear creepy sounds coming from the basement.
Being trans is ultimately about the disenfranchisement of self. The loss of identity to such a degree that you do not exist in the world while still having to endure all of its suffering. Dressing, 'passing', etc, are desperate attempts to reclaim that sense of self, a fervent bid to show people who you are and be accepted by them. To use the above metaphor, it's like inviting them into your house and hoping that the ghost in the basement doesn't scare them away. Movies about trans people should focus more on that internal struggle, the fight to reclaim a sense of self, and less on how hot the protagonist looks in an evening gown. They shouldn't revolve around 'passing', they should revolve around acceptance.
Being trans is about how you handle the internal struggle, not what you look like or how you're endowed.
Speaking from my own experiences as a trans person, as well as being friends with and dealing with many trans people of varying degrees, it has been made apparent time and time again that being trans isn't about dressing, presentation, or 'passing'. It's about being so completely disenfranchised from your existence that you must rearrange your physiological furniture to make it the slightest bit livable.
Being trans is like being dumped into a house where someone else committed a grizzly murder, the blood is still all over the walls, there's a rotting body in the corner, and the furniture is all upturned. You do your best to live with it because everyone else thinks the house looks fine from the outside and they all think you must be nuts for wanting to move out. Of course in this metaphor 'moving out' means killing yourself, but most would rather not do that. So what do you do instead? You bury the rotting corpse in the basement, scrub the blood out as best you can and rearrange the furniture so it's as comfortable as it can possibly be. You'll never get all the blood out, the basement may be a little haunted, but you've made it the best home you can to live out your life. Using this metaphor dressing, presentation and 'passing' are all extremely superficial, like changing the curtains or buying a new sofa set. They're things you do to help make the home cozier still, but they're not the reason you have trouble sleeping at night and hear creepy sounds coming from the basement.
Being trans is ultimately about the disenfranchisement of self. The loss of identity to such a degree that you do not exist in the world while still having to endure all of its suffering. Dressing, 'passing', etc, are desperate attempts to reclaim that sense of self, a fervent bid to show people who you are and be accepted by them. To use the above metaphor, it's like inviting them into your house and hoping that the ghost in the basement doesn't scare them away. Movies about trans people should focus more on that internal struggle, the fight to reclaim a sense of self, and less on how hot the protagonist looks in an evening gown. They shouldn't revolve around 'passing', they should revolve around acceptance.
Being trans is about how you handle the internal struggle, not what you look like or how you're endowed.
...This is cool and all that we're having such an intense discussion on the topic of gender dysphoria and how brave people are with it, etc. But has no one at any stage sat down and just considered the tick boxes?
A: Does the actor/actress in question possess the physical attributes necessary to portray said character...
B: Is the actor/actress actually could at acting/said role?
I mean, if the person in question can actually fulfill the role does it matter what their real life snowflake status is? I thought that was the intention of an actor.
A: Does the actor/actress in question possess the physical attributes necessary to portray said character...
B: Is the actor/actress actually could at acting/said role?
I mean, if the person in question can actually fulfill the role does it matter what their real life snowflake status is? I thought that was the intention of an actor.
No. C'mon.MarsAtlas said:
I'm on your side in this issue- it shoulda been a trans actor, there was no reason for it not to be- but this reasoning? This constant false dichotomy between laying down for the whipping and treating every dissenting opinion like The Enemy? It's the least constructive thing you could ever perpetuate.
I've explained feminism to dudebros.
I've explained transgender issues to old conservatives who thought it was perversion.
I've explained black issues to white bread that carry guns like a badge of honor.
And, shockingly, they understood. Why? Because I didn't take shortcuts. I did the work of helping them to understand, instead of assuming they were just bad people. Arguing for things- even good things- is hard, but the righteousness of your cause is not ever going to trump the need to communicate effectively. Every argument you win that way creates five more of the dismissive types that go "LOL SJW" and leave.
Nobody ever said doing the right thing was easy or fair.
A: Physical attributes are a non-issue due to make-up, props, and camera tricks and they have been as such for a long time.Jarek Mace said:
B: In this case, no, it was pretty much using Eddie Redmayne as Oscar bait in a "progressive" role so that cis folk can pat themselves on the back.
There are all sorts of problems with getting a person in a particular role when they don't have an appropriate frame of reference for the role. A cis man is the wrong choice to play a trans woman for two major reasons: First they have no experience of gender dysphoria, a condition that really lacks effective analogues. Second is that don't know what it's like to identify as a woman. Then there is the more subversive and worse issue: Using a cisgender man to portray a trans woman typically underscores a serious and destructive misconception that trans women are men.
Also using terms like "special snowflake status" is really kind of condescending. People don't get to choose their own birth sex, nor their gender identity, which means trans folk don't get to choose to be trans. If that were possible, no one would ever choose it, because of how awful a life experience it is.
I understand exactly what you're saying, whenever I have to explain transgender concepts to people I try to be patient. At the same time what you're saying really smacks of tone policing(fantastic comic btw) [http://www.robot-hugs.com/tone-policing/]. It's important to remember that to people who have to deal with the issue on a daily basis we get frustrated, also people who fit into a grouping like transgender tend to be passionate about the subject. Which means that it's really difficult to separate emotion and reason, which isn't always necessary anyways. Also keep in mind that a lot of trans folk have been through a significant amount of trauma, just because of being trans. Which can make well intentioned questions and statements sound hostile, thus provoking sarcastic, cynical, or just plain angry responses. Especially because us trans folk are constantly bombarded with "well intentioned" questions and comments, that are more often than not inappropriate, or backhanded and condescending.Norithics said:
Also I hope when you explained trans issues to old conservatives, you didn't perpetuate the myth that all trans folk get, or even want sexual reassignment surgery. I mean holy blazing hell is that a really uncomfortable stigma. I hate being asked the question "have you had your operation yet?" then being reclassified back into the category of male because I really can't fathom needing SRS to be my self.
The movie is largely agreed among trans people to be a shallow, surface level performance at best, frequently dipping into offensive caricature territory.Jarek Mace said:
So yeah, we have considered it. Many of us were really hoping it would be a great movie. I know I was. But it fails in the same way cis performances of trans characters almost always fail.
Oh Jesus. I am trying to research and build a intersex character and seeing the enormous info dumps on transexuals alone makes me think that no matter what I do, no matter how much I research, I am going to fuck up and piss people off.