The Danish Girl - Transgender Issues in the 1920s

[THM]

My god. This thread. I wish I'd brought pop corn.

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.

What's astounding is that those Three Little Letters haven't been mentioned.

 

[Proto Taco]

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.

 

[Jarek Mace]

...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.

 

[Norithics]

Yeah, we should just take it and be grateful for the table scraps that we're given from our almighty overlords who are the reason for such disenfranchisment in the first place.

No. C'mon.

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.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

...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: Physical attributes are a non-issue due to make-up, props, and camera tricks and they have been as such for a long time.
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.

Yeah, we should just take it and be grateful for the table scraps that we're given from our almighty overlords who are the reason for such disenfranchisment in the first place.

No. C'mon.

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.

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.

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.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

...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.

The movie is largely agreed among trans people to be a shallow, surface level performance at best, frequently dipping into offensive caricature territory.

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.

 

[Saulkar]

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.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

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.

Congratulations, you've just found the root of SJW mentality: in their worldview it's not who people are, but rather what they are that's most important about them. Ie. they will view a person first and foremost as their gender, sexuality, race etc. instead of, say, their personality, their aspirations, their knowledge of the world, their philosophy, their skills, their achievements and so on. I sure hope you didn't start writing this character on the basis of "I'm going to make a transgender character".

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

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.

Well as luck would have it, fictional characters are a lot easier to get away with than trying to use a person who actually existed. Which should give you a lot more freedom to do what you want. So long as the character isn't designed to be a joke you should do fine with just about everyone, except for people who are really offended that intersex and transgender people even actually exist. Although looking at the responses, there are going to people who shout at you for being a "SJW" because you decided to write a trans or intersex character.

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.

Oh, definitely. If the people on this thread are anything to go by, you're doomed from the start. SJW's always like to make people feel bad.

Yes because people who criticize a sanitized and fictionalized portrayal of a historically important person who actually lived, like Lili Elbe, are just terrible SJWs out to make people feel bad. Right? It's not because the portrayal was bad, the acting was bad, or that the casting choices are seen as dismissive and insulting. Right? Because people can't disagree with what you think, other wise they're just evil SJWs. Right?

Spare me, that statement is a none to subtle potshot taken at the trans folk who are pointing out the problems with not only this movie, but also a flawed portrayal based on bad novelization of a real person, that was casted in an insulting way.

Congratulations, you've just found the root of SJW mentality: in their worldview it's not who people are, but rather what they are that's most important about them. Ie. they will view a person first and foremost as their gender, sexuality, race etc. instead of, say, their personality, their aspirations, their knowledge of the world, their philosophy, their skills, their achievements and so on. I sure hope you didn't start writing this character on the basis of "I'm going to make a transgender character".

Sure it's not like being trans gender isn't a really massive stand out thing about a person, because you know gender identity has nothing to do with a person's personality. Nothing at all. That things like race, sex, gender identity, sexuality, and religion do actually effect people's philosophy and view of the world.

Nope, lets just take another potshot at the "SJW" boogie man as a means of invalidating the very valid criticisms that the people, who this movie is supposed to represent, have with this movie.

 

[Terminal Blue]

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.

The problem here is that certain classes of people are continually burdened with the responsibility of justifying basic features of their existence. That doesn't work in reverse, and therefore it represents an unequal distribution of power within the relationship. All the people on this thread being transphobic assholes aren't burdened with the fear that their actions will reflect badly on cisgendered people, they don't care if we (speaking generally for minority positions) understand or not because they don't have to care.

The actual root of transphobia, I think, lies in that automatic assumption of the power to judge, that trans people should fear what cis people think of them but not the reverse. There is a danger in going along with that, I think, even with the best intentions, because doing so also serves as a dehumanization of the people you're trying to defend. "Trans people are bad/wrong/harmful/perverts" can't really be countered with "no, trans people are good/right/harmless/normal", because that still assumes the right to judge, it preserves the underlying power imbalance of that situation.

Trans people are humans and humans get angry, humans will respond defensively to attacks on themselves, humans do not have limitless patience. Acceptance for trans people cannot be contingent on being more than what they are, which is human.

 

[Something Amyss]

The same happens with trans actors and actresses. They "don't look trans enough". It comes down to the same thing, regardless of what group is being represented, and its that they don't care about genuinely representing the person or people group in question, they want to represent one that is convenient to their own sensibilities.

I recently read that the people behind ReBoot originally set out to hire an Asian actor to play the character Phong--who was already dodgy in my eyes. Then I found out they hired a white guy because none of the Asians sounded "Asian enough." I know the 90s are now 20 years ago, but this is far more recent than I think most people would expect from racial casting.

Most people, mind.

I'd actually be kind of shocked to find out this still didn't happen to black people. We just don't resort to hiring white dudes in blackface anymore.

Yeah, we should just take it and be grateful for the table scraps that we're given from our almighty overlords who are the reason for such disenfranchisment in the first place.

The strange thing about this is that I would never go and say something like that. I'm the one who's too worried about hurting the cishetwhitedude's feels. Mostly because I've got a bad history of getting hurt when they get upset (#notallcishetwhitedudes, mind). But thanks for the quote, I would have missed this otherwise.

I have yet to see you make a single post that didn't talk down to someone. If I was a disaffected minority I would hate to have you in my corner.

You might actually feel different if you were part of said disenfranchised minority. You might actually want me to be more aggressive, and "talk down" to people more. I could probably point you to people who "talking down" to them helped them understand sexuality and gender identity issues, given I've been thanked multiple times for my insight on this board alone.

But then, I spend most of my time on this board addressing my friends, so if what you're saying is accurate, it means I talk down to them. Somehow, they don't seem to feel the same. Are you sure you're providing an accurate claim?

Probably not.

I am a member of a disenfranchised minority. Multiple. Including minorities of relevance to both the film and the topics it explores. So while you're talking hypotheticals, I'm not. It's probably in poor taste to tell me what you would want at the expense of what the minority in question does want. Especially when that includes me.

That seems remarkably tone deaf.

Is this "talking down," or simply being earnest? I would opt for the latter.

This constant false dichotomy between laying down for the whipping and treating every dissenting opinion like The Enemy?

Except I don't think anyone here has actually done that latter one. It's not a false dichotomy between those. You have taken fairly mild responses and turned them into "treating every dissenting opinion like The Enemy." That's pretty much a false dichotomy in and of itself.

What I get from discourses like this is that no amount of treading on eggshells will ever be sufficient, that there is no way to possibly coddle people enough. So why even be earnest? Why not just offer up a snide, sarcastic remark (and Jim knows I am more than capable)? Because that one actually won't get anywhere.

Even though I doubt your sincerity. Even though I doubt you actually care about the welfare of the minority being disenfranchised.

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.

Weirdly enough, I can point you to quite a few cisgender folk who don't manage to piss trans people off.

...well, I can't say I watch them 24-7, but still.

Congratulations, you've just found the root of SJW mentality: in their worldview it's not who people are, but rather what they are that's most important about them. Ie. they will view a person first and foremost as their gender, sexuality, race etc. instead of, say, their personality, their aspirations, their knowledge of the world, their philosophy, their skills, their achievements and so on. I sure hope you didn't start writing this character on the basis of "I'm going to make a transgender character".

I'd be interested in finding someone who wasn't at least somewhat influenced by being trans. I mean, you can say this, but saying this sounds like one can completely separate everything they are from issues that impact them on a personal level every day. Especially since people will make it an issue. Do you really feel that way?

Also, it ain't the "SJWs" who tend to make this an issue that impacts you routinely.

 

[THM]

Congratulations, you've just found the root of SJW mentality: in their worldview it's not who people are, but rather what they are that's most important about them. Ie. they will view a person first and foremost as their gender, sexuality, race etc. instead of, say, their personality, their aspirations, their knowledge of the world, their philosophy, their skills, their achievements and so on.

You got that right. Also, congrats; you've managed to sum up this entire thread in one short paragraph. And the sad thing is, this viewpoint will NEVER be happy, no matter how 'sensitive' or 'accurate' the material is.

On the wider topic, one thing that mystifies me about the criticism of this movie - it's a Hollywood biopic. Since when has anything put out of that system with the words 'based on a true story' EVER been perfectly nuanced, emotionally perfect, or even vaguely accurate? Since when has it ever been able or willing to capture the actual person, faults and all? It never has, and to be honest, it's foolish to expect the Hollywood system to ever do so. No matter how 'worthy' the subject matter might be.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

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.

If you don't mind my asking, what is the character for, and what is the intent of the character? If your intention is an examination of the issues, then you are going to be under a lot of scrutiny (which is why The Danish Girl is getting so much flak.) But if you are just making a character who happens to be intersex then you should have a much, much easier time of it. Try walking before you run.

It might interest you to know that my favorite portrayals of fictional trans characters are all by cis people. Just treat the character as a person and not a ball of tropes and you should be fine.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Congratulations, you've just found the root of SJW mentality: in their worldview it's not who people are, but rather what they are that's most important about them. Ie. they will view a person first and foremost as their gender, sexuality, race etc. instead of, say, their personality, their aspirations, their knowledge of the world, their philosophy, their skills, their achievements and so on.

You got that right. Also, congrats; you've managed to sum up this entire thread in one short paragraph. And the sad thing is, this viewpoint will NEVER be happy, no matter how 'sensitive' or 'accurate' the material is.

On the wider topic, one thing that mystifies me about the criticism of this movie - it's a Hollywood biopic. Since when has anything put out of that system with the words 'based on a true story' EVER been perfectly nuanced, emotionally perfect, or even vaguely accurate? Since when has it ever been able or willing to capture the actual person, faults and all? It never has, and to be honest, it's foolish to expect the Hollywood system to ever do so. No matter how 'worthy' the subject matter might be.

I will never, ever understand this view. I really cannot see how the fact that Hollywood is consistently shit is a reason for people to not point out that Hollywood is consistently shit, especially in instances like this where so many people are insisting Hollywood is not shit.

 

[THM]

I will never, ever understand this view. I really cannot see how the fact that Hollywood is consistently shit is a reason for people to not point out that Hollywood is consistently shit, especially in instances like this where so many people are insisting Hollywood is not shit.

I don't think I actually said that, though you're right; trying to ensure that Hollywood drags itself out of that pit is a good thing to do. It's just that you also have to recognise the reality around you; yes, movies like this should be getting better (and they won't unless enough people convince the makers to do so), but at the same time big-budget, Oscar-bait, Hollywood biopic - those three descriptors are recognisable to anyone that watches movies, and you have to brace yourself accordingly. Of course, that doesn't mean you should passively gobble up whatever Hollywood shits out, either.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

I will never, ever understand this view. I really cannot see how the fact that Hollywood is consistently shit is a reason for people to not point out that Hollywood is consistently shit, especially in instances like this where so many people are insisting Hollywood is not shit.

I don't think I actually said that, though you're right; trying to ensure that Hollywood drags itself out of that pit is a good thing to do. It's just that you also have to recognise the reality around you; yes, movies like this should be getting better (and they won't unless enough people convince the makers to do so), but at the same time big-budget, Oscar-bait, Hollywood biopic - those three descriptors are recognizable to anyone that watches movies, and you have to brace yourself accordingly. Of course, that doesn't mean you should passively gobble up whatever Hollywood shits out, either.

Well I guess I misunderstood, my bad.

 

[THM]

Well I guess I misunderstood, my bad.

No problem.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Its funny you say that because you've purported that its "diversity of thought" that matters. Well you want to know the secret to diversity of thought? Its diversity of experience. If everybody has experienced the same thing they're going to think the same way. You know who hasn't shared the same experiences as everybody else? Marginalized minorities. Not necessarily the "minority" part but the "marginalized" part, though they're practically synonymous since there are few minorities that aren't strongly marginalized. Things might be different a hundred years from now but its not a hundred years from now and we can't act as such.

Um... can you elaborate on this? Because from what's here it seems you're implying that unless you're part of a marginalized minority, you're going to be exactly like everyone else. And that's horseshit of the highest order. Who is this "everybody else" that you're talking about? What "experiences"? And the part I've bolded is a prime example of the borderline dehumanizing collectivist thinking that plagues so much of the discussion on these issues. No, everyone is not going to think the same even if they've experienced the same thing. Not on singular issues, not in terms of entire lifespans. People are not blank slates.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Forgive the ignorance but I don't see the controversy. Isn't this the story of a guy who starts dressing up and decides he wants to look like a woman? Why not cast a guy?

 

[Something Amyss]

Forgive the ignorance but I don't see the controversy. Isn't this the story of a guy who starts dressing up and decides he wants to look like a woman? Why not cast a guy?

She didn't want to look like a woman, she was a woman. This wasn't about cosmetics, either. This is a woman who underrwent experimental surgeries that eventually cost her her life, including a uterine transplant.

As a guy, would you do that?