The Danish Girl - Transgender Issues in the 1920s
- Thread starter Marter
- Start date
A: If that's so then we wouldn't pick actors based on roles. We wouldn't pick a black actor for that film about that famous American footballer from the ghetto (Big Mike was it? I don't know). We'd be casting Johnny Depp as God, and Morgan Freeman as Jack Sparrow. Both an individuals skill at fulfilling a certain role as well as physical characteristic does still play a role. There is still only so much make-up can do; something I'm sure someone with gender dysphoria knows full well.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
B: Do you know that though? Like, do you think that we created and watched it for the purpose of going "Aha! Another victory for the cis man!" Because I really don't think we did. It's like the narrative that using a female and a black male in the new Star Wars film is those gosh darn feminazi's infiltrating Hollywood.
"First the yhave no experience of gender dysphoria" And Johnny Depp had no experience of piracy. Samuel Jackson had no experience of being a Jedi Knight. Jack Nicholson - despite what I suspect - has no experience of being insane (which he is in basically every movie). I could continue this list for a very, very long time. It's not so much a deep rooted understanding of the role as it is a physical representation of the role that should accurately portray the character at hand through both appearance and acting prowess.
"trans women are men" Look, this getting confusing for everyone. Was the character in question biologically a woman or a man?
Really? Do you have the power to see into other timelines or something?Johnny Novgorod said:
Regardless, shouldn't that tell you something about the person in question?
You have no idea how quickly that can change.
Annnnnnnnnnnd... why is that a problem? One of the themes I am trying to tackle is how the characters came to be the way they are, how their upbringing and environment influenced them up to that point.bartholen said:
I guess so. The character himself is not intended as a joke, in fact, he is quite serious and intense but loves to catch people off guard with light-hearted humour if he catches you staring. He is inspired by a real person I met once who humorously commited several self-faux-pas to say that nothing was off limits when talking. She also honestly did not care whether you called her a him or her though had a preference for the latter. This was six or seven years ago and much of what we talked about was without personal context so I remember very little.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
I have always been curious how people get by in their brain space in dystopian settings with different backgrounds/upbringings and economical and social standings. The character (I am liking the name Kelly) is one of maybe a half-dozen secondary main characters (vs the three main) that I want to explore in a tech-noir fantasy setting.ThatOtherGirl said:
I am curious as to what would happen to an intersex person of a poor upbringing at a time when the medical technology to "correct" the "mis-development" is there but a lack of free medicine and a continued debate on the ethics of non-consensual medical practices is still raging (for motives unknown). Corrective surgery is the expected societal norm but access is highly limited (to medicine in general), even to the critics of those opposed to it (if they needed it). Some very heavy stuff but I want to create a strong character with a place in the story first and work backwards from there as I learn more myself. Showing upfront how he holds and sees himself and the why over time.
He is genetically male and saw himself that way but had ambiguous genitalia and an androgynous appearance so his parents tried to make him more effeminate, even spent money to make his genitals fully female but could not afford any further procedures. Due to that incident and other people's confused but (in their eyes) well meaning treatment of him as he grew he became very wary when people imply that they have his interests at heart. Often seeing other people's good will to him as a hidden inner agenda to conform him to their own expectations even further.
Furthermore he acted with an intensely stoic and uninviting reserve due to his overall distrustfullness of other's intents which led to even more detachment of others which led to an even greater misunderstanding of social interactions and norms. He does not know how to act around others and so defaults to a wooden and stoic, borderline autistic persona to avoid committing a faux-pas or talking about himself.
However, despite all this, he still fears being alone. He does not want to be perceived as unlikeable which shows through in his willingness to express infrequent but genuine humour. A coping method he developed as a child and maintained into adulthood. His attire and effects reflects his reserved outward persona as it tends to be formal but devoid of personality or statement with his overall appearance being androgynous.
Furthermore he acted with an intensely stoic and uninviting reserve due to his overall distrustfullness of other's intents which led to even more detachment of others which led to an even greater misunderstanding of social interactions and norms. He does not know how to act around others and so defaults to a wooden and stoic, borderline autistic persona to avoid committing a faux-pas or talking about himself.
However, despite all this, he still fears being alone. He does not want to be perceived as unlikeable which shows through in his willingness to express infrequent but genuine humour. A coping method he developed as a child and maintained into adulthood. His attire and effects reflects his reserved outward persona as it tends to be formal but devoid of personality or statement with his overall appearance being androgynous.
It is not grim-dark if you are wondering, I would definitely hope for it to be mistaken for an action comedy in a science fantasy setting with the real meat hiding in plain sight for those who care to look. A game of putting 2 and 2 together as the story progresses as I hope to show much more than tell. Subjects like trans-humanism, speciesism, crony capitalism, safety vs security, nihilism, apathy, and the power of abstract and societal constructs will be additional themes. An enormous undertaking but nothing is written in stone and I am hoping that if I keep it light-hearted enough while remaining respectful that I can pull it off in a series of short 3D films.
Non-sequitur argument number one: Casting white people in the roles of ethnic minorities is a classic tactic of excluding ethnic minorities from film, thus one of the primary motives to cast people who match the race of the role is to prevent exclusion. Accuracy is also a motive, but the prime reason against casting any white person in the role of any ethnic minority is generally is because of the history of racist exclusion Hollywood has.Jarek Mace said:
Non-sequitur argument number two: Morgan Freeman was cast as god in Bruce Almighty and Evan Almighty, because he's known for roles where he can play a benevolently authoritative role. Like when he's played President of the United States in the past. Johnny Depp was cast as Jack Sparrow because Jack Sparrow is a very eccentric character, roles that Johnny Depp is well known for doing very well. Race in this case had absolutely to do with the casting in either case, except for them having specific actors in mind for the role, but race was not a central characteristic to either role, to say it was is a load of bullshit.
The actual point: In the case of Lili Elbe, as a trans woman she was never really a man by her gender identity, she was also a real person, casting a man in the role is doing the opposite of what the trans community has been working for. Also Lili Elbe was intersex, which further invalidates the idea of casting a man in the role. To be judged base on who we are, not the biology of our bodies. Also casting of cis actors is used to exclude trans actors from leading roles, which is the same thing Hollywood did to ethnic minorities in the past.
I never said it was about "Another victory for the cis man" so stop misrepresenting me. What I said is that the subject matter in the movie and the way it was presented was obvious in it's intention. That intention is a politically correct pat on the back about people saying; "look how progressive, tolerant, and accepting we are", while at the same blatantly being intended to win an Oscar. It has nothing to do with "Aha! Another victory for the cis man!" or what ever. The Oscar bating is also backed up that they picked Eddie Redmayne for the role, because he won an Oscar in another biopic, The Theory of Everything, for playing Stephen Hawking.Jarek Mace said:
That's a false equivalence in the first two cases. Pirate and Jedi are jobs, not mental conditions. On the other hand Jack Nicholson is picked to play psychotic villains, which if anything shows how bad Hollywood is at portraying people with mental illnesses. Still the experiences of someone with a mental illness are actually easier to explain than gender dysphoria, because mental illness is more well known and understood by most people, especially when compared to gender dysphoria.Jarek Mace said:
You still defend the point of physical representation, where a woman could much more easily portray someone who identifies as a woman. Again it's only ever acceptable for a man to play a woman in a serious film when the woman is a trans woman, that is a blatant double standard based on the bias of viewing trans women as "actully a man". Falling back on "acting prowess" and "appearance" are both tissue paper weak excuses to not address a harmful bias.
Lili Elbe was a real person, not just a character, it's believed she was intersex, but assigned as male at birth by a doctor, because of ambiguous genitals. So the question of was she biologically a man or woman, well you could easily say one, the other, both, or neither because she was intersex. She identified as a woman so she was a woman and that's all there is to it.Jarek Mace said:
Edit: Actually thinking about it I'm going to go ahead and amend my position. Jack Nicholson playing violent psychopaths is bullshit too, but that's because Hollywood portrayals of the mental ill are insulting bullshit too. They really need to get people who suffer the exact mental illness they're trying portray to, at the very minimum, advise on these roles. As it stands the portrayals of the mentally ill done by Hollywood are also shit, just like portrayals of transgender folk and the disabled.
OI LISTEN!!!
All this bullshit about the actor being trans or cis, is just that. BULLSHIT.
He is an actor, and he just happened to be the actor who could carry the role the best. What he is in private has ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING BEARING on how he carries the role.
Actors are chameleons. They are supposed to look the part (not be a carbon-copy of the person the part was inspired by).
All this bullshit about the actor being trans or cis, is just that. BULLSHIT.
He is an actor, and he just happened to be the actor who could carry the role the best. What he is in private has ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING BEARING on how he carries the role.
Actors are chameleons. They are supposed to look the part (not be a carbon-copy of the person the part was inspired by).
An actors ability to carry a role is contingent on their understanding of the role. If they do not understand the relevant aspects of the character their ability to accurately and effectively play the character is greatly diminished. However, these disadvantages can be overcome.MrFalconfly said:
In this case, Eddie Redmayne had at least three significant hurdles of understanding to over come. First, he lacks the perspective on the world that trans people have. Second, he lacks an understanding of gender dysphoria (and how that can drive a person toward a transition), which has proven to be near impossible to communicate. Third, he lacks the perspective a trans person has on transitioning.
All three of these things were central to the depiction of the character.
So the question: Did he overcome his disadvantage? It is largely agreed among trans people that the portrayal was shallow at best, an all around disappointing failure. The performance was deeply flawed in every one of those three areas. Thus, he did not overcome his natural disadvantage in playing this part.
Even in the absence of all other valid considerations, and there are a lot of them arguably more important than than this, a trans person is always going to have a significant advantage in depicting a trans person, especially a depiction that focuses heavily on trans issues.
Maybe, but the amount of hurdles the actor had to overcome shouldn't have any bearing on whether he/she was the right choice. Whether he was able to overcome said hurdles on the other hand would be the metric on which one could judge whether the actor was the correct choice.ThatOtherGirl said:
I do get rather bored of the X person should play X role for no other reason than they may be X that's not what acting is, acting is learning to fill a role not play yourself in a movie, trans actors can fill other parts there is no reason for them to 'need' to play trans rolls its type casting and rather boring as a whole
Not to mention the absolutely fallacious idea that only people who have personally been through an experience can properly imitate that experience in a film or on stage. So should a straight actor never portray a gay character? That's absolute bullshit. The whole point of acting, hell in storytelling, is finding universality in people and situations so they speak to the larger audience. Saying because you aren't born trans you can't possibly understand the experiance of being trans, to me sounds like you just seem to think humans lack any or all ability to empathize with others.MrFalconfly said:
Also as a comment to the surgery question. If you are going through an expensive and dangerous surgery to get a uterus implanted in you and you have no eggs or hell even know if your body will be able to support that organ in its function of carrying children... then I'd say that's a frivolous surgery that's a needless danger to yourself. Every time you go under the knife its a danger, and to do so for something that literally has no benefit other than MAYBE alleviating anxiety is insane. Sorry its impossible to seeing the slim benefits as in anyway justifying those risks. Sure free society its peoples own risks to take, but you can't expect people not to see you as insane if you take said risks for so little a benefit.
The problem with comparing the experiences of someone whose gay/lesbian with someone whose straight, to someone who is trans with someone is cis, is that sexuality and gender identity are vastly different. Homosexuality anymore is a well known orientation for one thing, it's also more generally accepted and gaining more and more acceptance, but the key factor is that the vast majority of people understand sexual arousal, romantic emotion, and emotions of love and attachment. Variant gender identities, by which I mean every non-cisgender gender identity, like transgender, bigender, agender, genderqueer, genderfluid, and other non-binary identities aren't well understood. For that matter a primary condition related to variant gender identities, gender dysphoria, isn't even really well understood by most specialists who haven't experienced it. Part of the reason for that is because it's nearly impossible to accurately explain the sort of emotions that gender dysphoria causes, it's really a systemic existential issue, that most people can't comprehend. Also most people who haven't experienced such emotional states, who say that they understand, don't actually understand, because they're working with misconceptions based on biological essentialist views of sex phenotype and inaccurate assumptions about how trans people feel.The Material Sheep said:
Having said that, there really hasn't been an argument that cisgender people can't portray trans folk, the argument has been that they've been going about it the wrong way. All of the defenses of cis people playing trans folk, have been defending the exact same misconception, that being that physical biological phenotype trumps personal identity in every category. Which causes casting directors and directors in Hollywood to cast cisgender men in the roles of transgender women and cisgender women in the roles of transgender men. That's a bit backwards because it reduces both men and women to penises and vaginae respectively, completely disregarding identity. Which is why the trans folk, as you can see here in this very thread, would prefer it if at least they had cis women play the roles of trans woman, while cis men play the roles of trans men. Casting based on a biological sex phenotype bias is basically reducing people to their sexual reproductive organs, it's not hard to see why that's a massive middle finger to the trans community. Ideally it'd be best trans women and trans men in the roles of trans women and trans men respectively, but if trans characters became common, talent might start running short, if we're being totally realistic. Especially considering how Hollywood builds it's talent pool, i.e. it's nearly impossible to build a name for yourself regard less of sexuality, gender identity, or birth sex. Really because to get your foot in the door in film at any level, you have to have connections with people already known in the business.
Still the one thing that I can't stress enough: Being gay/lesbian is not directly comparable to being trans. They're not even remotely the same thing. In romance and sexuality there is universal similarities and connections that can be made regardless of weather one's straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or pansexual. In gender identity, there are fundamental differences that are too difficult to express and too misunderstood for there to be universal understanding. Also people make too many assumptions based on biology, which leads to a bias that causes irreconcilable differences between cisgender attitudes regarding transgenderism, and the reality of transgenderism.
Well I'll address the question of anxiety first. Gender dysphoria isn't just anxiety, it also causes depression, alienation from one's own self, self loathing, body image issues, and plethora of issues, like bouts of soul crushing sadness that makes people just break down. As for the question of the surgery, I can't tell you how many trans women would give up most of their lives for the ability to be biological mothers, or how much trans men would give up to be biological fathers. One thing that the majority trans folk want in the most ideal situation, is to be biologically and functionally the same as we identify. That's also one of the reasons trans folk find the idea of a medication that could cure transgenderism and gender dysphoria terrifying, because it'd be literally changing who we are on a fundamental level.That's why things like uterine and penile transplants are so attractive to trans folk, it's the freaking holy grail to us to be fully sexually and reproductively functional as the gender we identify as. So you say it's just about "MAYBE alleviating anxiety", but that's not true, it's about so much more than that. For a lot of us, giving up our lives in the name of scientific and medical advancement is also attractive, because if we can't have the benefit for ourselves, then maybe we can help enable future trans folk to reap that benefit.The Material Sheep said:
No one is saying that being trans is the same as being gay.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
The only thing people say is that the actor doesn't have to be trans to portray a trans character, just like an actor wouldn't have to be cis just to portray a cis character.
EDIT:
Well maybe saying "no one" is hyperbole. What I meant to say was that at least, I never said it. The only thing that I've said was that the only factor worthy of consideration in this would be the actors ability, not what the actor likes in private, who they like to do in the bedroom, or what they identify as when they aren't acting.
You know, I have a temper. I really do. I am ever so desperately trying to control it but right now its getting funneled into sheer frustration and it shouldn't be, but it is.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
"Casting white people in the roles of ethnic minorities is a classic tactic of excluding ethnic minorities from film" What, during the 40's? Is it not true that characters who at one stage were white were rewritten as black? Was it not recently that we just got black Hermione? I will concede that her race was never stated, but its almost universally agreed upon through popular opinion that she was white. Personally, don't care if she's white or black - but there's an example. Here's another, that strange modern retelling of Romeo and Juliet starring Leonardo Di Capri-Sun, if memory serves Marcutio (feel free to correct if you know your Shakespeare) was played by a black guy - yes, it's a modern retelling, but just look through modern plays and be prepared to spot a ton of black characters in roles that for various reasons would be white. There's no crime in it and it's not something that bothers me, but there you have it.
"thus one of the primary motives to cast people who match the race of the role is to prevent exclusion." Or, OR! Get this, it's because they physically match the role at hand, which is realistically what we should be looking at. I feel as if I've hopped in a time machine right now.
"Morgan Freeman was cast as god in Bruce Almighty and Evan Almighty, because he's known for roles where he can play a benevolently authoritative role" Oh good, we're on the same page then? Cut the argument short.
"Race in this case had absolutely to do with the casting in either case, except for them having specific actors in mind for the role, but race was not a central characteristic to either role, to say it was is a load of bullshit."
Whilst we're utilising phrases we don't quite get, here's one for you: Strawman. Depp and Freeman were casted because they can play certain roles, I fail to see where your movie outrage differs. I used the example of Big Mike for race, don't twist my words - cheers.
"In the case of Lili Elbe, as a trans woman she was never really a man by her gender identity, she was also a real person, casting a man in the role is doing the opposite of what the trans community has been working for."
Right, okay. I'm a man of science, and I like these equations simple.
-She is a woman
-That isn't a man
-Was real
So like, what's the issue? So I read on. He/She (Yes, I will do that until I can determine what the hell is going on).
Sexual organs were ambigious - not really male or female
Closest doctors could derive was male
Didn't really feel male
Said she 'identified' as female.
Okay, please correct me if that's wrong.
Fair enough, if that's the case that the biology was confused then male and female can work, and maybe female might have been right, but if the closest they could relate the individual too was male, then should the biological individual - not the mental - be male?
"the trans community has been working for" Have you though? And because you feel as if you know better (same logic applies to me, I totally admit that) doesn't mean you necessarily do. Don't mean that to be rude so please, keep cool, but the world see's biology - you see psychology.
"was intersex" so in theory should that not make it 50/50? If 'she' looked like a 'he' but wanted to be a 'she' despite looking like a 'he' should 'she' not be a 'he' in terms of actor? That being said, if intersex, you've got a point. Won't argue about that.
"To be judged base on who we are, not the biology of our bodies." Totally agree, I love the idea of meritocrasy and you fall right on it. I don't care if you have breasts and balls or balls and no breasts, or whatever inbetween. That being said, since The Escapist has moved quite... left over the years I dread to say it but: our biology can very much effect who we are.
"I never said it was about "Another victory for the cis man" so stop misrepresenting me. What I said is that the subject matter in the movie and the way it was presented was obvious in it's intention. That intention is a politically correct pat on the back about people saying; "look how progressive, tolerant, and accepting we are" You misrepresented me but hey-ho, that's life. You've simply reiterated your point and to be frank, it looks exactly the same to me as my brief summary did. Ever considered that they thought "hey, cool story, might make money, dosh. Make movie" Because y'know, money is a thing.
"Eddie Redmayne for the role, because he won an Oscar in another biopic"
So he's a good actor at fulfilling a certain movie gen- Ah balls to it, nevermind.
"That's a false equivalence in the first two cases. Pirate and Jedi are jobs, not mental conditions." And overwhelmingly they come with different sorts of people that require certain mental conditions, like the ability to brutally rob and murder, or to be emotionless.
"Still the experiences of someone with a mental illness are actually easier to explain than gender dysphoria, because mental illness is more well known and understood by most people, especially when compared to gender dysphoria." That's a load of tripe and we know both know that. Mental illness is horribly represented in the media.
"Falling back on "acting prowess" and "appearance" are both tissue paper weak excuses to not address a harmful bias." Uh, no, they're reasons why we pick actors. I really don't care for identities, identity politics of the sort. I'm not keen on the idea of seeing a piss-poor actor who looks nothing like the depicted issue play them for more reasons than I care to count.
"She identified as a woman so she was a woman and that's all there is to it." Yeah but there's not. Look, I can't help but be mean because I'm crass. I don't mean to mock or insult but this is literally the only way I can think to put it. If I identify as a jellyfish, doesn't mean I am. If I identify as a millionaire that's a lie because I work in the worst of jobs for the worst of pay. Intersex is certainly an exception, I admit. But in cases where biological sex is clear cut, it's not that simple. Visual perception is a huge factor, and visual perception doesn't see polygender, trigender, or the many genders that have now cropped up - it see's one of two biological genders. I'm sorry, that's how it is.
I'm not even accusing anyone of saying that being trans is the same as being gay, but people conflate the experiences as being directly comparable. The whole point is that they're not, one thing about transgenderism is gender dysphoria, which is a condition that's really hard to get across with the most understanding and open minded person.MrFalconfly said:
Also I never said an actor has to be trans to portray a trans character, but that's how it'd be done in an ideal situation. The other point is that acting prowess can be absolutely meaningless in this case, if the actor or actress fails to understand trangender experiences. Finally having a cisgender man play a transgender woman, or a cisgender woamn play a transgender man, is an issue because it's conveying the wrong messages. That it's reinforcing the bias that both transgender folk and cisgender folk are defined by the genitals we have, which is insulting in how stupidly reductionist it is to reduce someone's person to the genitals they happen to possess.
The issue is, black face and exclusion of minorities like Chinese and Hispanics from playing Chinese and Hispanic roles aren't that old of a tactic.Jarek Mace said:
The modern examples you use don't change the history, they don't get rid of the pain that the history caused, and up until very recently it was still a common thing to do.
Now it's not a crime to exclude people from a project due to biases, but it's still not really morally justifiable either.
That would work if people were vastly different physically based on race, they're not. The fact is the history is still an open wound in Hollywood, especially to minority actors and actresses, because people still remember a time when actors and actresses of minorities were excluded for their race.Jarek Mace said:
Well exactly, apparently below I mistyped and left out a word: When I said "absolutely", there was supposed to be a "nothing"Jarek Mace said:
Again I meant "race had absolute nothing to do with the casting in either case". Hopefully that clears up any confusion. The point being in the case of those roles, race had nothing to do with characters in question on a personality level. The reference to Big Mike, has flown over my head though, but it's also not really important, because we seem to agree on principal.Jarek Mace said:
You should look up what intersex [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex] means if you want to be scientific about it.Jarek Mace said:
There are two things at work here, first is that intersex is a third category that falls outside the norms of male and female biology, so it's generally considered correct to default to how the person identifies. This is especially important because intersex states often come accompanied by hormonal imbalances, infertility, and malformed sexual organs. I know several intersex people who were assigned a gender at birth based on their most prominent genitals, they've had to transition because the doctors made the wrong fucking assumption and caused them gender dysphoria.Jarek Mace said:
Edit: To clarify these people who got assigned the wrong gender at birth had their genitals "corrected" to fit the assigned gender as infants. As a result the doctors in question fucked up their entire lives. That's why more recent developments in the study of intersex are to not assign a definite gender at birth. So that no additional harm is inflicted.
Now, the world does not see biology, it sees presentation. We do not going around checking each other's genitals to determine weather to identify someone as female, or male. We determine that by the way they present themselves. Defaulting to biology is both reductionist and an active attempt to invalidate a person's identity. As an example, I pass very well as female, but not as male, so people who meet me automatically consider me female, most of the time they never know I'm a trans woman unless I out my self, or get outed by someone else. They certainly don't check my genitals to confirm my biological sex. For one biological sex isn't the same as gender, so stop conflating the two, for two if someone presents as the gender identify as, then their genitals and chromosomes are no one else's business. The only time it becomes someone else's business is for intimacy, or between doctor and patient, both of which are supposed to be confidential situations anyways.
By all accounts Lili Elbe was very effiminate before transition, so a woman probably would have been better for the role. In the case of all trans portrayals the post transition image presented is very important, using a man to portray a post transition trans woman, is really just defaulting to the "ugly tranny is really a man" trope. Alright? I'm trans, as such I'm very sensitive to these sort of things, most cis people don't get it, but virtually all trans folk do. When it comes to issues like these it's always, alway more important to listen to the community you intend to represent, than it is to run under potentially incorrect assumptions. When it comes to trans representation the trans community's ideas are generally ignored, and sometimes they ask idiots who spread misinformation about trans issues like Caitlyn Jenner and Zoey Tur, which really sucks for the rest of us trans folk.Jarek Mace said:
This is true, it applies to cis folk, because their identities match their biology, thus they have a firm rooting of biological identity that matches mental gender identity. The same can be said for trans, but even more so because our biological sex does not match our gender identities, which really has a gigantic effect on us. All because our biology doesn't match identity, that causes a gigantic schisim in our minds. Especially because our minds reject our bodies, which causes a slew of issues, including depression of a magnitude that can cause suicidal tendencies. That's the primary reason a lot of trans folk do commit suicide, especially when access to transition becomes impossible because of gate keeping doctors, and/or concerns of the expense of transition.Jarek Mace said:
Fun side note: I have breasts, and I've had an orchiectomy, which means I have breasts, but not balls. I also haven't had sexual reassignment in terms of vaginoplasty, because I don't need a vagina constructed by plastic surgery to be comfortable with myself as a woman. That remaining bit of physiology doesn't invalidate my gender, but a lot of people want to force me into the risky sexual reassignment surgery to validate my gender, which is total bullshit. That's one reason trans subjects are so volatile, because a lot of really ignorant, biased, and bigoted people are attempting to force their bullshit views on us.
Special interest bio-pics generally aren't known for making money, but they are known for winning awards, so they're generally used as award bait. I'm sorry if I failed to get that point across. These movies tend to win awards on emotion and "progressive" intentions alone. The awards are important because people in the film industry use them as certifications of their qualifications, and for the prestige that comes with them. In turn that's generally the motive for making movies like this one.Jarek Mace said:
Yeah Eddie Redmayne's Oscar was for playing Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything, a lot of critics said he did a poor job, which is really funny if you think about it. Not to bash the disabled, but half of the performance is Stephen Hawking immobile and confined to a wheel chair with very little ability to show emotion. So Redmayne got the Academy Award purely on emotion in that case.Jarek Mace said:
Of all the portrayals of pirates, most of the realistic ones were people doing what they had to do to survive in a brutal and illegal job. Most pirates weren't psychopaths, they just did what they had to. Also all of the portrayals of Jedi are not "emotionless" all of the Jedi show emotion, but their job is about putting emotion aside and doing what's right, moral, and in accordance with the law. Well except for the times where all of the jedi belong to the rebel faction, in which case they're fighting for a righteous cause.Jarek Mace said:
I suppose that's fair enough, mental illness tends to be badly portrayed. Even so, it doesn't justify alienating the trans community with harmful tropes.Jarek Mace said:
There are plenty of women in the acting profession who can portray trans women accurately both before and after transition. Picking male actors is relying on the bias of "tranny is actually a man". No matter how many times you repeat the defense that it's not, it really is relying on the "tranny is actually a man" bias.Jarek Mace said:
Except you're still wrong, we don't go around checking each other's physiology to determine gender, we rely on presentation to determine which gender to identify others as. I know far too many trans women who pass as women and far too many trans men who pass as men for me to even consider your argument as accurate here. Because we do not check other people'ss genetics or their genitals to determine which gender to think of them as. Period. On that note comparing otherkin and objective states like wealth are short hand for the transphobic argument: "I'm going to default to your physical parts and what a doctor corrosively asigned you at birth, invaidating your identity, regardless of how well you pass, because I refuse to treat you with any basic respect." So that argument really pisses me off, because it's just an excuse not to treat someone with basic human decency for being different.Jarek Mace said:
