The Danish Girl - Transgender Issues in the 1920s

[MrFalconfly]

snip

Fair enough.

I can only say that I disagree, and that in my opinion, the private life of the actor should never have any bearing on whether that actor was the correct choice.

Whether, having cis actors playing trans characters, conveys an uncomfortable message or not, I honestly think that this shouldn't be an issue.

And if "the actor or actress fails to understand trangender experiences", then obviously the actor wasn't the correct choice.

In my mind, this entire shindig always comes down to the same point, and that is people complaining about some actors private life, instead of critiquing said actors work (as an actor. Did the actor actually portray the character well, or was it a shallow portrayal).

 

[False Messiah]

First thing I though when reading the main article, and something I haven't seen in the discussion until now is "I hope that the main actor will speak to the media about the difficulties of being trans."

I have great respect for the abilities of good actors to pick up a role and make it their own, almost changing their own being to match the character who they are representing. If they'd pick a trans woman to play the role, and she would talk about being trans after the movie came out most people would shoot her down for using her role in the movie as soapbox. The male actor has a great opportunity (though, not responsibility) to shine some light on the issue for the ignorant masses.

That being said, I can't really touch the main discussion of "Is the choice of casting a male here a slap in the face of trans women". I can't really wrap my head around it so I'll take the opinion of MarsAtlas at face value. Here is to hoping that some rich trans man or woman directs a movie from their perspective from beginning to end, I'd watch that if only to get a bit more understanding.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Here's a question:

If the movie isn't a good source of information about Lili Elbe's story, then what is?

Biographical movies are rarely accurate to the people they depict, especially when said biographical movie is based fictionalized account published nearly seventy years after the subject's death. Which the is the case for The Danish Girl the fictionalized novel was released in 2000, Lili Elbe died in 1931. A good place to start would be the wikipedi article, for an account from a time contemporary to Elbe's life and death there is the book Man into Woman: The First Sex Change, which is about Lili Elbe, and published in 1933. Biographical films based on novelized accounts are never accurate, also because Lili Elbe is such a historic case in transgender treatment and understanding, she comes up a lot in non-fiction books and papers addressing transgenderism.

I can only say that I disagree, and that in my opinion, the private life of the actor should never have any bearing on whether that actor was the correct choice.

Whether, having cis actors playing trans characters, conveys an uncomfortable message or not, I honestly think that this shouldn't be an issue.

A lot of trans folk are very vocal about being trans, or at least open about it, while at the same time, a lot of people won't allow us to keep our status as trans private. When it comes to trans people being portrayed; however, it's important to realize that there a lot of things in the trans experience that a disturbing number of people just deny exist. Aside from that, things cis folk take totally for granted, like just walking into a gendered public restroom, are far different experiences for trans folk. Using the example of public bathrooms, trans folk will freeze when presented with a pair of male and female gendered public restrooms, a million questions going through our head, playing out scenarios where things go bad. This is something cis folk don't experience and don't understand, the very fact that just walking into a bathroom to relieve our selves comes with the treat of a potential beating. Little things that have no impact on a cis person's day blare at trans folk, cis normative gender imagery is constantly thrown at us, gender is such a constant subject we never, ever get to escape it. Then you have the low level worries; "am I passing?", "Is that person staring at me because they can tell I'm trans?", "Is that person following me?", "Is that person going out me, or say a transphobic slur, or try to hurt me?", "Will I ever be able to just feel normal?", "Am I presenting too stereotypically feminine, or too butch, is that going to out me?". That's all just low level stuff that comes from gender dysphoria, it's nearly constant. That's by far not an exhaustive list of the things that effect trans folk on a daily basis, there is a lot more, not to mention the ways in which gender dysphoria can shut you down with a fleeting thought like; "You'll never be a real woman.", or "The world will never accept you, you shouldn't exist." just for example, a small example.

Now I'm not trying to be mean here, but your opinions regarding what considerations should be taken in selecting a person for a role playing a trans person, are meaningless. They're especially meaningless when so much of the trans community disagrees with your opinions, because this is one of the few situations, regarding mass media, where our feelings should be taken into account and where we should have a say. Even so the cis voices in the industry shout over us, silence us, and dismiss our requests and opinions. It should be easy to understand why the trans community is upset about this sort of thing. Instead we speak our grievances and get dismissed out of hand by people who don't understand, it should be easy to understand why that upsets us too.

Now, I am not, NOT saying that cis folk cannot reasonably portray trans folk, that is not the argument, but people keep framing it that way and misrepresenting the complaint. What I have been saying that the way they do the casting tends to be based on offensive, inaccurate, and misleading stereotypes that reflect and reinforce potentially violent bigotry. It's not "an uncomfortable message", it's an insulting image that's being portrayed, that's based on negative prejudice stereotypes against the trans community. Those negative and misleading stereotypes are insulting, damaging, and potentially dangerous to the trans community. The point I've been making this whole time is that if a cis person absolutely has to play a trans person, then cis women should be playing trans women, and cis men playing trans men; however ideally trans women should play trans women, and trans men should play trans men. Instead people keep misrepresenting that point as saying; "cis people should never play trans people", then dismiss the entire point out of hand and defend the transphobic bias being presented. That is a really damn condescending thing to do, especially because cis people on this forum are using it to dismiss the opinions of the trans people on this forum. It's also really annoying that it keeps happening over and over, forcing me to repeat my self over and over.

And if "the actor or actress fails to understand trangender experiences", then obviously the actor wasn't the correct choice.

Well by that logic, since I've never met a cis person who actually understands the issues that trans folk face, or the experiences we have. To expand on that point I've never met another trans person who has ever met a single cis person who actually understands. Then obviously, using your logic here, a cis person is never the correct choice.

In my mind, this entire shindig always comes down to the same point, and that is people complaining about some actors private life, instead of critiquing said actors work (as an actor. Did the actor actually portray the character well, or was it a shallow portrayal).

Considering I've never seen a good portaryal of a trans person in film, or television, and trans women are ALWAYS portrayed by cisgender men... Really it's about the "actors private life"? No, you're flat wrong. If this is consistently happening and it's always done the same way, by casting cis men to portray trans women, then it's pretty obvious that the whole method of portrayal is being done totally wrong.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

First thing I though when reading the main article, and something I haven't seen in the discussion until now is "I hope that the main actor will speak to the media about the difficulties of being trans."

I have great respect for the abilities of good actors to pick up a role and make it their own, almost changing their own being to match the character who they are representing. If they'd pick a trans woman to play the role, and she would talk about being trans after the movie came out most people would shoot her down for using her role in the movie as soapbox. The male actor has a great opportunity (though, not responsibility) to shine some light on the issue for the ignorant masses.

That being said, I can't really touch the main discussion of "Is the choice of casting a male here a slap in the face of trans women". I can't really wrap my head around it so I'll take the opinion of MarsAtlas at face value. Here is to hoping that some rich trans man or woman directs a movie from their perspective from beginning to end, I'd watch that if only to get a bit more understanding.

Holy crap, I wish there were more people as open minded as you about at least trying to accept the complaints us trans folk have.

After Eddie Redmayne's really shallow and emotionless performance in this movie though, if he did try to speak out, it would be a massive slap in the face of trans community. Mostly because it would look like him patting himself on the back for a bad portrayal, because of how "great" he's been for the trans community. We've seen far more than enough of that for other bad portrayals, where actors do that very thing, and it's so, so, sooooooo horrifically insulting.

 

[False Messiah]

Holy crap, I wish there were more people as open minded as you about at least trying to accept the complaints us trans folk have.

After Eddie Redmayne's really shallow and emotionless performance in this movie though, if he did try to speak out, it would be a massive slap in the face of trans community. Mostly because it would look like him patting himself on the back for a bad portrayal, because of how "great" he's been for the trans community. We've seen far more than enough of that for other bad portrayals, where actors do that very thing, and it's so, so, sooooooo horrifically insulting.

I get that. I didn't watch the movie so I didn't know his performance was.. let's say subpar.

We have to acknowledge that there is no one right way to tackle this topic, and I personally think that a male actor playing a trans woman well and publicly speaking about what he learned throughout the experience is not only a good thing, but effectively essential. A lot of people default to "us against them" and seeing one of "us" approaching the problem with compassion and understanding will build bridges.

 

[MrFalconfly]

snipped for brevity

1) Fair enough.

2) Honestly, I thought that was why we cast actors. Gave them a key scene to act out, and see if they could carry the role before we actually committed to use that actor.

3) I don't think it's because of cis actors being used that trans characters have been sub-standard, but rather because of the script-writer or director.

EDIT:

What it comes down to for me is that any discussion that doesn't focus on the professional aspects of the work (the writing, the directing, the actual acting), and instead try to pick apart the actors private life in search of answers for why a work may have been substandard is pointless.

 

[False Messiah]

snipped for brevity

What it comes down to for me is that any discussion that doesn't focus on the professional aspects of the work (the writing, the directing, the actual acting), and instead try to pick apart the actors private life in search of answers for why a work may have been substandard is pointless.

I didn't see the movie, and I may never will (I like sci-fi and fantasy more than this genre but never say never). But I got some insight in the way a few people function. Finding a thread about a topic this volitile, and finding a decent discussion is a win for me.

Seeing that the writing is based on a book, what did you think about the directing. Is it good enough to recomend me watching it?

 

[MrFalconfly]

snipped for brevity

What it comes down to for me is that any discussion that doesn't focus on the professional aspects of the work (the writing, the directing, the actual acting), and instead try to pick apart the actors private life in search of answers for why a work may have been substandard is pointless.

I didn't see the movie, and I may never will (I like sci-fi and fantasy more than this genre but never say never). But I got some insight in the way a few people function. Finding a thread about a topic this volitile, and finding a decent discussion is a win for me.

Seeing that the writing is based on a book, what did you think about the directing. Is it good enough to recomend me watching it?

I haven't seen it either.

I'm merely arguing from principle (the principle that the actors private life shouldn't disqualify said actor from a role).

EDIT: I'm not by any means defending this film (because I haven't seen it). I'm only attacking the notion that only cis actors can play cis characters and only trans actors can play trans characters.

 

[False Messiah]

I haven't seen it either.

I'm merely arguing from principle (the principle that the actors private life shouldn't disqualify said actor from a role).

Oh, fair enough, my mistake.

 

[MrFalconfly]

I haven't seen it either.

I'm merely arguing from principle (the principle that the actors private life shouldn't disqualify said actor from a role).

Oh, fair enough, my mistake.

No worries

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

snipped for brevity

1) Fair enough.

2) Honestly, I thought that was why we cast actors. Gave them a key scene to act out, and see if they could carry the role before we actually committed to use that actor.

3) I don't think it's because of cis actors being used that trans characters have been sub-standard, but rather because of the script-writer or director.

EDIT:

What it comes down to for me is that any discussion that doesn't focus on the professional aspects of the work (the writing, the directing, the actual acting), and instead try to pick apart the actors private life in search of answers for why a work may have been substandard is pointless.

Addressing 2: The problem is in the casting call to start with, when they restrict the casting for trans roles to cisgender men, which is pretty well established. That means any judgment on ability to carry out a role is already tarnished by using the bias of "trans women are really men." To put it simply, they keep casting MEN to play WOMEN, and it's only acceptable because character woman in question is trans.

Addressing 3: So all scripts involving primary characters who are trans women are poorly written and all the directors who direct these films are bad directors? Yeah I think not. The one constant and consistent factor is that they keep casting men who are cisgender, to portray women who are transgender. Because different directors do the directing of the different flims and shows, different writers do different scripts, and even different actors play the characters. Regardless if the character is based on a real person, or entirely fictional, but generally the character is based on a real person.

In both cases you still miss the point and I can't believe I'm having to clarify this yet again. Casting cis people isn't the primary issue here, it's casting men as women, because the women happen to be trans. Again it's casting men as women, because the women in question are trans.

Addressing the Edit:

Did it ever occur to you that casting men in the role of women, because the roles of women that the casting is being done for happen to be trans women, is a professional problem? Besides that with trans actors and actresses, well guess what, their status as trans isn't exactly private, they're always outed, their transness ends up being very public information. Also cisgender isn't necessarily someone's private life, the vast majority of actors and actresses are cisgender, which isn't something they hide away in their private live, it's observable.

The point being: Casting men in the roles of women and doing so because the roles of women portray trans women is in the realm of the professional, not personal.

I'm merely arguing from principle (the principle that the actors private life shouldn't disqualify said actor from a role).

EDIT: I'm not by any means defending this film (because I haven't seen it). I'm only attacking the notion that only cis actors can play cis characters and only trans actors can play trans characters.

The problem is: that's not what being argued here. This has nothing to do with what happens in a person's private life, because gender identity effects people on every level of their being. The idea that only cis folk can play cis roles and only trans folk can play trans roles is not the argument being made here. The former argument is an excuse to dismiss the opinions of trans folk, the latter is a misrepresentation of the argument actually being made, which I just already pointed out in this post. The whole point is using men to portray trans women is: One: Disregarding and disrespecting the identities of trans women using biological essentilist and transphobic views, and Two: Probably why these portrayals nearly universally suck. It has nothing to do with personal lives of actors and everything to do with unprofessional treatment of trans folk in film and television media.

 

[False Messiah]

Pretend I'm quoting the whole convo between you and KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

I think I understand both your and their side of the discussion, and you are having basically two different discussions.

They are not saying that a man would not be able to act like a trans woman. They are saying that because a lot of trans woman have to deal with some narrative along the way of "you wanna be a women, but you are actually a man" they perceive the casting decision here as "the role is a women's role, but we're actually casting a man".

Were you think there where for the sake of argument tree actors who wanted the part; a man, a woman, and a trans women. They are thinking that the director would only pick a man because he subcontinents thinks "it's a man who wants to be a woman"

Disclaimer: I'm simplifying horribly, and I could be very wrong in the way I present the side of MarsAtlas and Kyuubi (imma shorten your name for conversation sake if you don't mind). And in no way will I claim either standpoint.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Pretend I'm quoting the whole convo between you and KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

I think I understand both your and their side of the discussion, and you are having basically two different discussions.

They are not saying that a man would not be able to act like a trans woman. They are saying that because a lot of trans woman have to deal with some narrative along the way of "you wanna be a women, but you are actually a man" they perceive the casting decision here as "the role is a women's role, but we're actually casting a man".

Were you think there where for the sake of argument tree actors who wanted the part; a man, a woman, and a trans women. They are thinking that the director would only pick a man because he subcontinents thinks "it's a man who wants to be a woman"

Disclaimer: I'm simplifying horribly, and I could be very wrong in the way I present the side of MarsAtlas and Kyuubi (imma shorten your name for conversation sake if you don't mind). And in no way will I claim either standpoint.

You more, or less got the point. The only nit picks I have are: All trans folk have to deal with biological essentialist bullcrap to some extent, though some more than others. Taking me for example, I have to deal with very little biological essentialism out side internet discussions, because I pass due to being very feminine anyways, while at the same time RL friends don't use those arguments. On the other hand, I have friends who don't pass as well, who as a result have to deal with it from complete strangers. But there is always some extent to which it comes up, something us trans folk basically just have to deal with.

The other is that "you wanna be a woman, but you're actually a man" isn't the whole point. The reason the term "trans face" is gaining traction is because trans treatment is a lot like black treatment during vaudeville and the use of "black face". One reason it's used is because blatant transphobia is still acceptable. Seriously ever seen how they broach the subject of transgenderism in comedy? It's really insulting. Although more often the intent is good, but they exclude trans folk from leading roles, then cast a man to play a caricature of a trans woman if that's the leading role. Especially because they often use a really masculine, or just plain ugly dude for the role, in which case they're defaulting to the "ugly tranny" transphobic trope.

Edit: It's also alright to shorten my name to the first word, Kyuubi, which incidently literally translates to "nine tails". Most others do it too, anyways.

 

[False Messiah]

Snip

Good to know I'm at least a bit on track.

I personally think that drawing the comparison between trans gender and race discrimination to the point of calling it transface in the context of this movie is too far. And I form that opinion on two bases:

1) Blackface was used as a "lol, this is what black people look at and act like" later in the 'lifespan of blackface'. But it's not how it started. The origin of blackface as a practice seems to stem out of a lack of black people to play black characters where the play does contain black characters. This was not malicious, but in hindsight very insulting, most people had never seen a lot of black people if any, so the actors went for overly obvious stereotypes (basically caricatures). At the same time in places where there were more black people (like in America during the slavery times) black people where fundamentally inferior in the eyes of the rest of society (the whites). They believed that black people where literally too dumb to act and could only work the fields.

I don't think the choice of actor had anything to do with either there being no trans woman actresses, nor a believe that trans women can't act.

2) I can see how people class movies as White Chicks and Big Mommas as transface, but I still have a problem with that. The stories make clear that the male leads are not trans, they don't actually want to be female. They are put in a situation where they are forced or gain significant profit out of acting like a women for a time.

Pair that with the genre of a movie (humor), and the fact that a lot of people think that "he tries to look like a women but fails because he's too masculine and now hijinks ensue" I can see why directors who what the movies to be popular and make money cast the actors they do. (damn this is a mess of a sentence, sorry, English is not my main language >.> )


That's why I think trying to link "man plays trans women" with "white person plays black person". The reasons for both practices are too different and linking them together can come across as implying similarities that you don't want to imply, diluting the conversation to bickering.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Pretend I'm quoting the whole convo between you and KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

I think I understand both your and their side of the discussion, and you are having basically two different discussions.

They are not saying that a man would not be able to act like a trans woman. They are saying that because a lot of trans woman have to deal with some narrative along the way of "you wanna be a women, but you are actually a man" they perceive the casting decision here as "the role is a women's role, but we're actually casting a man".

Were you think there where for the sake of argument tree actors who wanted the part; a man, a woman, and a trans women. They are thinking that the director would only pick a man because he subcontinents thinks "it's a man who wants to be a woman"

Disclaimer: I'm simplifying horribly, and I could be very wrong in the way I present the side of MarsAtlas and Kyuubi (imma shorten your name for conversation sake if you don't mind). And in no way will I claim either standpoint.

Well, you got my point bang on.

And to be honest, looking at it through your glasses, I've been a bit of a berk.

I'll just walk out with what's left of my dignity

snip

Sorry.

I was ill equipped for the discussion this topic (or at least your topic) deserved.

Have a nice day.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Snip

Good to know I'm at least a bit on track.

I personally think that drawing the comparison between trans gender and race discrimination to the point of calling it transface in the context of this movie is too far. And I form that opinion on two bases:

1) Blackface was used as a "lol, this is what black people look at and act like" later in the 'lifespan of blackface'. But it's not how it started. The origin of blackface as a practice seems to stem out of a lack of black people to play black characters where the play does contain black characters. This was not malicious, but in hindsight very insulting, most people had never seen a lot of black people if any, so the actors went for overly obvious stereotypes (basically caricatures). At the same time in places where there were more black people (like in America during the slavery times) black people where fundamentally inferior in the eyes of the rest of society (the whites). They believed that black people where literally too dumb to act and could only work the fields.

I don't think the choice of actor had anything to do with either there being no trans woman actresses, nor a believe that trans women can't act.

2) I can see how people class movies as White Chicks and Big Mommas as transface, but I still have a problem with that. The stories make clear that the male leads are not trans, they don't actually want to be female. They are put in a situation where they are forced or gain significant profit out of acting like a women for a time.

Pair that with the genre of a movie (humor), and the fact that a lot of people think that "he tries to look like a women but fails because he's too masculine and now hijinks ensue" I can see why directors who what the movies to be popular and make money cast the actors they do. (damn this is a mess of a sentence, sorry, English is not my main language >.> )


That's why I think trying to link "man plays trans women" with "white person plays black person". The reasons for both practices are too different and linking them together can come across as implying similarities that you don't want to imply, diluting the conversation to bickering.

1) Actually during golden age of film(Dawn of talkies/late 1920's to the early 1960's) there were lots of black actors, the problem is they really only got cast in "race" films, which were almost exclusively a "blacks only" niche, or the code restricted them. The code had rules about how black folk could act in films, they had to be subservient and couldn't be even remotely intimidating. With that kind of restriction black actors couldn't act in leading roles. While black face was more acceptable socially it was used in place of black folk, who were basically excluded. After it became socially unacceptable, you just didn't see black people in leading roles, unless they were playing uneducated working class cowards. Other wise they just got side roles. That's how trans talent is being treated now.

2) The end of Ace Ventura where everyone vomits for 30 seconds when the main antagonist is revealed to be a trans woman... That's a pretty blatant example of trans face, even when trans folk aren't specifically the target though, things like White Chicks and Mrs. Doubtfire are used to discredit us. Also look at basically any trans portrayal in the likes of The Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy, The Big Bang Theory, or any other comedy where the subject comes up, it's always done in a negative fashion.

People who aren't on the receiving end of the negative effects don't see black face and trans face as similar, but those of us who are on the receiving end can see the similarity. That's one thing that's really irritated me in this thread too. The level of cisplaining being done, as in cis people trying to explain to trans folk how we feel is wrong, when they have no idea what they're talking about. This sort of thing happens all the time when groups complain about their treatment, all it is protection of privilege, and it's never not bullshit.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Pretend I'm quoting the whole convo between you and KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

I think I understand both your and their side of the discussion, and you are having basically two different discussions.

They are not saying that a man would not be able to act like a trans woman. They are saying that because a lot of trans woman have to deal with some narrative along the way of "you wanna be a women, but you are actually a man" they perceive the casting decision here as "the role is a women's role, but we're actually casting a man".

Were you think there where for the sake of argument tree actors who wanted the part; a man, a woman, and a trans women. They are thinking that the director would only pick a man because he subcontinents thinks "it's a man who wants to be a woman"

Disclaimer: I'm simplifying horribly, and I could be very wrong in the way I present the side of MarsAtlas and Kyuubi (imma shorten your name for conversation sake if you don't mind). And in no way will I claim either standpoint.

Well, you got my point bang on.

And to be honest, looking at it through your glasses, I've been a bit of a berk.

I'll just walk out with what's left of my dignity

snip

Sorry.

I was ill equipped for the discussion this topic (or at least your topic) deserved.

Have a nice day.

Well don't feel too bad, as irritated as I got it was more at the subject and general approach people have to it. So my frustration wasn't with you personally and I can't blame you for your positions, when they're positions that everyone who isn't trans seems to hold. For trans folk part of trying to get out points across is the frustration of battling through widely held misconceptions and cis privilege, so it's always an irritating subject.

So don't feel too bad, it's not entirely your fault, it's why we ask people to shut the hell up, listen, and try to see things from out point of view. There is a default bias against us that revolves around dismissing our complaints, because the trans community still isn't visible enough.

Anyways for the benefit of everyone a good display of the double standards trans folk are held to is: This Comic! [http://www.robot-hugs.com/double-standards/] Which when taken in a very general sense applies to this whole thread.

Edit: Also relevant: How to manage societal privilege. [http://www.robot-hugs.com/privilege/]

 

[False Messiah]

1) Actually during golden age of film(Dawn of talkies/late 1920's to the early 1960's) there were lots of black actors, the problem is they really only got cast in "race" films, which were almost exclusively a "blacks only" niche, or the code restricted them. The code had rules about how black folk could act in films, they had to be subservient and couldn't be even remotely intimidating. With that kind of restriction black actors couldn't act in leading roles. While black face was more acceptable socially it was used in place of black folk, who were basically excluded. After it became socially unacceptable, you just didn't see black people in leading roles, unless they were playing uneducated working class cowards. Other wise they just got side roles. That's how trans talent is being treated now.

2) The end of Ace Ventura where everyone vomits for 30 seconds when the main antagonist is revealed to be a trans woman... That's a pretty blatant example of trans face, even when trans folk aren't specifically the target though, things like White Chicks and Mrs. Doubtfire are used to discredit us. Also look at basically any trans portrayal in the likes of The Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy, The Big Bang Theory, or any other comedy where the subject comes up, it's always done in a negative fashion.

People who aren't on the receiving end of the negative effects don't see black face and trans face as similar, but those of us who are on the receiving end can see the similarity. That's one thing that's really irritated me in this thread too. The level of cisplaining being done, as in cis people trying to explain to trans folk how we feel is wrong, when they have no idea what they're talking about. This sort of thing happens all the time when groups complain about their treatment, all it is protection of privilege, and it's never not bullshit.

1) Well don't I look foolish. I seem to be mixing up a few different times. Thanks for the correction.

2) Oh Ace Ventura, I needed to rewatch that scene because I totally forgot. I let your argument sink in for a while and to be honest, I don't know how I feel about it. I can see the similarities with blackface: You put a not trans woman in a trans woman role with one feature caricature-ised. I wanted to say that transface is only used in humor settings, but after a quick Google I'm finding that the history of "blackface in serious movies" is way too short to support my argument there.

I think I need to place transface in the same field as cis. Even though I've studied bio-chemistry and used trans and cis in a microbiological way countless times, the moment cis is used in a gender sense my brain has a temporal disconnect between the intended meaning and (in the case of cis) a slur. Seeing that words will always mean what we decide them to mean I can put aside my own private feelings for the sake of conversation.

And not sure if the last part was in part directed at me, but no bullshit intended. I usually try to explain what I think so people can enrich my frame of reference by pointing out stuff I lack in my own train of thought.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I think I need to place transface in the same field as cis. Even though I've studied bio-chemistry and used trans and cis in a microbiological way countless times, the moment cis is used in a gender sense my brain has a temporal disconnect between the intended meaning and (in the case of cis) a slur. Seeing that words will always mean what we decide them to mean I can put aside my own private feelings for the sake of conversation.

It can be difficult, because a lot of people use the term cis in moments of frustration at cis power structures in the world.

And not sure if the last part was in part directed at me, but no bullshit intended. I usually try to explain what I think so people can enrich my frame of reference by pointing out stuff I lack in my own train of thought.

It wasn't directed at you in particular, just in general regarding cis folk and how cisgender people tend to steamroll the points to protect privilege. It gets very tiring when it's something you deal with constantly.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Sorry.

I was ill equipped for the discussion this topic (or at least your topic) deserved.

Have a nice day.

I don't know about that. You didn't quite get where we were coming from, but you kept an open mind. You tried to understand. You weren't a jerk. This is a very good thing. It is why I responded to you at all in the first place. I don't think any reasonable person can expect you to understand everything.

Look, I think everyone gets where you are coming from on your point. And while not everyone will agree, I personally think that is absolutely how it should be with the qualifier of "in the absence of other considerations." Considerations like the potential for further damaging or marginalizing a group that already occupies a difficult place in the social landscape.

It shouldn't matter if an actor is cis or trans if they can play the part. I would like nothing more than for it to not matter if people are cis or trans. That is exactly what we are trying to achieve. And while we are at it, it shouldn't matter if someone is gay or straight, or black or white, or whatever. But like it or not it these things do matter, and people have to deal with all sorts of negative fallout from these things mattering.

For an example at the most basic level, trans actors are routinely passed up for cis roles they are perfectly qualified to perform for no other reason than they are trans. The world (or Hollywood or whatever) in general has decided it matters. If it should is entirely irrelevant because it does. We work toward making it as it should be, sure, but at the end of the day we have to deal with the world as it is. Things are unfair, we try to even the odds just a bit in the only way we can. (There is a lot more to transphobia in Hollywood, but lets just go with this for simplicity.)

Now, I am going to go out on a bit of a limb here, but I am going to bet you have never explicitly fought for the reverse with the same arguments - why didn't this cis role go to a trans actor? It's just an educated guess based on personal observations, but chances are your championing has not been symmetrical even if your views are. Chances are that you have only every contributed to pushing out trans actors, never bringing them in.

"The role should go to the best actor regardless of their gender identity" is an endlessly frustrating argument for us because the best actor is always assumed to be cis. The argument is always used by cis people to excuse a cis actor playing a trans role, never to suggest a trans actor should be in a cis role. Or at least I have never seen a cis person say it outside of my closest friends.

So trans people don't get cis roles nor do they get trans roles, and everyone shows up to defend the mechanisms that keep this marginalization going so it never gets better. THAT is the problem.

It is shockingly easy to contribute to a problem like this unintentionally. I know for sure that I have before. Sometimes we (as in all people) just don't get it. That doesn't make us bad, it just makes us human. But as KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime pointed out with the link to that privilege comic, there are ways to mitigate doing so.

Basically, what I am saying is that things will matter until they don't, and pretending they don't, even with high ideals (perhaps even especially), almost always contributes in an unintentional but significant way to marginalization.