The Danish Girl - Transgender Issues in the 1920s

Recommended Videos

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

Lolita Style, The Best Style!
Jan 12, 2010
2,151
0
0
ThatOtherGirl said:
I really have to thank you for summing up the points I was trying to make so much better than my emotions on the subject have allowed me to.

ThatOtherGirl said:
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.
This part in particular is really important, because when it comes to situations like this it only ever does go one way. People will defend putting cis folk in the roles of trans people till the cows come home, but when you bring up the opposite idea. The idea of putting trans folk in cis roles? Egad does the mere suggestion of that provoke some really hypocritical responses, especially from people who claim to be trans allies.
 

MrFalconfly

New member
Sep 5, 2011
913
0
0
ThatOtherGirl said:
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.
Well no I haven't.

But on reflection that is because I've never been in such a situation.

I'm sorry to say, but I'm a bit reactionary when it comes to this.

I don't necessarily see a problem coming, and I only begin to think about how to solve a problem when it gets brought up (I'm sorry to say).

But I know that if asked (say, if I was in the casting chair and had the "deciding vote" about who got the part), I wouldn't let the actors orientations, or identity come into consideration. Trans people should be able to play cis characters, and cis people should be able to play trans characters.

That's the thing with equality. It works both ways. If it didn't it'd be a pretty shitty world.
 

ThatOtherGirl

New member
Jul 20, 2015
364
0
0
MrFalconfly said:
ThatOtherGirl said:
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.
Well no I haven't.

But on reflection that is because I've never been in such a situation.
Yeah, that is pretty much what I expected. I was virtually certain you never had, but not because I think you are a bigot or insincere about the symmetric nature of your views. This is why:

I'm sorry to say, but I'm a bit reactionary when it comes to this.

I don't necessarily see a problem coming, and I only begin to think about how to solve a problem when it gets brought up (I'm sorry to say).
Your reactionary approach in applying your ideals virtually guarantees it. There was never a real chance that it was any other way. Not because of a failure on your part exactly, but because of the way the system is stacked.

I would like to purpose an idea:

Good people like to do what good they can. So if they happen to see something they think is wrong they want to do what they can to fix the problem, even if that is contributing a quick opinion in an online discussion.

Sounds good, right? This is what you did. You randomly fell on a discussion, saw a thing you thought was bad, and decided to speak out against it with the best of intentions and laudable ideals of equality. It seems likely that it was just pure randomness that you ended up pushing against trans people instead of for them, and it seems just as likely that you will end up pushing with them in some other situation and it will all balance out. After all, you are not bigoted, you are accepting, tolerant, etc.

But go a bit deeper. Why did you stumble on this particular discussion? That is to say, why not into a discussion as I outlined above about a trans actor in a cis role? Because the inherent inequality of the system guarantees that there is little to no chance that you will ever find such a discussion. This entire discussion only happened because a cis person was in a trans role. And as we have established, trans people almost never get cis roles. The opposite discussion almost never happens, and when it does it is almost guaranteed to be either immediately buried in a deluge of bigotry or happening in a place where the discussion can be had in peace (which is a place you are just not going to be as neither a dedicated ally or a trans person yourself.)

Your random, reactive good intentions meant you were never going to push with trans people on this issue, only against us. The same is true for all random good intentioned people. The weight of all this random good intention can be absolutely crushing. And that isn't even getting to the people who are neutral or overtly bigoted.

In this way random interactions contribute heavily to a culture of marginalization. Individuals within an institution may not be bigoted, but the construction of the institution means that they inadvertently contribute to a pervasive culture that pushes down marginalized groups.

Ok, about now you are probably thinking "I don't have the energy or time to become an expert on trans issues, let alone every marginalized group ever! Should I just give up and do nothing?".

First of all, it is ok that if don't have the time or energy to become a dedicated ally, or even the time to become well educated on this or any other issue. No one has enough time to do everything. But you don't need to just give up and do nothing. What you need to do is stop being random.

Consider you might be punching down without realizing it. Recognize that marginalized groups fight an uphill battle. Instead of starting out with "OI LISTEN!!! This is BULLSHIT!" consider asking why a group holds a particular opinion. Maybe listen before trying to shout out your own view on the subject.

There is a lot more to this idea than I am capable of explaining and I may have gotten a bit of it wrong, this is just my basic understanding I have picked up. I am not trained in this. If you haven't, I really recommend this comic that Kyuubi posted:

http://www.robot-hugs.com/privilege/

It was written by a person with actual training in the issue. In fact, the entire comic is really good.

That's the thing with equality. It works both ways. If it didn't it'd be a pretty shitty world.
And you hit the nail on the head here. It is a pretty shitty world for some of us, which is what we are trying to fix.
 

MrFalconfly

New member
Sep 5, 2011
913
0
0
ThatOtherGirl said:
Thank you.

I definitely will try and put into action, the advice you've given me.

Have a nice day, and hopefully a life filled with good friends.