The Danish Girl - Transgender Issues in the 1920s

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Have you seen the movie? If so fine, if not, doesn't it seem a bit premature get upset at the actors offensive performance before actually seeing if the performance is offensive?

Walked out really early in the film, luckily I didn't pay for the ticket either, friend thought this movie would interest me. Only movie I went to in 2015 too, walked out on it. But amongst my trans friends who have seen the movie, along with most of my cis friends who've seen it too, the performance was underwhelming at best, absolute garbage is the prevailing opinion. Redmayne didn't bring any emotion or conviction to the role is what we all say, as do virtually all of the critics whose review on this I've read. Including Marter's.

You didn't really specify hollywood, you just said it was unthinkable, but someone did think of it. Maybe I'm being too literal, but it's kinda what I do.

Maybe you were being a bit literal, but the point stands, if they tried to cast a man in the role of a cis woman in most serious big budget films, people would freak out. That's the point I've been trying to make about it being a double standard.

Sorry, but I really don't understand the issue here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the movie is about someone who physically appears male, but realises that she is actually female. As she appears physically male it makes sense to hire an actor who appears physically male.

On a slightly non-related note this reminds me of an interview with Ian Mckellen. I can't remember the exact words he used but one of the things he said that he wanted to achieve was to remove the idea that a gay man couldn't play a straight man. To me it seems obvious that there is no problem with a homosexual playing a hetrosexual (or bisexual, asexual etc). While sexuality is innate the outward result of this can be mimicked by a decent actor.

Similarly with gender. While gender is innate the outward appearance of this can be mimicked by a decent actor. What is harder to mimic is the physical appearance. Since the character has a physical appearance that outwardly looks masculine it makes sense to hire someone who also appears physically masculine.

It would be considered stupid to hire a cis man to play someone like Margaret Thatcher or some other cis woman because they are unlikely to look the part. I'm not arguing with the trans people here who point out that the physical aspects are not the most important part of being trans, but it is the mental and emotional parts of a character that an actor is trained to portray. What is harder to portray is their physical appearance. While that may not have been so important to the character it is none the less part of what needs to be considered when making a live action movie.

On a completely non related note, is it just me or is it unusual that chrome seems to recognise the spelling of the words 'homosexual', 'bisexual' and 'asexual' but not 'hetrosexual'? My spelling isn't that bad is it?

The word is spelled H-E-T-E-R-O-S-E-X-U-A-L, 'heterosexual'. You're missing the second e after the t.

Well first there are plenty of physically masculine women, it's also not something that's hard to fake with props and make up. Besides that there are plenty of actors who don't look like the character they're cast as, some times they intentionally race swap characters too. A good example is that in Patton George C. Scott didn't look much like, nor sound at all like General George S. Patton. A lot of people they've casted as Abraham Lincoln have needed extensive facial make up and platform shoes, because they don't look exactly like Lincoln, nor were they as tall as him. A lot of people casted to play various female historical figures look nothing like the people they're playing, or have had extensive cosmetic work to fill the role.

So it's an entirely hollow point when people make the argument of getting a cis man to play a trans woman, because obviously they're physically similar. Which often isn't the case, many, many trans women are extremely androgynous before they ever begin transition. The only reason cisgender men are ever cast in the role of trans women is because of the "ugly tranny looks like a man" stereotype. There is literally no other reason than that, people can excuse it however they want, with what ever paper thin justification they choose, it doesn't change the truth. Cisgender men are cast as trans women because of a hang up, based on the stereotype that trans women look like men and thus make ugly women. Basically it really is the same thing as black face, there might be some good intentions about it, but good intentions don't cover up the fact that trans women are still viewed as men, and looking like men.

If the plethora of trans portrayals in media are anything to go by, Sir Ian Mckellen's input isn't valid in this case. For one gender identity is not even remotely the same thing as sexuality, along with that a lot of gay and lesbian folk know how to act straight, because they've had to in order to stay safe most of their lives. It's called being in the closet. I've yet to see a straight person pull off a gay, or lesbian character in a way that's not offensive and doesn't rely heavily on negative stereotypes. Like stereotypes about how all gay men are femme, or how all lesbian woman are butch. The same thing goes for trans folk and then some, if trans portrayals are anything to go by, they all suck. That means that gender dysphoria, the essence of being trans and how we operate emotionally and mentally cannot be faked, at least not by cisgender men, because no cisgender male actor has ever pulled it off. As a trans woman, a cis woman would probably have a much easier time than that, if stage plays are anything to go by. Now a cis man could probably easily pull off a trans man, just like a cis woman could pull off a trans woman, but in Hollywood they don't do that. They default to offensive stereotypes casting cis men in the roles of trans women and at least once a cis woman in the role of a trans man.

Besides all of that, The Danish Girl book is less non-fiction than it is a novel based in Lili Elbe, the author fictionalized so much... The film took further liberties from what I can tell, having seen part of the movie. So they could easily have justified the artistic liberty to cast a woman in the role of Lili Elbe, but they didn't, they relied on the offensive stereotypes surrounding trans women.

TL;DR - All the arguments about physical attributes are nothing more than a paper thin justification to rely on the transphobic stereotype of the "ugly tranny", when casting people for roles playing trans folk.

 

[Panzer Camper]

I'll be honest here this is why so many people have an issue with the trans community. I'll preface this with the fact I've learned quite a lot about trans individuals from you guys through the forums. I've met one or two in real life so it's nice to hear from you guys about what it's like and your life experiences. But the "trans people just whine and moan about everything" stereotype that we all hope is false just keeps getting reinforced from silly things like this.

I'm not particularly a purist for roles. Black actress for Harry in Harry Potter, cool. Disabled Mexican man with no legs wants to play Michael Jordan, go nuts (seriously if they could pull that off with some weird universe changes to have it make sense I would watch the shit out of it). Any of the 4 sexes/gender combos you could use would have been fine for all I care but it really does make the most sense to have the role played by one of two types of people. A man in a man's body, or a Trans woman pre-op pre-hormone therapy because back then we had no surgeries or hormone therapy. Do you know why? Of course you do so I won't answer my own question.

Someone suggested both male and female leads that showed a woman when she was seeing herself which I think would have been awesome! But is it a slap in the face of the trans community because they didn't do just that? No... and the fact that anything more needs to be said after that just shows insecurity. I'll admit I don't get it, I can sympathize with the difficult lives many trans people have had but I'm a perfectly normal dude that grew up being picked on for being white (grew up in the southwest so more mexicans than gringos) and not much else. I didn't go through your hardships. Look at how nicely everyone in this forum (so far) has been treating you. If this was any other thread it would have been a bloody fucking war as two sides formed as everyone started foaming at the mouth but since it's this issue most of us here treat it with some delicacy because we don't want to sound like those asshats that don't think trans people exist. But let me level with you. A movie about a trans woman that never physically became a man does not need to be played by a woman. It's not a personal attack on trans people. It's not yet another sign of how the world just doesn't "get" you. It's just a movie that supports the acceptance of trans people for fucks sake(right? It's a pro-trans movie I would imagine)! You attack everything, including the people that support you. Yeah, that will make friends, alienating yourself works so well. If every group acted like this everything would be sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. The sooner the trans community decides it can be treated without kid gloves, the sooner they will become mainstream (well as mainstream as such a small minority can be).

It's these "offended by everything related to the trans community that isn't done exactly perfectly as trans people see it" moments that make me go silent at the holiday dinner table while some older grandparent switches gears from the common gay bashing and goes for the rarer trans people are queer line. I come to your defense but it's hard to stand shoulder to shoulder when you keep throwing the grenade pins at the enemy while the grenade lies at our feet.

 

[Vanilla ISIS]

Typical, they make a movie that's about a trans woman and get a cis man to play the role.

Wait a minute...
They got an actor to play someone he's not?
What will they think of next?!?

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

-snip-

I'll be perfectly honest you: You put a lot of effort into a post that highlights the fact that you don't understand, not only how things are for trans folk, but the history of civil rights and the battles for positive representation. You want to pin things on the trans community because we're "complaining", well let me tell you something about representation in film and television that's effected other groups. Lesbians and gays haven't gotten better representation in media by sitting down and shutting up, they've gotten it by standing up and shouting about the bad representation. What about black folk, they didn't quietly sit on the side lines and accept the negative stereotyping done to them in film and television representation, they stood up and demanded better. The very argument you've used here was used against the gay movement, it was the same argument used against the black civil rights movement, hell it was the same argument used against the women's rights movements.

It's always the same argument and it always translates to basically two words: "Shut up!" It's always the same with groups who control the societal power, telling the group that wants better treatment that: "You just need to calm down, quiet down, and wait for things to get better." That's however the problem, it's exactly why we need to raise such a big stink, weather we're Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or a racial minority, or oppressed because of our sex, or gender identities. The problem is that this is a platitude given by people who aren't going to actively participate in helping us win better treatment and equal rights, we're told we have to wait. Because we're subjected to these platitudes is why marginalized groups have always had to fight tooth and nail for our rights, to stand up and be visible, to demand fair treatment. That's the only way things ever get better, we have to be loud, stomp our feet, and tell society we're sick of being treated like crap. Because if we shut up, sit around, and wait for things to get better, they won't, no group fighting for their rights and for their fair treatment has ever gotten it by shutting up and waiting.

When it comes to these forums, they're not a terrible place, they're not innately transphobic, or hateful. Still I've run into a lot of casual unintentional transphobic behavior, people downplaying or dismissing issues that the trans folk on these forums bring up. I don't begrudge people for that generally, because the people doing it don't understand, they don't understand that for us every day is a fight for even basic levels of tolerance. I only get annoyed with people when they obstinately cling to dismissing and downplaying trans issues when they come up, because it's them telling me that it's not a problem for them, so naturally I'm the one that needs to shut up. Now I have experienced some open, blatant, and very intentional transphobic vitriol on these forums, but that's a real tiny minority of the people I come across here, who usually get warned, sometimes banned for their behavior. So all in all these forums are find, the majority of people here are great, but they don't listen and they'd rather argue the point, instead of trying to see it from our prospective. Which is something I encounter all the time in the real world too, so it's not like it's alien, it's pretty normal, which is more depressing than anything else.

On a side note that's why I'm speaking as much as I have in this thread: Using cis men to portray trans women in trans positive roles is a casual unintentional form of trans phobia. The reason is that it shows that people are still in some ways trying to show that they still view trans women as men, not women, which is exactly what we're working against.

Still you say you want to stand shoulder to shoulder? That's fantastic, that means you're showing commitment in terms of wanting to be an ally, but there is something that I need to ask. There is one responsibility that all allies have first and foremost: Listen. That means when a trans person tells you about an issue you don't dismiss it, you don't downplay it, you don't compare your experiences in not facing such issues, and you don't argue about it. You just listen to what we have to say about it, then if you're not sure you understand, or just have questions, then ask those questions and listen to the answers. Is that too much to ask? Really because dismissing the issue, arguing it, downplaying it, telling us how it's not an issue for you, telling us that we're complaining too much... That's not helpful in addressing the societal and legal issues we face, it's just more platitudes telling us to sit down, shut up, and wait for things to get better. The problem is by sitting down, shutting up, and waiting for things to get better, that puts us back into the shadows, it pushes back all of the work and awareness we've built... It puts us back into the most dangerous place, where we're victimized, marginalized, ignored, and left to languish in a hopeless situation where things never get better.

In fact this is one of the biggest reasons we ask you to be patient and listen:

It's these "offended by everything related to the trans community that isn't done exactly perfectly as trans people see it" moments that make me go silent at the holiday dinner table while some older grandparent switches gears from the common gay bashing and goes for the rarer trans people are queer line.

That experience is an every day experience for trans folk, it's not just the holiday dinner table where we face it, we face it all the time from every direction, and it's exhausting. I've had close cisgender friends bring moments like that up, which half the time catches the attention of a stranger in a public place, which starts a transphobic tirade. It's a really depressingly common occurrence and it never occurs to anyone arguing against our points, that the reason we complain so much is because every single little thing in our daily lives is an uphill battle. For most of my trans friends those uphill battles can easily turn violent for them, leaving them beaten in an alley way. We're already being silenced by threat of violence, rape, and murder, we don't need our allies telling us to shut up too.

That's pretty much the whole point, we don't want to be treated with kid gloves, we want to be treated with respect, to be treated as equals, and to have our rights protected. We don't get any of that even federal gay rights legal protections don't cover trans folk, we're extremely vulnerable. So we ask our allies to listen and to back us up at where we draw the line, not where our allies would like us to draw the line. We're fighting the same battles that the gay rights, black rights, womens rights, and other civil rights movements have had to fight, and we have to fight the same way, by demanding it. None of these movements have ever gotten anywhere by asking politely, so neither will ours. So of our allies we ask they stand with us, to support our experiences, not downplay, dismiss, explain away our issues, and basically tell us to shut up. It's issues that we trans folk face that need to be addressed, they don't get addressed when we're told to shut up.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Typical, they make a movie that's about a trans woman and get a cis man to play the role.

Wait a minute...
They got an actor to play someone he's not?
What will they think of next?!?

Point well missed there friend.
It's not an actor being an actor and doing his job that's the issue here. The issue is that it's supporting the damaging narrative that trans women are really men, when they put a cis man in the role of a trans woman.

 

[Vanilla ISIS]

Point well missed there friend.
It's not an actor being an actor and doing his job that's the issue here. The issue is that it's supporting the damaging narrative that trans women are really men, when they put a cis man in the role of a trans woman.

OK, a few things:
1. Where do you get this "damaging narrative" thing?
2. How would you even tell whether someone was a man playing a trans woman or an actual trans woman in a movie without looking into the personal life of that person?
3. How many trans women actors are there?

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Typical, they make a movie that's about a trans woman and get a cis man to play the role.

Wait a minute...
They got an actor to play someone he's not?
What will they think of next?!?

Point well missed there friend.
It's not an actor being an actor and doing his job that's the issue here. The issue is that it's supporting the damaging narrative that trans women are really men, when they put a cis man in the role of a trans woman.

I don't disagree with your position, at all really. In fact I feel you're 100% Transgendered roles in films should go to transgendered people. This is like putting Leonardo Dicapro in a movie about a little person and using SFX to make him appear little instead of hiring a little person actor who's stuck playing an Elf at the mall. Ya know, the same shit the Game Of Thrones guy went through. And even before anyone says otherwise, like if their isn't any "good" or "skilled" trans actors out there it's because they aren't getting the work. Patrick Stewart didn't get Patrick Stewart good after taking a class, Acting takes years of practice and skill.

However I have a sticking point, however slight: Like how do you this actor is Cisgendered? How the hell do we presume ANYONE is? Not everyone lays their cards on the table, either for safety or because of their career choice or even their own just personal reasons.

It's ultimately a minor thing I'm picking on, so feel free to ignore it, just irked me enough to point out. Like homeboy probably is Cisgendered, but c'mon that was a snap quick judgement (that admittedly is justifiable)

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Point well missed there friend.
It's not an actor being an actor and doing his job that's the issue here. The issue is that it's supporting the damaging narrative that trans women are really men, when they put a cis man in the role of a trans woman.

OK, a few things:
1. Where do you get this "damaging narrative" thing?
2. How would you even tell whether someone was a man playing a trans woman or an actual trans woman in a movie without looking into the personal life of that person?
3. How many trans women actors are there?

1. It's basically the most common transphobic "argument" used to discredit trans women and invalidate our identities. A lot of people unconsciously support it not meaning any harm, but it leads to things like casting cis men as trans women and treating trans women like men. The reverse is true for trans men, when society isn't busy ignoring that they even exist.
2. A trans woman would be credited with a woman's name, not a man's. Unless she was still in the closet... But that's getting into murky territory. A closeted trans woman would likely bring a ton authenticity to such a role though, so when she did come out it'd be kind of unsurprising. Although a closeted trans woman would likely avoid roles of trans women and drag queens like the plague.
3. Dozens that I can find by a google search, seems though that most resources only talk about trans women who act, but not trans men though. Which is kind of a shame.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Typical, they make a movie that's about a trans woman and get a cis man to play the role.

Wait a minute...
They got an actor to play someone he's not?
What will they think of next?!?

Point well missed there friend.
It's not an actor being an actor and doing his job that's the issue here. The issue is that it's supporting the damaging narrative that trans women are really men, when they put a cis man in the role of a trans woman.

I don't disagree with your position, at all really. In fact I feel you're 100% Transgendered roles in films should go to transgendered people. This is like putting Leonardo Dicapro in a movie about a little person and using SFX to make him appear little instead of hiring a little person actor who's stuck playing an Elf at the mall. Ya know, the same shit the Game Of Thrones guy went through. And even before anyone says otherwise, like if their isn't any "good" or "skilled" trans actors out there it's because they aren't getting the work. Patrick Stewart didn't get Patrick Stewart good after taking a class, Acting takes years of practice and skill.

However I have a sticking point, however slight: Like how do you this actor is Cisgendered? How the hell do we presume ANYONE is? Not everyone lays their cards on the table, either for safety or because of their career choice or even their own just personal reasons.

It's ultimately a minor thing I'm picking on, so feel free to ignore it, just irked me enough to point out. Like homeboy probably is Cisgendered, but c'mon that was a snap quick judgement (that admittedly is justifiable)

Apparently a few trans actors and trans actresses end up getting roles of cis people form what I'm seeing? At least in shows on premium cable television.(Edit: And in stage productions, can't believe I forgot to mention that!) Which is a very positive step, but it's also kind of skipping a step if you ask me. We need trans folk playing trans folk for the sake of awareness you know.

Well in the case of The Danish Girl I'd assume that Redmayne who is fairly experienced to do a much better job in the in role of a trans woman. That might just be bias on my part though.

Aside from that I'm relatively certain that any trans actor or actress who is either in the closet, or stealth, would avoid playing the role of any trans person like the plague. Mostly because of the possibility of them being outed against their will.

 

[Something Amyss]

The poster I initially responded to sure made it seem that way. Apologies if that came across as being directed at you.

No, I wanted to know if anyone had said that. Mars is understandably pissed that it doesn't happen, but it seems like a far cry to call it essential. However,t he question I responded to was why it was offensive, and she is absolutely right that we're generally cast and treated as men.

I'm not sure that's an apt comparison. If it was a story of how you cured cancer, I've no doubt you would be portrayed by a woman because that is how you identify and it's a story about you curing cancer, which would be the focus.

I'm glad one of us is certain of that, but that's absolutely not how trans people are portrayed in media. Have you watched Stonewall?

And to me it would make sense for the character's pre-transition masculinity to be represented by a man and see the point he realizes that he feels more comfortable as a woman through crossdressing and later identifying entirely as a woman.

From what I understand, that is not the case here. This movie covers a period during which this is not true, since the real person had been presenting as a woman at least part time for a decade or more. The fact that this is how it's portrayed in the movie's also a little insulting. No, a lot insulting.

Generally speaking, this is not something that happens overnight. It seems sudden to the outside world, I understand. I've dealt with a friend recently who was shocked that I was trans because I seemed like a "typical guy." And that confuses the hell out of me, because I don't know how, but that's another story. This is a big demarcation for him. I've known I was trans (though not the word) since as far back as I can remember, at the latest the age of four. There may have been some time where I actually "felt like a man," but I would have had to have been like two with a limited sense of self.

Ideally, we could just say something's wrong and get it treated. In reality, I learned by the time I hit Kindergarten that this was something bad, something to hide. I spent the next thirteen/fourteen years trying to change, fight, suppress it. But I was never a man, far as I can remember. Something did change in me, but not my masculinity. And even then, I was more worried about survival. Hell, even now, I'm so terrified of being what I am that I have this desperate urge to just dive back into a male (false) identity--even my old username--and go "just kidding! totes a dude here!"

Except I can't. It was killing me.

And this is someone born almost 100 years after the woman portrayed here.

I don't know her experience entirely, but the idea presented here is reductive at best.

It could very well be that I'm not as exposed to the hardships of transgendered individuals, or that I don't see the abuse those individuals endure. I'll chalk that up to me living in one of the more progressive parts of the US.

I live in one of the bluest states in the US. I'd share with you some of my experience with progressives, but the last time I went into any detail here, I had a breakdown and made one of my friends cry. Seriously, after writing that I realised I was tasting blood, because the stress of even referencing my life experience caused me to bite into my lip without even realising it. And yes, this shit happens in Seattle as well.

Now, having said that, I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume things of me and my experience. Because while I may not have the same level of exposure, I am well aware of those hardships. I have a good friend that recently transitioned. She is fortunate to have had the level of support that she has had. I briefly dated a woman who hadn't so easily transitioned. She didn't have the support from her grandparents (with whom she was living with at the time) and unfortunately she became depressed.

This will probably come across as one of those, "it's okay, I have a black friend" defenses but I'm telling you so you'll know I'm no stranger to those hardship. Though I'm just been an outsider looking in, I still have an understanding of what it is a person can go through in a period of transition.

Well, I don't really have much in the way of black friends because I live in a super white state, but I do have some Muslim friends. And while I'm aware on some level of the issues they face in the US, I wouldn't even begin to presume to understand what they go through. Why? Because I'd be wrong. And frankly, it'd be tone deaf of me to try and say otherwise.

It's great that you're sympathetic and supportive, but don't conflate that with experience. I have to at least partially agree with Kyuubi here: I don't think trans people are unique, but there is a very large gap between seeing and living. I think it's ridiculous to paint transfolk as i any way unique here, but the rest is valid. On my worst day, I don't know what it's like to be black and pulled over by the cops. I don't know what it's like to be an Arab American surrounded by white folk in a nation that views them as terrorists.

I do know what it's like to be trans in a progressive state, and the shit that goes on even under the noses of my allies.

What this was about was whether or not the representation of trans women was a positive one in regards to the casting decision for the main character of the film. And in that regard, I still believe it really comes down to how the character was portrayed rather than who the character was portrayed by. I'm certain there are many trans actresses that could've played the role just as well, and likely even better, but it was a creative decision not to. Not a political one.

You know for a fact that it was a practical one? Because I don't.

And this sounds a lot like "the right person for the job," which is something that generally means the right white man for the job. This usually only serves to enforce the status quo, and lasts just as long. Idris Elba is a fantastic actor, but people are upset that he's been deemed the best person to be the Gunslinger in a movie.

And if trans people could have done the job better, wouldn't it have been better to go that route?

That's how I see it at any rate.

And yes, I know this was aimed at someone else. But the point? People are telling you why it's wrong to paint that perspective. People with perspective on the issue. We may know a thing or two about this.

John Lithgow's character in The World According to Garp seemed to do so with critical approval. And I think it's hard to say what's 'convincing' given how diverse people can be. There's not really a mold for trans people or any lines they need to be colored within to be 'convincing'. Unless of course you're talking about the performance of the actors rather than whether or not the women they're portraying would be considered 'passable'.

This comes off more as "I have black friends." Trying to explain to trans people how Lithgow getting critical acclaim means...what to us exactly? Should I feel better that Lithgow's character is how cisgender people see me? Or that you seem to think there's validity there?

And you can't really say that it was done 'purely' out of transphobia.

You just insisted that a decision was done creatively, not politically. Pick a standard, either one. Either she can't know and you can't either, or you can both make such claims without base.

Granted there are numerous examples of transphobia in film, it's more likely that it was ignorance than active oppression. And I'm not defending that ignorance, just trying to draw a line between anti-trans and just not pro-trans.

But the example you give is still transphobic. Acting out of ignorance and fear s still the same, whether you have malice in your heart or not.

At the risk of digressing, I'm curious as to how Jared Leto portraying a character that is the same gender, is gay, and crossdresses doubly offensive offensive in comparison to him portraying a trans woman? Is it because it would be a straight man portraying a gay man? A man who (I assume) doesn't dress in drag portraying a man that does?

I would agree this is a double standard. And I'm mostly stating this to emphasise the fact that we all may have blind spots and be ignorant with regards to people who are not us and don't share our experiences. Trans people can, unsurprisingly, be racist, sexist, homophobic and even transphobic. The double standard here aside, a character starting as a drag queen and becoming a transwoman is absolutely worth being called out.

 

[Areloch]

So, just to be sure: we're all in agreement that the ideal state of affairs would be to have a trans person play the role of a trans person.

But given that - for whatever reason - that did not happen, it's problematic that a male actor is playing a biologically male character that has the female gender idenity?

I know I'm just the big dumb transphobic monstrosity for not comprehending the problem here, but it'd strike me as being more truthful to the circumstances and difficulties that would arise from such a circumstance, would it not? They didn't have reassignment surgery back in that era, so Lili was going to be biologically male for the rest of her life.

I mean, one would presume that a movie like this would focus on the duality of the mental and physical sides not lining up and it sounds like this movie doesn't really, but I'm having an extraordinarily hard time understanding why having a male actor play a biologically male character going through an inner turmoil that never, in the end, affects the body's physiology due to the era.

Honestly, it strikes me as being less truthful to the entire thing to get a female to play a male who has the gender identity of a woman, because that sort of misses the point of the physical/mental struggle does it not?

I just can't understand how having the actor's sex align with the biological sex of the character being portrayed in a movie covering the duality of physical and mental states being something that propagates stereotypes and hatred to trans people.

But again, I'm probably just the big dumb transphobe in this conversation, so what do I know.

Edit: Melodrama aside, it does feel like being wrong about this sort of topic at all is a good way to make oneself out to be the bad guy. Case in point being this thread, where the movie doing it "wrong"(which as covered above, I still don't understand at all) propagates stereotypes and hatred of trans people. If merely casting to type is enough to perpetuate something like that, then I can't help but feel any ignorance at all could be likewise casted in such an extreme negative light.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

So, just to be sure: we're all in agreement that the ideal state of affairs would be to have a trans person play the role of a trans person.

But given that - for whatever reason - that did not happen, it's problematic that a male actor is playing a biologically male character that has the female gender idenity?

I know I'm just the big dumb transphobic monstrosity for not comprehending the problem here, but it'd strike me as being more truthful to the circumstances and difficulties that would arise from such a circumstance, would it not? They didn't have reassignment surgery back in that era, so Lili was going to be biologically male for the rest of her life.

I mean, one would presume that a movie like this would focus on the duality of the mental and physical sides not lining up and it sounds like this movie doesn't really, but I'm having an extraordinarily hard time understanding why having a male actor play a biologically male character going through an inner turmoil that never, in the end, affects the body's physiology due to the era.

Honestly, it strikes me as being less truthful to the entire thing to get a female to play a male who has the gender identity of a woman, because that sort of misses the point of the physical/mental struggle does it not?

I just can't understand how having the actor's sex align with the biological sex of the character being portrayed in a movie covering the duality of physical and mental states being something that propagates stereotypes and hatred to trans people.

But again, I'm probably just the big dumb transphobe in this conversation, so what do I know.

Nobody is accusing anyone of being a transphobic monstrosity here, and I'm not saying that you're a transphobe at all.

Really Lili was one of the first people ever to receive any sort of sexual reassignment surgery. Still as it stands all trans folk today will be biologically the sex we're assigned at birth until we die, unless someone comes up with post-birth genetic engineering and the ability to clone human organs for transplant using the recipient's own DNA... But that's beside the point.

The reason the entire concept of using a cisgender man to portray a transgender woman is a problem is because it's reinforcing the idea that trans women are actually men. This is the argument used by biological essentialist people, like Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists(TERFs), which enforces the idea that biological sex and gender are the same thing. This position is meant to erase the identities and experiences, to invalidate us as people. Basically it's exactly the opposite of everything the trans community has been trying to establish, because the entire concept of biological essentialism erases the existence of trans folk. Which is a false reality because trans folk undoubtedly exist, you know, if we didn't I wouldn't be here.

As for getting a woman to portray a trans woman as being less truthful than a man in the same role, that's not even remotely true, no cis person can honestly portray the conflict that gender dysphoria causes in a trans person. Having said that a cisgender woman can at least grasp and present the identity of a woman, because cis women are women, a cisgender man simply can't do that. A cisgender woman can't accurately express gender dysphoria, because she's never experienced it and it's a deep psychological trait of trans folk, one that effects on virtually every level. On the other hand she can at least accurately rely half of the experience of a trans woman, that is identifying as a woman, because that's a deep psychological trait that effects every level of both cis and trans women.

Besides all that casting a man in the role of a trans woman is a none to subtle way of saying that the only trait that matters is a penis, which isn't even remotely true.

 

[Areloch]

But given that - for whatever reason - that did not happen, it's problematic that a male actor is playing a biologically male character that has the female gender idenity?

Yes, because the established standard is correlating the gender identity of the character with an actor or actress. Character is a man? Get a man. Character is a woman? Get a woman. We don't do genital checks or map people's genomes before deciding to cast one way or another. The "biologically male/female casting" is faulty on every basis that you might consider the biological standard to be, of which by the way the common definitions of "biological male" and "biological female" don't hold up to scrutiny.

Oh by the way, Lili was intersex so even if you did get a definition of "biological male" and "biological female" that functioned properly it wouldn't even apply to Lili anyways.

They didn't have reassignment surgery back in that era, so Lili was going to be biologically male for the rest of her life.

What do you think Lili is most known for exactly? Its even stated in the article.

Ah, re-reading it, I did actually miss the

that of one of the first people in the world to have sex reassignment surgery

part somehow. The rest of the article doesn't really cover that event happening, so I don't know if it takes place during the movie, or a later point in the character's life. The context was a bit vague if it actually came about or not by the end of the film, and I'm not familiar with the REAL story, so this article is pretty much all I had to work with there.

Honestly, it strikes me as being less truthful to the entire thing to get a female to play a male who has the gender identity of a woman, because that sort of misses the point of the physical/mental struggle does it not?

If you're going to puport authenticity then why do you consider it a good decision to cast a person who has never experienced gender dysphoria?

Well, you may note that I actually did put:

So, just to be sure: we're all in agreement that the ideal state of affairs would be to have a trans person play the role of a trans person.

There's at least a moderate chance I think that that's the preferred route, maybe?

However, if the character is biologically male, as mentioned in the article, for at least part of the movie, how is it less authentic to get a male actor to play a male character during those segments?

 

[Tortilla the Hun]

No, I wanted to know if anyone had said that. Mars is understandably pissed that it doesn't happen, but it seems like a far cry to call it essential.

So it's about semantics? While yes, it wasn't expressly stated verbatim that "trans characters absolutely always must be portrayed by a trans actor, no exceptions" you can't say that wasn't the notion that was being put forward. Otherwise, what is there to get all up in arms about?

By saying it's not absolutely necessary to have a trans actress cast as a trans woman is already opening up to the idea that a trans character can be portrayed by a cisgendered person. Then it only becomes a matter of whether or not cross-gender acting is appropriate. And if you think it isn't, then I know plenty of theater actors/actresses you can take that up with.

NOTE: It's gonna seem like I'm glossing over a large portion here, and to be frank I sort of am. This discussion is going into places I'd rather not go into largely because it's diverging from the original discussion here and, because I consider myself to be a sympathetic person, there's not really any way I can effectively nod and 'mhm' through the screen.

But I will state again, I will make no claim to know those hardships through experience. Though I admit to having struggles with my own sexuality (something I'd rather not discuss beyond that) I still can't say I understand what it means to go through what someone transitioning goes through to the fullest extent, I understand what it means to face ridicule and social stigma.

I hope to draw a line here and hopefully prevent this from being a personal discussion as it isn't the place for it.

Idris Elba is a fantastic actor, but people are upset that he's been deemed the best person to be the Gunslinger in a movie.

And those people would be wrong. He is a fantastic actor, and if he can land the role of Roland then more power to him.

I find it interesting that you draw correlation between race and gender, only to suggest that criticism for the portrayal of that character not being 'true' (in regards to race/gender) as invalid.

This comes off more as "I have black friends." Trying to explain to trans people how Lithgow getting critical acclaim means...what to us exactly? Should I feel better that Lithgow's character is how cisgender people see me? Or that you seem to think there's validity there?

The point I'm trying to get across is that his role wasn't about, "hey, everybody, it's a transgender woman!" It was about, "hey, everybody, it's a person! An actual character that just so happens to be transgender but isn't written so it's her only defining characteristic! See how she's an actual person with her own struggles and ambitions!"

And if you ask me, that's how it should be. It's part of acceptance. In order for gender to not be an issue, it has to become a non-issue.

You just insisted that a decision was done creatively, not politically. Pick a standard, either one. Either she can't know and you can't either, or you can both make such claims without base.

I've read articles, I've looked into how it was that Eddie Redmayne came into the role and I can say, with no small amount of certainty, there was nothing detailing it was 'because we needed a white cisgendered male'. Redmayne was offered the part because of his talent and good work history with some of the people working on the film. So there was something of a base, but take that as you will.

I would agree this is a double standard. And I'm mostly stating this to emphasise the fact that we all may have blind spots and be ignorant with regards to people who are not us and don't share our experiences. Trans people can, unsurprisingly, be racist, sexist, homophobic and even transphobic.

This is certainly something that I agree with. I've stated that true equality is recognizing that anyone, regardless of race, religion, age, affiliation, gender, or geography, can be the absolute worst person. Mind you it was said facetiously, but I consider it to be right. Discrimination isn't confined to certain demographics. But that's neither here nor there for this discussion.

The double standard here aside, a character starting as a drag queen and becoming a transwoman is absolutely worth being called out.

I'm not going to refute that. I don't know Jared Leto's motivations behind requesting that change. Perhaps it was with good intentions but ultimately misguided. I don't know.

But I will argue that, seeing many of the criticisms against Leto seemed to revolve around his appearance, it's a very shallow criticism. It's been picked apart that Leto's character looked like a man in drag. And to be fair, the character did. But the reality is (and I fully expect to take flak for this) some trans women do. That's right, I said it. Sue me. Burn me at the stake atop the altar of political correctness if that makes you feel better, but it's the truth.

Do I hold judgement against those women that do have that appearance? Of course not because I'm not an asshole. I respect their identity, I respect them as a person, but that doesn't change the fact they've retained some masculinity in their physical appearance. That's just genetics. I would never say anything so crass to those women's faces because, again, I'm not an asshole. And to be honest, for most it doesn't make them unattractive. But once more, that's neither here nor there.

I'm just going to sum up my feelings on this whole cisgender male portraying a transgender woman because I find this discussion mentally exhausting and think it unlikely I'll be posting in this thread further.

I don't think there is any more issue for a man to be in the role of a woman than there is for a woman to portray a man, whether it's in film or on stage. Nor is there any issue for voice actors, many of which take innumerable crossgender roles. The same goes for a black actor portraying a white character.

Right, black face is just a practice to take acting jobs away from black people while making unrealistic, degrading and malicious portrayals of them. Completely unlike trans face, where nobody is ever ridiculed for their gender identity. Its not like trans actors and actresses are actually turned down from trans acting roles for "not looking trans enough" or anything because the person/people in charge of casting believe the "ugly tranny" depicting to be the one and only accurate representation. Its not like they skip over actual trans folk and attach prosthetics to cis people when they play the role of a trans person because they have to make a trans person "look believable". Its not like somebody won an Oscar for simply slapping the label "transgender" on a character that was written as a drag queen, ab libbing most of the changes in the role while ignoring all of the hired consultants on trans issues that offered advice and purporting this to be some sort of groundbreaking representation when they happened to get a lot wrong.

Aside from that Hollywood bullshit that certainly doesn't exist, no siree, its not like trans folk have faced basically every single form of bigotry that black people in the western world have except fo slavery. Its not like even to this day trans folk make up over half of the hate crimes directed at the LGBTQ+ community despite making up less than one-tenth of it.

Ah. Sarcastic dismissal of my argument. Great start.

For me its not even necessarily a trans woman playing a trans woman (though in the case of a transgender pioneer that probably should've been what happened because DUH) but rather a woman playing a woman and a man playing a man.

This seems to be the central argument here so I'm just going to address this and not jump through your 'name ten' hoops you've so kindly put up for me.

Now if I'm to understand correctly, the issue doesn't lie within whether or not a transgender female character (because she is a character from a work of fiction, even though the character in the novel is about a real person) is portrayed by a transgender or cisgender person, but does lie in whether or not the female character is portrayed by a male or female?

If so, I'd like to respond to that with a question. Should the same apply to theater? Is the very act of crossgender acting inherently wrong or offensive? Does that extend to voice acting as well? Why should gender be a limitation for creative expression?

 

[Areloch]

So, just to be sure: we're all in agreement that the ideal state of affairs would be to have a trans person play the role of a trans person.

But given that - for whatever reason - that did not happen, it's problematic that a male actor is playing a biologically male character that has the female gender idenity?

I know I'm just the big dumb transphobic monstrosity for not comprehending the problem here, but it'd strike me as being more truthful to the circumstances and difficulties that would arise from such a circumstance, would it not? They didn't have reassignment surgery back in that era, so Lili was going to be biologically male for the rest of her life.

I mean, one would presume that a movie like this would focus on the duality of the mental and physical sides not lining up and it sounds like this movie doesn't really, but I'm having an extraordinarily hard time understanding why having a male actor play a biologically male character going through an inner turmoil that never, in the end, affects the body's physiology due to the era.

Honestly, it strikes me as being less truthful to the entire thing to get a female to play a male who has the gender identity of a woman, because that sort of misses the point of the physical/mental struggle does it not?

I just can't understand how having the actor's sex align with the biological sex of the character being portrayed in a movie covering the duality of physical and mental states being something that propagates stereotypes and hatred to trans people.

But again, I'm probably just the big dumb transphobe in this conversation, so what do I know.

Nobody is accusing anyone of being a transphobic monstrosity here, and I'm not saying that you're a transphobe at all.

Really Lili was one of the first people ever to receive any sort of sexual reassignment surgery. Still as it stands all trans folk today will be biologically the sex we're assigned at birth until we die, unless someone comes up with post-birth genetic engineering and the ability to clone human organs for transplant using the recipient's own DNA... But that's beside the point.

The reason the entire concept of using a cisgender man to portray a transgender woman is a problem is because it's reinforcing the idea that trans women are actually men. This is the argument used by biological essentialist people, like Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists(TERFs), which enforces the idea that biological sex and gender are the same thing. This position is meant to erase the identities and experiences, to invalidate us as people. Basically it's exactly the opposite of everything the trans community has been trying to establish, because the entire concept of biological essentialism erases the existence of trans folk. Which is a false reality because trans folk undoubtedly exist, you know, if we didn't I wouldn't be here.

I suppose? I mean, I can see what you mean there, but it feels odd to conclude that something is unacceptable because a small group of dickbags use the same logic to make everything terrible.

To attempt to gain further clarity, suppose someone was filming an in-depth documentary around a trans person as they come to realize who and what they are, and end up getting a sex change and all that.

Would it make sense in that context to have a male actor in the first part, during their "physically male, but internally a woman" part, and then after the transition have a female actor fill the role of the post-transition person as they are now physically female?

As for getting a woman to portray a trans woman as being less truthful than a man in the same role, that's not even remotely true, no cis person can honestly portray the conflict that gender dysphoria causes in a trans person. Having said that a cisgender woman can at least grasp and present the identity of a woman, because cis women are women, a cisgender man simply can't do that. A cisgender woman can't accurately express gender dysphoria, because she's never experienced it and it's a deep psychological trait of trans folk, one that effects on virtually every level. On the other hand she can at least accurately rely half of the experience of a trans woman, that is identifying as a woman, because that's a deep psychological trait that effects every level of both cis and trans women.

Besides all that casting a man in the role of a trans woman is a none to subtle way of saying that the only trait that matters is a penis, which isn't even remotely true.

So it's about the mannerisms that a female is likely to have that a male would not?

Alright, I can see that I suppose.
It still fades into that horrible fog of "What makes a man or a woman" that shrouds pretty much everything about gender identity, so I'm not entirely sure I get what a woman actor would bring to the table that an equally skilled actor who is a man could not. But as said, that disappears into murky waters, so I'll acknowledge that that's a fairly reasonable point.