2,812 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Mar 10, 2020 20:32:12 GMT
Like it happened with Falsettos last September, it's always sad to see how so many people on this board are quick to minimize and ridicule minorities' legitimate concerns about their own representation.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Mar 10, 2020 20:41:38 GMT
perpetuating a stereotype in that way could lead to violence, Why? If someone is transphobic to the point of murder, I don't think believing a transwoman is 'merely' a man in a dress is going to increase or decrease their level of hate. Were they incited to violence by the movie with Cillian Murphy in the role? Or that film with Eddie Redmayne? |
|
2,347 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Mar 10, 2020 20:54:52 GMT
perpetuating a stereotype in that way could lead to violence, Why? If someone is transphobic to the point of murder, I don't think believing a transwoman is 'merely' a man in a dress is going to increase or decrease their level of hate. Were they incited to violence by the movie with Cillian Murphy in the role? Or that film with Eddie Redmayne? I dont really have to explain the correlation between negative stereotypes and violence towards a minority do I? Or how trans people being seen as just a bloke on a dress is a negative stereotype? It's a drip drip effect. It's not just one thing. And people are justified to not want to contribute to the dripping. |
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Mar 10, 2020 21:06:14 GMT
I dont really have to explain the correlation between negative stereotypes and violence towards a minority do I? Right. I am a 'member' of three underrepresented minorities, including something akin to what is being discussed here. I have experienced sexual, domestic and street violence. I have been punched, badly, on two occasions just for how I dress. My gay flatmates were hospitalized by a 'bashing', and another friend had his nose broken by a street gang because he dressed flamboyantly. I do not underestimate how vulnerable minorities can feel because I am one and I've experienced some serious crap in my time. But I still don't see why casting a gay actor (one who grew up in one of the most homophobic parts of the UK) in a trans role in a small London theatre could incite violence, or why this would be seen as perpetuating a 'negative stereotype'. It's an actor playing a role, and the character is portrayed positively. |
|
|
|
Post by marob on Mar 10, 2020 22:50:16 GMT
I've seen Fra Fee on stage, but only seen him singing when On the Town was on TV, so my main interest in seeing this would be to see him in a singing role. If they had cast an unknown trans person in the role, I would not be bothered about seeing it.
I can understand how some people might not be happy with the casting, but I don't see how campaigning for him to be sacked does anything to help promote understanding and acceptance of trans people.
|
|
419 posts
|
Post by carmella1 on Mar 10, 2020 23:13:29 GMT
A question when a trans man wins in the women's olympics is it fair? He still has not given up his muscles or height, etc. They used to disqualify "women" for taking hormone shots now its perfectly all right.
|
|
2,347 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Mar 10, 2020 23:20:23 GMT
I dont really have to explain the correlation between negative stereotypes and violence towards a minority do I? Right. I am a 'member' of three underrepresented minorities, including something akin to what is being discussed here. I have experienced sexual, domestic and street violence. I have been punched, badly, on two occasions just for how I dress. My gay flatmates were hospitalized by a 'bashing', and another friend had his nose broken by a street gang because he dressed flamboyantly. I do not underestimate how vulnerable minorities can feel because I am one and I've experienced some serious crap in my time. But I still don't see why casting a gay actor (one who grew up in one of the most homophobic parts of the UK) in a trans role in a small London theatre could incite violence, or why this would be seen as perpetuating a 'negative stereotype'. It's an actor playing a role, and the character is portrayed positively. Sorry to hear about that stuff which happened to you and your flatmate. On the other point, trans people say the bloke in a dress stereotype perpetuates violent reactions against them. That's their experience.. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 11, 2020 1:31:12 GMT
So the performer who turned down a role has stated that the producers didn't do enough to find a trans actor for the role.
That is clearly just an opinion. I have to question whether they had sufficient access to the casting process to have a real insight into what efforts were actually made.
And I do worry about the rush to include death in the discussion. It is never helpful to use extreme language or examples - no matter how justified you think you are in choosing to use them. It tends to add heat rather than light.
On the limited evidence we have, I do tend to believe that the producers did make a sincere effort to find a trans performer and when they did not, they made reasonable efforts to address this by putting other measures/projects in place.
Assuming the casting stands, audiences have a choice as to whether or not to support the project by buying or not buying tickets.
And people can then judge whether the production accurately and sensitively portrays the story of this character.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Mar 11, 2020 9:00:35 GMT
I get very confused by all this, because at the same time as being told that a trans woman is ‘not a man in a dress’ we are also told that self ID means that literally anyone can be trans, regardless of how masculine or feminine they look or whether they decide to have medical interventions, that it is defined by self ID.
In which case, why couldn’t a cis actor play someone who is self-identifying as trans? That’s surely no different than any other type of self-identification an actor portrays.
If I recall the film correctly, the main character is biologically male, and expresses their trans identity via clothes and make-up. They don’t have access to hormones or surgery.
The trans actor who turned down a role was cast as a biological woman - so would not have been suitable to play the lead, who is biologically male.
How many self-identified trans women musical theatre actors who have had no medical interventions - and so will read to an audience as biologically male - and have the acting experience necessary to play a lead role in a high-quality production are out there?
|
|
99 posts
|
Post by noboiscout on Mar 11, 2020 12:54:54 GMT
I fear that if I was producing this musical, that I'd throw in the towel at this stage, and cancel the production. Nobody will come away from this well, now.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Mar 11, 2020 13:00:56 GMT
That is what effectively happened with Rub & Tug, the film Scarlett Johanssen was going to be in, that she pulled out of because of the outcry over her casting.
No-one has heard anything about it since.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Mar 11, 2020 13:18:42 GMT
I get very confused by all this, because at the same time as being told that a trans woman is ‘not a man in a dress’ we are also told that self ID means that literally anyone can be trans, regardless of how masculine or feminine they look or whether they decide to have medical interventions, that it is defined by self ID. In which case, why couldn’t a cis actor play someone who is self-identifying as trans? That’s surely no different than any other type of self-identification an actor portrays. If I recall the film correctly, the main character is biologically male, and expresses their trans identity via clothes and make-up. They don’t have access to hormones or surgery. The trans actor who turned down a role was cast as a biological woman - so would not have been suitable to play the lead, who is biologically male. How many self-identified trans women musical theatre actors who have had no medical interventions - and so will read to an audience as biologically male - and have the acting experience necessary to play a lead role in a high-quality production are out there? I think this is a superb take on the situation. I wish some of the twitter accounts who are currently piling into the Donmar, the Birmingham Rep and Fra Fee could read it. It looks like a lot of people eager to display their LGBTQ friendly credentials are getting stuck in without knowing that much about the piece itself or the background. They'll only be happy if Fra Fee is sacked or the production cancelled. It reminds me of a trans commentator who was speaking about the Scarlett Johansson 'scandal'. They said that they would rather see trans stories being told, and given there were no trans stars of Johansson's status who could actually get a Hollywood film greenlit, it was preferable to have her playing the role. It's very frustrating. There are genuinely transphobic and bigoted people out there. The companies and indiviiduals being targeted here are not amongst them. |
|
2,347 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Mar 11, 2020 14:13:10 GMT
I get very confused by all this, because at the same time as being told that a trans woman is ‘not a man in a dress’ we are also told that self ID means that literally anyone can be trans, regardless of how masculine or feminine they look or whether they decide to have medical interventions, that it is defined by self ID. In which case, why couldn’t a cis actor play someone who is self-identifying as trans? That’s surely no different than any other type of self-identification an actor portrays. If I recall the film correctly, the main character is biologically male, and expresses their trans identity via clothes and make-up. They don’t have access to hormones or surgery. The trans actor who turned down a role was cast as a biological woman - so would not have been suitable to play the lead, who is biologically male. How many self-identified trans women musical theatre actors who have had no medical interventions - and so will read to an audience as biologically male - and have the acting experience necessary to play a lead role in a high-quality production are out there? Its because saying a trans person is 'just a bloke in a dress' is a derogatory term by transphobes.
There is a network of trans actors out there. I don't really buy the ' He was the only one who could play the role' as a reason to be honest. I think for some roles, you have to be careful with casting and I think in this case, they haven't.
Anyway, its mainly other trans people attacking the casting choice really, which makes me think that they did mess up
|
|
2,347 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Mar 11, 2020 14:14:47 GMT
I get very confused by all this, because at the same time as being told that a trans woman is ‘not a man in a dress’ we are also told that self ID means that literally anyone can be trans, regardless of how masculine or feminine they look or whether they decide to have medical interventions, that it is defined by self ID. In which case, why couldn’t a cis actor play someone who is self-identifying as trans? That’s surely no different than any other type of self-identification an actor portrays. If I recall the film correctly, the main character is biologically male, and expresses their trans identity via clothes and make-up. They don’t have access to hormones or surgery. The trans actor who turned down a role was cast as a biological woman - so would not have been suitable to play the lead, who is biologically male. How many self-identified trans women musical theatre actors who have had no medical interventions - and so will read to an audience as biologically male - and have the acting experience necessary to play a lead role in a high-quality production are out there? I think this is a superb take on the situation. I wish some of the twitter accounts who are currently piling into the Donmar, the Birmingham Rep and Fra Fee could read it. It looks like a lot of people eager to display their LGBTQ friendly credentials are getting stuck in without knowing that much about the piece itself or the background. They'll only be happy if Fra Fee is sacked or the production cancelled. It reminds me of a trans commentator who was speaking about the Scarlett Johansson 'scandal'. They said that they would rather see trans stories being told, and given there were no trans stars of Johansson's status who could actually get a Hollywood film greenlit, it was preferable to have her playing the role. It's very frustrating. There are genuinely transphobic and bigoted people out there. The companies and indiviiduals being targeted here are not amongst them. I think if you are committing to telling the story of a trans person, which this musical says it wants to do, you should cast someone appropriate to the role. In this case, a trans actor should have been cast IMO |
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Mar 11, 2020 14:27:13 GMT
I get very confused by all this, because at the same time as being told that a trans woman is ‘not a man in a dress’ we are also told that self ID means that literally anyone can be trans, regardless of how masculine or feminine they look or whether they decide to have medical interventions, that it is defined by self ID. In which case, why couldn’t a cis actor play someone who is self-identifying as trans? That’s surely no different than any other type of self-identification an actor portrays. If I recall the film correctly, the main character is biologically male, and expresses their trans identity via clothes and make-up. They don’t have access to hormones or surgery. The trans actor who turned down a role was cast as a biological woman - so would not have been suitable to play the lead, who is biologically male. How many self-identified trans women musical theatre actors who have had no medical interventions - and so will read to an audience as biologically male - and have the acting experience necessary to play a lead role in a high-quality production are out there? Its because saying a trans person is 'just a bloke in a dress' is a derogatory term by transphobes.
There is a network of trans actors out there. I don't really buy the ' He was the only one who could play the role' as a reason to be honest. I think for some roles, you have to be careful with casting and I think in this case, they haven't.
Anyway, its mainly other trans people attacking the casting choice really, which makes me think that they did mess up
@zahdif You're twisting what Kathryn said. She didn't say 'just a bloke in a dress', she said 'a man in a dress', which is how some members of the community who would identify under the trans umbrella (including cross-dressers, drag queens, gender fluid people who might identify as male at some times and female at others) do describe themselves. It's not helpful to misrepresent other people's points when this is already such an incendiary debate. I don't think anybody is saying Fra Fee is the only person who could play the role. But in the view of the creative team, they clearly think he's the best one. How many trans people (and their associated allies) who are attacking this choice are actually familiar with the piece and the character as described by Kathryn? It's understandable that they see a headline saying 'cis actor takes trans role'. But it looks as if this is far more nuanced. |
|
2,347 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Mar 11, 2020 15:09:08 GMT
Its because saying a trans person is 'just a bloke in a dress' is a derogatory term by transphobes.
There is a network of trans actors out there. I don't really buy the ' He was the only one who could play the role' as a reason to be honest. I think for some roles, you have to be careful with casting and I think in this case, they haven't.
Anyway, its mainly other trans people attacking the casting choice really, which makes me think that they did mess up
@zahdif You're twisting what Kathryn said. She didn't say 'just a bloke in a dress', she said 'a man in a dress', which is how some members of the community who would identify under the trans umbrella (including cross-dressers, drag queens, gender fluid people who might identify as male at some times and female at others) do describe themselves. It's not helpful to misrepresent other people's points when this is already such an incendiary debate. I don't think anybody is saying Fra Fee is the only person who could play the role. But in the view of the creative team, they clearly think he's the best one. How many trans people (and their associated allies) who are attacking this choice are actually familiar with the piece and the character as described by Kathryn? It's understandable that they see a headline saying 'cis actor takes trans role'. But it looks as if this is far more nuanced. I didn't mean it as a slight against Kathryn. I was just explaining the thinking behind the derogatory nature of trans being reduced to a 'bloke' ( or man) in a dress.
Its fine as a self description, but in the case of the actor who pulled out of the production, it was how they saw the role being reduced to with a non-trans lead. That actor saw the script and had some idea of what the production entailed, so is well placed to know.
They chose to open up the casting process to CIS men for a trans role. That's the basis of the criticism. Its like saying 'why are you complaining about benedict cumberbatch being cast as Othello? He's the best one for the role!'
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Mar 11, 2020 15:11:16 GMT
I get very confused by all this, because at the same time as being told that a trans woman is ‘not a man in a dress’ we are also told that self ID means that literally anyone can be trans, regardless of how masculine or feminine they look or whether they decide to have medical interventions, that it is defined by self ID. In which case, why couldn’t a cis actor play someone who is self-identifying as trans? That’s surely no different than any other type of self-identification an actor portrays. If I recall the film correctly, the main character is biologically male, and expresses their trans identity via clothes and make-up. They don’t have access to hormones or surgery. The trans actor who turned down a role was cast as a biological woman - so would not have been suitable to play the lead, who is biologically male. How many self-identified trans women musical theatre actors who have had no medical interventions - and so will read to an audience as biologically male - and have the acting experience necessary to play a lead role in a high-quality production are out there? Its because saying a trans person is 'just a bloke in a dress' is a derogatory term by transphobes.
There is a network of trans actors out there. I don't really buy the ' He was the only one who could play the role' as a reason to be honest. I think for some roles, you have to be careful with casting and I think in this case, they haven't.
Anyway, its mainly other trans people attacking the casting choice really, which makes me think that they did mess up
It is so very easy to get described as transphobic when you engage in discussion on this topic - even you are sincerely just trying to figure out what the state of play is at this point in time, because it shifts so quickly - that not using any term or asking any question that someone accused of transphobia has used is kind of impossible. As for you not buying ‘he was the only one who could play the role’ - well, it comes down to trust, doesn’t it, since neither of s was actually involved in the casting process. The people involved in the production have made efforts to demonstrate that they cast the production in good faith, to the best of their ability, with the most appropriate actors they could find. I tend to believe them - in part because I like to think the best of people, and in part because I do think we are talking about casting someone who is a minority of a minority of a minority and that has got to mean that there simply aren’t that many suitable candidates around. |
|
2,347 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Mar 11, 2020 15:34:20 GMT
Its because saying a trans person is 'just a bloke in a dress' is a derogatory term by transphobes.
There is a network of trans actors out there. I don't really buy the ' He was the only one who could play the role' as a reason to be honest. I think for some roles, you have to be careful with casting and I think in this case, they haven't.
Anyway, its mainly other trans people attacking the casting choice really, which makes me think that they did mess up
It is so very easy to get described as transphobic when you engage in discussion on this topic - even you are sincerely just trying to figure out what the state of play is at this point in time, because it shifts so quickly - that not using any term or asking any question that someone accused of transphobia has used is kind of impossible. As for you not buying ‘he was the only one who could play the role’ - well, it comes down to trust, doesn’t it, since neither of s was actually involved in the casting process. The people involved in the production have made efforts to demonstrate that they cast the production in good faith, to the best of their ability, with the most appropriate actors they could find. I tend to believe them - in part because I like to think the best of people, and in part because I do think we are talking about casting someone who is a minority of a minority of a minority and that has got to mean that there simply aren’t that many suitable candidates around. I apologise if it came across as being calling you a transphobe: that wasn't my intention and wasn't what I was doing. I was saying the phrase used by the actor refusing the role is one transphobes use, hence it being a derogatory term. Sorry if it came across otherwise.
Fair enough, as you say, its a trust issue. I think they've been a bit rubbish with the casting, rather than actively malicious.
|
|
749 posts
|
Post by horton on Mar 11, 2020 22:39:13 GMT
Can we have some consistency?
Apparently it is ok for a transgender person to play the role of a biological woman identifying as a woman. Because they are acting.
But a non-transgender person may not play a transgender role?
|
|
840 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Mar 11, 2020 22:50:16 GMT
Can we have some consistency? Apparently it is ok for a transgender person to play the role of a biological woman identifying as a woman. Because they are acting. But a non-transgender person may not play a transgender role? The argument is trans people are already at a disadvantage in getting roles so they should at the least be given trans characters to play, especially since they will be able to come at the role from a place of understanding and authenticity having experienced it for themselves. It's the same reason why people ask for positive discrimination when it comes to colour-blind casting as the majority of leading roles are white (though that aspect is usually not essential to the character) so POC actors rarely get the chance to play them whereas it would be inappropriate to allow white actors to play explicitly POC characters since they already have greater opportunities of roles elsewhere. Whether you agree with these arguments is another question of course but that's the thought process. Of course people hope for a world where there is parity eventually but we are not currently living in that world - white people are generally at an advantage in getting cast as they are the majority so that is why it's a one-way street. If there is ever a time when everyone is represented equally and given the same opportunities for the same roles then when that happens I'm sure there'll be truly blind casting throughout race, gender, sexuality etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2020 23:56:00 GMT
Can we have some consistency? Apparently it is ok for a transgender person to play the role of a biological woman identifying as a woman. Because they are acting. But a non-transgender person may not play a transgender role? Precisely this. Apparently it’s fine for a trans woman (ie a biological male) to play a cis woman. Despite the fact women are also under-represented on stage. Cis women should just accept there is no difference between them and trans women (especially when a biological male tells them so and proceeds to take their opportunities away from them - whether that’s on stage, in sport or as university Women’s Officers). Dare to suggest that might be a bit unfair? TERF! But cast a cis man as a trans woman? Utter disaster for the trans community, who must be allowed to protest it’s unfair! It’s almost like they’re saying there IS a difference between the sexes after all. But wait... that can’t be right, can it? Are cis men and trans men the same, like cis women and trans women? Could you cast a trans man as a trans woman? If you can, by the logic that cis men and trans men are the same, why can’t you then cast a cis man as a trans woman? Is your head hurting yet? Mine is. |
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Mar 12, 2020 8:37:16 GMT
The argument is that trans women are - literally - women. Because they identify as women they are the same as someone born female.
Therefore a trans woman can play a female character.
But, someone born female cannot play a trans woman. Obviously, they cannot understand the experience of being trans.
Neither can someone born with male biology who does not identify as a trans woman.
At the heart of this debate I feel like there’s a real philosophical question about what ‘acting’ is. Is it merely pretending to be someone well enough to convince an audience who are suspending their disbelief - ignoring their knowledge that the actor is performing a part, and not really the person depicted? (In fact the ‘person’ depicted isn’t real either, but a character constructed by a writer and director.)
Or is it meant to be a channeling of an authentically true essence? So that it can only be expressed by someone who really is at least close to that person in certain respects. The internal belief of the person playing the part being the barometer of their success, with the audience’s reaction coming from the acknowledgement of that closeness to the essential authenticity. So that the audience is not knowingly suspending disbelief so much as being convinced there is no disbelief to suspend?
And this is all particularly fraught for trans people, because what ‘trans women are women’ means is: there is no disbelief to suspend. Having a non-trans actor successfully portraying a trans character refutes that notion because the audience are suspending their disbelief as part of the process.
‘Trans women are women’ is difficult for those of us who know that we are actually suspending our disbelief in real life. Because if encounter someone who is trans and don’t realise it, if we literally think they are a woman who was born biologically female, then there was no disbelief to suspend after all.
|
|
2,347 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Mar 12, 2020 8:59:59 GMT
Good article on it. Quotes below exeuntmagazine.com/features/breakfast-pluto-theatres-still-slipping-trans-representation/The problem is we don’t live in a world where everyone can play any character, we live in a world where cisgender and able-bodied white people can play any character. When someone who isn’t white, or cis, or able-bodied is cast, they are often met with abuse and prejudice. For example, when biracial actor Zendaya was cast to play Mary Jane in the 2017 film Spider-Man: Homecoming she was met with cries of ‘blackwashing’ by certain Spiderman fans, and black actor Leslie Jones had to leave Twitter after the backlash against her casting in the 2017 film Ghostbusters. So, what’s the problem with Fra Fee playing Pussy? The problem is that trans people don’t get to tell their own stories. The social media backlash against casting choices like this shows that audiences are asking for a level of authentic queer representation that they’re not being given. |
|
6,333 posts
|
Post by danb on Mar 12, 2020 9:41:43 GMT
“The social media backlash against casting choices like this shows that audiences are asking for a level of authentic queer representation that they’re not being given.”
Is it also the case that social media amplifies everything to a ridiculous degree, and to an already captive and engaged following? Has this story hit the mainstream media? (Actually asking as I don’t know). Let’s remember that this board exists in a microcosm. Did Fra Fee audition for the role or did the creatives seek him out and approach him? Has anybody actually been discriminated against or is it all circumstance and creative choice? It is their creative vision after all and if art is subjective it should be up to the creator to do what they wish to represent the piece to an audience. Only then would the audience be able to say “yeah liked the show but it would’ve felt more authentic/realistic/heightened with an actual trans actor playing that role.”
|
|
2,347 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Mar 12, 2020 9:49:20 GMT
“The social media backlash against casting choices like this shows that audiences are asking for a level of authentic queer representation that they’re not being given. ” Is it also the case that social media amplifies everything to a ridiculous degree, and to an already captive and engaged following? Has this story hit the mainstream media? (Actually asking as I don’t know). Let’s remember that this board exists in a microcosm. Did Fra Fee audition for the role or did the creatives seek him out and approach him? Has anybody actually been discriminated against or is it all circumstance and creative choice? Guardian and BBC articles on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 12, 2020 9:55:45 GMT
Is it better than the story is told at all or left until someone who is deemed 'perfect' emerges at some point in the future to tell that story?
Who gets to decide who speaks for each 'community'?
There is no consensus in the broader trans community as to who speaks for them.
At the moment, those with the loudest voices are dominating discussion and that is never helpful.
Given the radical shift in thinking with regards to gender over the past few years, it is, to my mind, essential that we pause and seek to fully understand what the implications of what is being demanded actually might be. Only then can we move towards coherent approaches.
Yes, the individual matters and should never be forgotten. But individual experience is not a good basis for formulating new policy. We need research. We need critical thinking. We need open discussion.
We don't need anyone throwing around accusations. We don't need people seeking to shut down those who take different positions. Respect, as I have said before, has to be a two-way thing. No group has the right to demand compliance with their way of thinking. But equally no-one should be denied the right to live their life in the way that they choose.
And as for audiences asking for authenticity - I am not so sure on that. I think audiences want to be engaged by the way that casts tell those stories rather than in the private lives of the actors themselves. Yes, each actor needs to understand their character and their inner workings - and that requires empathy, research and acting skill. But you do not need lived experience to fully embody a character. It is the quality of the storytelling that matters to me (and I suspect many others) - and that comes from a good director working to help their cast explore the characters and situations in the script - bringing in outside voices where appropriate - and making good theatre to lasts in the minds of audiences long after they have left the theatre.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Mar 12, 2020 10:16:59 GMT
So, what’s the problem with Fra Fee playing Pussy? The problem is that trans people don’t get to tell their own stories. This isn't a trans person's own story - it was written by what trans people call a "cishet" male. The character is fictitious, though apparently inspired by a real person, and the story is as much about the Troubles and the masculine urge to violence as it is about a the character Pussy/Kitty. If they want to cast a trans actor like-for-like for authentic lived experience, they would (to repeat my point from earlier) have to exactly match that character, who as far as I am aware is attracted to men (so that would rule out AGP trans, as they are generally attracted to women) and calls themselves a "transvestite", and also as far as I can tell doesn't take hormones and hasn't had surgery (they don't have that option, being poor in the 1970s), so that would rule out, if you are going for strict like-for-like, those transwomen too, as their physical lived experience and bodies are not the same. And they become a prostitute, so for fully authentic representation would they need that life experience too? The problem is we don’t live in a world where everyone can play any character, we live in a world where cisgender and able-bodied white people can play any character. . If the role involves a post-op trans person, then I think casting should be drawn from that group, but if the transwoman or transman hasn't had hormones and surgery, then what is the bar, other than their own acting ability and imagination, to play anyone? |
|
2,812 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Mar 12, 2020 11:20:06 GMT
Again, a person is trans regardless the fact they choose to undergo hormones or surgery - in fact, many don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaqs on Mar 12, 2020 12:25:13 GMT
Again, a person is trans regardless the fact they choose to undergo hormones or surgery - in fact, many don't. Which means that as an audience member, I will not see any difference between a man who says they are trans playing a transwoman and a man playing a transwoman. |
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Mar 12, 2020 12:53:58 GMT
Again, a person is trans regardless the fact they choose to undergo hormones or surgery - in fact, many don't. This is an enormous umbrella. I am disabled, but to be that vague in casting would be like casting someone on the autistic spectrum or a wheelchair user in a blind role just to tick a disability box. The life experiences of a transwoman who is a biological male who dresses in stereotypically 'female' clothing and make up but does not want to alter their body, and is sexually attracted to and in many cases married to a biological woman, and often with that relationship producing children, and is self-iDing, is very different from the sort of orientation and experiences someone like this character Pussy/ Kitty would have, growing up as a very effeminate biological male sexually attracted to men, something which was actually illegal until relatively recently, and wanting to actually go through hormone treatment and surgery to remove their penis and make breasts and a vagina (according to a synopsis the character at some point wants a physical sex change). Both of these are currently classed as "trans" but the difference is huge. And a gay male actor is probably closer to Pussy/Kitty in lived experience than the first type of transwoman I describe here. |
|
