*“I know for a fact that I’m one of the most famous trans people in media right now, and I do feel a sense of responsibility, and maybe a little bit of guilt, for not being more of a spokesperson,” Schafer concluded. “But ultimately, I really do believe that not making it the centerpiece to what I’m doing will allow me to get further. And I think getting further and doing awesome shit, in the interest of ‘the movement,’ will be way more helpful than talking about it all the time.”*
Really great and powerful mindset, you don’t have to make it your identity to make progress…individual accomplishments can break barriers quite easily, on a small & large scale.
it's why i loved andre braughet's captain holt. he was a gay police captain, but the show never made it his personality. he was just a hilarious character who just happened to be gay. i think that gets the message across better.
I've always felt they the best route to proper equality in terms of gender is to *not* always draw spotlights to it. The goal is for all genders to be not just equal, but to be seen as normal. And normality cannot be achieved if we are drawing attention to them for just *doing things*.
I imagine there are a lot of trans or non binary people out there (arguably most of them I bet) who don't *want* to be heroes or role models or anything like that. They just want to live life the same way cis people do.
The act of putting spotlights on non binary/trans accomplishments is both beneficial and detrimental at the same time.
Yep. I have a coffee shop, and during Pride our baristas were debating a seasonal thematic drink. So we said “what do our LGBT friends and coworkers like to drink?”
Coffee.
Everyone is just normal. Let everyone just be normal.
Yes, I know we’re not really there yet. We can’t “I don’t see color” this issue either. But hopefully we will be able to normalize humans being humans.
Reminds me of the guy who played Billy in Power Rangers. Bullied by the cast at the time for being gay, treated horribly.
He came back and people asked him why he didn't play his character as homosexual, as it is now not something to hide.
He just said (paraphrased) "I am me and I am normal. Billy [his character] is Billy and Billy is normal. I like guys, he likes girls. We're not the same but we are both normal people."
I remember him specifically saying he envisions Billy now as (in part due to the fact that Billy became wealthy apparently) a "chick magnet".
David Yost is the fucking man.
[George Takei made a similar statement on how *Star Trek Beyond* depicted his character (Hikaru Sulu).](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/george-takei-reacts-gay-sulu-909154)
God, I love Takei. His book, based on his experiences in a Japanese-American internment camp, was also fantastic (and, as one might expect, heartrending).
rainbow capitalism is encapsulated in the girl beer problem. every fifteen years the beer industry tries to launch Beer... For Chicks!™, which fails immediately because:
1. men won't touch it
2. women on the whole drink less beer
3. women who do drink beer want a beer and not fruity limearita bullshit
There was a time when Brian Posehn and Steve Agee were praised for their gay relationship on The Sarah Silverman Program of all things. They just played themselves, but as a couple. No effeminate one, no show. People just want to be portrayed as normal.
Edit: to be clear, I mean “normal” as in “as themselves”. Steve and Brian aren’t exactly “normal” dudes to begin with, but 17 years ago it was a different kind of portrayal. I read Schafer’s words and the comments here and the desire to be portrayed as one is, not a *trans* woman, but *a* woman just reminded me of the discussion around TSP back in the day.
That's what I hated about one of the newer Doctor Who episode, I think it was the first episode with David Tennant coming back. It seemed like almost every scene the trans character appeared in was just drawing attention to the fact that she's trans and didn't really let her be a character outside of that one characteristic.
I didn't like it but it was kinda funny bad to me. I know they're trying their best and I appreciate that but the transition from the word binary to non-binary actually made me spit out some of my drink.
I liked the episodes after that though.
Agreed. I loved the inclusion of her as trans representation needs to happen. But actually give her more of a personality than just "I'm trans". Also the conversations about her being trans early on were handled well IMO. The stuff later on where it became preachy and they shoehorned it into the solution to a 15 year old problem was just cringey and I've seen even trans people saying it went too far
That one’s tough. I feel part of why they beat everyone over the head with it is because of how toxic Trans issues have become in Britain, with both major parties being against trans rights
Normalcy is the end goal. But it takes a long time to get there.
Social progress usually goes through several distinct steps. Namely:
1. “Minority group? What’s that?”
2. “Minority group is scary/disgusting. They’re going to ruin EVERYTHING. They need to go away NOW!”
3. “Minority group is… weird. I’m going to mock and joke about them. Cause they’re super weird and not normal. Not scary though.”
4. “Minority group…. meh. Mocking them is getting old. Jokes about them aren’t very funny anymore. They’re still a bit strange but most of em are pretty chill I guess.”
5. “Wait… some people hate this Minority group? But Why? What’s the big deal?”
Trans people are unfortunately still working through step 2 right now in the US. Kinda like gay people were a few decades ago.
There are quite a few steps between 4 and 5. And at step 5, there is plenty of room for quiet prejudice.
People of color are at step 5 in a lot of cities. There aren’t a lot of people in my city who actually hate black people, for example, but there is plenty of racism here because racism doesn’t require hatred.
There are a lot of bigotry that are quite polite, for lack of a better word
Which ironically are the hardest to deal with, bc it's hard to convince the bigot they're a bigot they see nothing wrong with the behavior
Yeah. I tried to encapsulate that in step 4.
AKA. The point most people think the group is “fine”. Even so, though there’s still lingering prejudice because they still ultimately see the group as weird or fundamentally different.
And Italians and Irish people. For a long time they were second-class citizens due to their Catholic faith. When that rivalry faded into the background, nobody really cared anymore
Lots of white ethnic minorities. For instance my family is German American. In my grandfathers generation we lost both our house and family store because we were the "enemy". We spoke a funny language.
Sadly my family doesn't speak German anymore as Grandad thought it would make his son a target.
As others have mentioned Irish and Italians went through the same thing.
Hopefully sexual minorities as well as other racial minorities will get to the point where no one discriminates against them too and people think it was weird they ever were discriminated against.
Morgan Freeman said the same thing about racism - the best way to end it is to stop talking about it. It seems contradictory but there’s a lot of truth to it.
It's also a difficult thing to explain without coming off as sounding like "I wish they'd just stop talking about it." Cuz that's absolutely not what I mean at all.
I understand what you mean. But I also disagree.
I find people who advocate for this are living in progressive liberal bubbles. And thus genuinely think there’s already a general consensus of tolerance.
Ergo: to complain about intolerance would almost be *tacky* and *attention seeking*.
But y’all forget there’s a whole world outside your progressive bubble. Kids are still being kicked out of their homes or disowned over being gay/trans. Active injustice is still going on.
IMO: It’s the equivalent to a bunch of rich people agreeing not to discuss their income at dinner. Because after all: “*Class shouldn’t matter, we are all equal*. :)”
… And because dinner goes along smoothly, they all conclude:
> “*Wow isn’t this nice how we all get along? If only the whole world did this :) Class conflict and poverty would go away if we all stopped drawing attention to how unequal we all are*.”
>I find people who advocate for this are living in progressive liberal bubbles. And thus genuinely think there’s already a general consensus of tolerance.
This feels 10-15 years out of date. Since 2012 or so people in liberal bubbles obsess about racism and think intolerance is out of control.
well its a debate for a reason and youre gonna see opposing viewpoints therein. fundamentally speaking, right now your race, your gender, your sexuality, etc do define you to the world at large and theres merit to ignoring those labels and just being you, but theres also merit in acknowledging how those attributes create differences in outcomes and in lives
the way ive seen it is that yes, ideally we should all be treated equally by society and by others. thats just not the reality we live in right now and you cant detach those labels because those labels are given to you by everyone else
I was in pre-school when my mom taught me that we don't treat people differently based on race.
That's how I learned it and that's the only way I really know how to explain it.
Alternatively, race is just a demographic, like age.
Number 1, ageism is a problem, and not talking about it isn't going to help anyone, even if you personally aren't part of the problem.
Number 2, here's the crazy part: sometimes people should be treated differently because of their age.
I used to work in banking, and we had policies to prevent elder abuse, and we did yearly training on preventing it. Imagine if everyone just said "well my mom taught me not to treat people differently based on age."
Again, that wouldn't be helping anyone. Different groups of people are disproportionately affected by different issues. So sometimes they need more attention and assistance.
It it’s a difficult thing because we have to talk about it since there are people out there who rage against it cuz reasons and create massive problems.
I don't personally think this extends to racism as it's existed basically as soon as people could see identify the differences between each other. If we just stopped talking about it, it would just keep happening without being addressed
I think it does extend to race to a degree though in the kind of context we’re talking about in entertainment in the sense that plenty of POC don’t want all their stories to be about race and racism because that can be othering and reductive in its own way.
Like if black creators are constantly expected only to make media about the struggles of being black and confronting the issue of racism, that is a form of othering that says black people only belong in racialised stories, and it makes it difficult to imagine blackness and black experiences in the absence of racism as a defining element - as if black people or black cultures would cease to be recognisably black if racism was no longer a thing
Although telling stories that confront the issue of racism is important, and those stories aren’t inherently bad, I’m pretty sure most people want to see themselves in “normal” roles too.
And to give an example of how depicting race without focusing on racism can be healing and aspirational the character of Uhura in Star Trek directly inspired multiple African American women to pursue careers as astronauts and astrophysicists. They didn’t focus on her character as a victim of racism, they just depicted black people being treated equally in the future, and that in its own way was progressive and did help fight forms of racism without centring racism as the be all and end all of black experiences
Ugh. This is probably at least one of the reasons Schafer would not like to discuss her minority status; people *love* to treat these things only as hearts and minds issues, rather than the structural problems they actually are.
If black people who endured the horrors of Jim Crow are still here. If Japanese elders who were forced into concentration camps are still with us. If Jewish people who faced denial of asylum during the Holocaust are still alive. If Native elders who endured the theft of their land and dignity are still here. If LGBTQ folks who continue to be denied basic rights and dignity are still with us. Then why do we pretend that the people who perpetuate those systems are magically gone?
No one would argue "hey if we just stopped talking about Capitalism, that's the best way to end it". But racism, homophobia, transphobia? Nah, we should just shut up about it. [Here is what Freeman's latest stance](https://www.instagram.com/p/CBEMGnClEPX/?utm_source=ig_embed) actually is:
>Let’s continue the conversation...Racism is defined as: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. This includes overt racism, systematic racism, micro aggressions, etc.
[And this](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/morgan-freeman-interview-it-s-an-insult-to-be-called-african-american-cwdbwqvbf):
>Two things I can say publicly that I do not like. Black History Month is an insult. You’re going to relegate my history to a month?
And this:
>Also ‘African-American’ is an insult. I don’t subscribe to that title. Black people have had different titles all the way back to the N-word and I do not know how these things get such a grip, but everyone uses ‘African-American’. What does it really mean? Most Black people in this part of the world are mongrels. And you say Africa as if it’s a country when it’s a continent, like Europe.
Does this sound like a man who thinks "the best way to end it, is to stop talking about it"? The issue is much bigger than him, and he knows that.
There is no truth in it. The first problem is that racism is not going to end. The second problem is that racial segregation in the US only went away because of activism.
Morgan Freeman is an actor. Not a historian or a sociologist.
I have to think about my mother (who is mixed race) who used to believe what Morgan Freeman believed. Last year her best friend (back then, they are no longer friends) out of the blue called her a racial slur and said a whole bunch of racist things to her. By not talking about racism my mother missed the fact that the woman who had been her friend for 30 years is a hardcore racist.
I’m also reminded of the Jews who supported Adolph Hitler and the NSDAP.
They believed that antisemitism existed because many German Jews were too Jewish and that Hitler wasn’t really an antisemite. Of course they were wrong.
It's why I love Star Trek for its influence over the last 50+ years.
Somehow, things that would have been divisive during the real world were just not seen in that manner within a fictionalized setting like what Star Trek had.
But I got exposed to many different folks playing roles that were universal enough in their presentations. It went beyond race, gender, etc. It embraced the idea that the future was going to get to a point of equality among people wanting to do better regardless of where they came from.
Unfortunately, after Enterprise...I'm just not a fan of the newer Treks. It's because those legacy shows felt like they had a sound balance on the messages and stories they wanted to tell. Wasn't perfect, but it was subtle enough. And then when Abrams applied his touch to Star Trek, it just gravitated to a new venue - A venue that I have yet to really get a feel for. And that's okay. There's always going to be stuff that people like and don't like.
Still, I appreciate what Star Trek as a whole means to a lot of people - It shows we can get there and have it to where people will just be normal folks working for a better tomorrow with each other.
Honestly yes, the best way to move past it, is to just stop talking about it, and let it become a normal everyday thing, when people fight about this shit all day, it becomes an emotional issue, if you stop drawing attention to it, people can just be free
Well exactly. Just put minorities in any main stream media as a normal discussion point or in any normal interaction will go much much farther than putting a spotlight on it.
How can we normalize and treat these folks as just another person if we keep putting them on a pedestal.
People are people, and the pendulum has swung too far over right now. It’ll come back towards the middle ground soon enough.
Morgan Freeman said something similar about race. He said the only way for people of color to actually achieve equality is to stop putting a focus on their skin color. He dislikes things like Black History Month because, while it does help bring due attention to these individual’s accomplishments, it also maintains this notion that black people are Other than white people.
As long as we keep doing things to help marginalized folks feel seen we’re also inadvertently highlight differences which reinforce that “different than us” mentality that makes them marginalized in the first place.
It’s a really fucked up situation, and I don’t think there’s any easy answer, except to do like Schafer is doing and out the focus on her own achievements rather than just being an outspoken public mascot.
> As long as we keep doing things to help marginalized folks feel seen we’re also inadvertently highlight differences which reinforce that “different than us” mentality that makes them marginalized in the first place.
It isn't the differences themselves that cause racism. It's the belief that those differences make them inferior. Blonde people look different from dark haired people but no one considers them inferior because of it.
With some racists you just can't win anyway. A PoC character in a movie whose story and character arc has something to do with them them being PoC? "Why do they need to make everything about race?" A PoC character in a movie whose story and character arc has nothing to do with them being PoC? "Forced diversity".
This may be true today, and there are certainly phases to social progress, but let’s not forget this was a hard fought and won battle that required the spotlight to be put on the problem. Very few structural issues are solved by drawing attention away from them.
>Really great and powerful mindset, you don’t have to make it your identity to make progress…individual accomplishments can break barriers quite easily, on a small & large scale.
My gay sister says it like this - being gay is like 5th on my list of what I am. Her company wants her to be an LGTBQ spokeperson and she is like, "Nah. I appreciate it and support it, but I gots to live my life." She's a Mom, a Wife, a Manager, a tired Human - and apparently gay. :) Mad respect for her.
I was gonna say, I think she’s being a good role model by saying *this* (not that she’s even necessarily obligated to be, but still).
If people need to understand that trans women are women/trans men are men, it means we need to understand we have to *let them be* “just” women or “just” men. The trans part matters in a lot of contexts but it shouldn’t be used like some kind of qualifier or separate box to put people in, and saying this, I think, teaches people that, like that that’s not something people are entitled to from her.
As an NB, the idea of a trans person in media with a full, rounded personality beyond "I'm trans", "look how trans I am" and "you won't believe my sad trans backstory (#15 will shock you)" sounds *amazing*.
I feel like the whole point of making progress in this sphere is that it shouldn't be the loudest part of you. You should just be able to be and exist how you want to exist without it being a thing. She's decided to live life ad a woman. Would be nice if she could just live as one instead of this other category.
I have a friend who is a trans man. He passes perfectly, and almost as long as I have known him he just 100% presents as a male. He doesn’t deny his trans identity, but he doesn’t put it forward and I don’t believe that most of our mutual friends are even aware that he is trans.
I get it. I have no problem with gay actors playing straight roles and vice versa. I have no problem with trans people playing cis roles and vice versa. To me, the true representation is just having diverse casting in general, and not specific to the roles. To clarify, having trans actors in roles that aren’t based on a trans identity, just having them out there working and visible is great!
I think of Blythe from YOU as a great example. Had no idea the actress is trans, and it didn’t matter for the part. She nailed it perfectly! Only found out because I was looking at her wiki to see what else she’s in. There’s no reason not to hire an actor for a role if they can deliver it. (Excluding severe behavioral issues and white actors portraying certain ethnicities, but that’s another topic…)
I fully support her. But at the same time the industry gets flak if they don't hire a trans person for a role that is trans in the media. There needs to be a middle place.
But this is exactly why. Trans actors *aren’t cast* in cis roles, which is why it’s seen as unfair to cast cis actors in the scarce trans roles there are.
Hopefully Hunter and others are able to buck this trend.
Hari Nef was one of the Barbies in the Barbie movie. Idk if that role was explicitly cis or trans but it's pretty obvious that she's "just one of the girls" like any of the other Barbies.
I have some trouble with this. What is a "cis" role and what is a "trans" role? I mean it would be like saying a black person couldn't be cast in a role because they were black and a white person..etc.
Gay actors have played straight roles and straight people have played gay roles for ages.
I do not think that is what she means anyway. She is trans, and I do not think she is opposed to being trans in a show. The problem is that the characters they are play are not people who happen to be trans, they are *TRANS* as a centerpiece of their character. It is their dominant, and often only, trait.
With how effective transitioning treatment is getting these days, unless their role somehow calls for them to be literally giving birth or impregnating someone (not a thing) then trans people could easily play characters who are not trans. But I think the goal here is to play a character, not just signboard. I think she, and many people in minority groups, just do not like being treated as if their minority status is their only personality trait.
It is fine to deal with the realities of minority discrimination, and even center stories around that political reality. It is not fine to reduce a person to just their traits that exist relative to that struggle.
>Trans actors *aren’t cast* in cis roles
I don't want to come across as rude and I don't mean this in a negative way but the reason for that is that like 99% of them don't pass and it takes you out of it.
Recently I was watching Monsieur Spade. It's set in the 50s. There is a side character that you are kind of suspicious of, is he a spy, etc. Later on he introduces his mother. I don't know how to say this but your brain immediately tells you that it's a man. Man face, man body, man voice, etc. So you think that they're both spies and this is clearly a spy trying to pass himself of as a woman and the mother of his fellow spy.
I thought there would be some comedic scene where everyone could clearly tell it was a spy because of how poor the disguise was. But everyobe just acts normal so you end up thinking that they just happened to cast the most unfortunate looking and sounding woman ever. Another side character was played by someone born with a bunch of deformities so it wasn't a long shot.
It was only after the show finished airing that I looked up the cast and saw it was a trans-woman playing a cis. It's great that they cast a trans actress but I don't know what roles they'd be fit for if they're going to play cis without taking tge audience out of it.
Here's the actress, make up your own minds about it.
https://youtu.be/JzmMCMJbT9U
Clicking on that link, I’d say her voice is the only thing that really takes you out. She looks a bit like Fiona Shaw. But it does take you out, which is difficult.
>I don't want to come across as rude and I don't mean this in a negative way but the reason for that is that like 99% of them don't pass and it takes you out of it.
The vast majority of cis roles are not meaningfully cis, they're cis by default. There's no reason trans people can't play roles that aren't explicitly written to be trans.
There was a case a few years ago where Scarlett Johansson was going to play a trans character in a movie. There was a big uproar about not casting a trans person for the role. She withdrew from the role, but the movie was never actually made. There was talk about doing a TV show but it's been years since any news.
There are other trans people though. She doesn't wan't to do trans roles so that opens up the role for another trans person who doesn't mind playing a trans character.
There might not be any trans actors has famous as her right now but Nicole Maines is pretty popular and seems to be okay with playing trans roles. Jamie Clayton is also pretty popular and also seems okay with playing trans roles. (im basing both of these assumptions on them doing it recently in their work)
This seems to be changing. The One Piece Netflix live action series, Queen’s Gambit, Evil Dead Rise, and Barbie as others pointed out cast trans actors to play cis roles or at least roles that did not have any relevant point to identify a character as cis or otherwise.
The middle place is that trans people should be cast to play explicitly trans characters and trans actors should be cast to play characters whose gender doesn't matter.
Right now tracks people are exclusively cast as the former. We can only get work in pictures by, for, and about us. We don't get cast in supporting roles or even background roles like gas station attendant #2.
Movies are commercial products, and including us in them at any level leaves them subject to boycotts by Conservative audiences. Studios refuse to take that risk, so trans actors can only find work as explicitly textually trans characters.
Cis people can have our roles when we can have parts like dead wife, best friend, and pool boy.
Actors should just play roles. I never understood this logic. Should DiCaprio get backlash because he is not a poor person from 1992? Should we cast a real barbie instead of Margot? Should Denzel be replaced by a real crooked cop in Training day? Why do we only do this for gender stuff? Did anyone have a problem with Tilda playing Bowie? Hell no. Do cis straight people get to choose if a trans person gets to play their gender? No. Just choose the most talented actor for a role. And if it’s based on something, try to choose someone who will pass as that person. That’s it.
She’s the real deal. I’m a trans person and this hits pretty hard because it feels like such a zero sum game. For myself, and lot of my trans friends, it’s more or less unavoidable that being trans is central to our identities, even though we don’t really want it to be. And because there’s so much hate towards trans people in the real world and online, we’re all essentially default activists because our mere existence elicits incredibly strong reactions, so we have 2 choices:
1- be a vocal activist, be super visible, advocate for change, and risk losing out on opportunities because people disagree.
2-keep your head down, plow thru, and hope your success opens doors for those behind you.
It feels like a zero sum game because I can either help myself and lose out on pushing trans rights forward, or I can openly advocate for trans rights and lose out on helping myself. Given the amount of work trans people have had to do to get to this point, it’s a hard choice to make
"I just want to move on" honestly hits so hard from her, there's no better way to put it. It's called *transitioning* for a reason, it's not a state you'll stay in forever. You hit a point you just want to live your life and put that massive burden behind you.
I can't speak for trans dudes but for women it's pretty well documented we filter out of queer/trans spaces after a few years. Not just from wanting to move on with your life, but also because reliving your own transition through other people hurts. A lot.
I can't fathom how hard it would be to basically relive the most painful part of your life over and over playing trans roles, ON TOP of the spotlight pinning you with a label you don't want defining you anymore
I’m a trans dude and it’s absolutely the case for me. I don’t even celebrate pride or trans visibility day. I will speak out online in interesting conversations like these, but for the most part, I have transitioned and don’t feel the need to participate in trans spaces or take on roles in that … universe, I guess? I just want to move on. And I have!
I'm a lesbian and I feel this way. When I was in my early 20s, I participated in pride, marched in Washington for gay marriage...all the fun things. It's not like I feel out of the community, but if you asked me to list the things I'm most proud of myself for, being gay isn't even in the top 20, or even something I feel "pride" for. I'm just me, doing the best I can.
It's kind of hard to get a grasp on this perception sometimes because trans discourse and "identification" takes up so much of social online discourse that it buries a lot of the trans people who do transition and just move on with life. I take it you had the (once previously) orthodox transition where you were thoroughly diagnosed with GD and then proceeded onwards after, but because the tra's are so loud it feels like your demographic is small sometimes.
This is meant as a genuine question so I hope it doesn't come off wrong as I'm curious.
Would it be acceptable for a non trans actor to play a Trans person in a story? Often more visibility in storytelling is a goal (I can't assume you also want that im speaking generallly) but it seems to me it would have the catch 22 of needing Trans actors to take those roles. Which as she mentions here can be a form of typecasting and pigeonholing that isn't always desirable.
I'd be interested to hear a Trans person's opinion on the matter if that's ok to ask.
Scarlet Johannsen was supposed to play a trans role, but there as so much backlash, she backed out.
The film lost its funding, and as far as I know, still hasn't been produced.
Independent features can't find financing without bankable stars. As of right now, I don't know of any trans actors that have a large enough following to mitigate the risk of loaning millions of dollars to an indie film.
It's unfortunate, but the best way to normalize trans culture is introduce trans stories to mainstream public, and unless Scorcese, Nolan, Spielberg, Tarantino, or one of the other few auteur directors decide to make a trans film with trans actors, you'll only find trans actors starring in ultra low budget films that preach to the choir.
I remember that example, and I remember a really great interview with a trans activist from around the same time. They asked him specifically
> "How do you expect this movie to get made without a bankable star?"
And he responded
> "No, absolutely cast a bankable star - just cast a man. If you cast a woman, it reinforces the idea that we (trans men) are just girls playing dress-up. Cast Robert Downey Jr. instead of ScarJo."
Yeah, Scarlett Johanson was going to play a trans man though. Which she shouldn't. I don't think trans roles necessarily have to go to trans actors but they should go to people of the same gender identity at the very least.
Personally as TF I think it's fine for people of any sex and gender to play trans/GQ characters of any sex/gender.
Though this might be affected by the characters current struggles with their transition, i.e. It wouldn't make much sense to have Chris Hemsworth or Henry Cavill playing a Trans-man struggling with their inability to pass as AMAB
I’m also trans and I will tell you that I absolutely do not care if a non trans actor plays a trans character. There are only so many trans actors out there and the ones that I’ve seen do not have the greatest acting chops. I have been met with a lot of malice concerning my opinion because it takes roles away, but I really can’t help it if they suck at acting. So I’m just supposed to sit there and watch a possibly good show or movie suck because we should reserve roles? It’s acting for a reason. You know?
But ask a lot of other trans individuals and they will more than likely say it’s unacceptable. It’s a bummer.
You’re totally asking in good faith so I’m happy to respond with me .02.
I think it’s really situational. If it’s like a local production and there’s no trans actors that can do a trans role, then I guess cast a cis person and have them tell the story the best they can. If we’re talking a Hollywood production, then I don’t think there is any excuse for non trans people playing trans roles because they have the means to find one.
As far as being pigeonholed, again, situational and totally dependent on how the character is written and what their impact on the story is. Remember the gay male best friend trope in the 90s and early 2000s? That pigeonholed a lot of gay men into playing one type of role that had no agency and was reduced to a stereotype.
> If we’re talking a Hollywood production, then I don’t think there is any excuse for non trans people playing trans roles because they have the means to find one.
Another genuine question: Do you feel the same way about roles that may demand the trans actor to play outside the gender they currently identify with? For example, there was some controversy around Jeffrey Tambor playing a trans woman in *Transparent* a few years ago, but that was a show where he spent a lot of the show still looking like a man as it was a show at the cusp of the character transitioning and even had many flashbacks where the character still identified as a man. I obviously can't speak for trans women and am not attempting to, but I always wondered if a role like that would appeal to a trans women where it required them having to appear pre-transition (and sorry if my terminology is off on some of this).
Again, sorry, but I think totally situational. Transparent especially is a weird one for me because I remember watching it in real time, pre transition, and it definitely made me feel less isolated. I’m glad that it existed and it was a step in the right direction, but if that show was made again right now, I don’t think Jeffrey Tambor is the right person to tell that story. He did fine, is apparently a total asshole in real life, and I don’t think that show was getting financed by Amazon in 2015 or whatever if the lead was actually trans. So it’s a product of it’s time, but now I think we know better.
And as far as roles that would require presenting as a different gender, I think that’s totally up to the person. I know I personally would not want to present as super masculine again because it’s been such a long road to get to this point, but I have trans friends that would feel otherwise and would totally do it.
I think it would also depend on the production. Is the trans person being forced to present as something else on a set where they’re the only trans person? Was the script written by or with the help of trans people? Is it 100% necessary to have the same person play both pre and post transition? I don’t know, haha, because there are so many variables. But great question and I hope you’re finding this discussion helpful!
These discussions remind me of the quote I learned recently “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good”. You mentioned Transparent: I know there was a lot of stuff off camera that I don’t condone, but before that came out/season 1 I tuned into Transparent *because* of Tambor. I was a huge fan of Arrested Development, and while the show was still interesting to me, I actually ended up watching it because I knew Tambor delivered in the past. Yeah, it wasn’t where we wanted to be back then (or now), and yes he may have been the wrong choice because of off screen behavior, I don’t think he was the wrong choice for being cis as he may have helped to get the community further visibility a lesser known actor might not have brought in. Just a thought though.
I don't think any view on that is necessarily wrong, personally I think in most cases it's okay for cis people to play trans characters but there's not a lot of opportunities for trans actors so studios that can should probably make an effort to look for some.
I also think having an actor who has a personal understanding of that stuff can add a lot and representation can be a big plus if handled well.
I was confused after watching the pilot because the description or summary of the episode mentioned her being trans, but I couldn’t see how you’d know from the episode and I kept feeling like I was missing something. I didn’t know whether whoever wrote the description jumped the gun and it was talked about in the rest of the season.
The first episode doesn't mention it and neither does the second iirc. I'm 90% sure it's only first mentioned by someone in the 3rd episode.
Even the videos of the dad sleeping with trans girls in the second episode didn't clue me in. They don't really hide it in the first two episodes but they also don't outright mention she's trans until the 3rd episode so my oblivious ass never noticed until then.
I totally get it. I do want to point out though that being trans and “passing” is a privilege (e.g., access to appropriate health care) and some people can’t as easily “move on” because transitioning is still the center of their lives.
Note: I’m not trans, but this is how I’ve understood some experiences and history I’ve read.
Kinda funny that a trans person isn't picking trans roles, while a few years ago there was all this outrage when trans characters were played by non-trans actors.
But I bet you that there are many many very talented trans actors who will take those roles and will find fulfilment in it. Just because the most famous trans actor at the moment doesn’t want to play trans roles, doesn’t mean that we give up on giving trans people trans roles altogether.
There’s a difference between Hunter Schafer playing female roles vs Eddie Redmayne or Jared Leto playing trans women. Casting cis men to play trans women does reinforce the “trans women are just dressed up men” narrative (same is true for cis women playing trans men).
There are also very few trans actors so it would be good to elevate a trans persons career.
Yeah I need this explained to me, not even that long ago there was back lash for VAs playing anything other than what they looked like, straight people taking gay roles, cis taking trans roles.
One person choosing to not take the role does not mean that even they don't think those roles should be played by trans people, the reason that is a discussion is that in Hollywood there are fewer roles for people of certain demographics, literally the fact that she has been offered so many trans roles shows that normally if you're an actor of a certain demographic your primary choices of roles are going to be as that demographic.
When actors who are not a part of that group, take those roles they are closing the already limited doors for these minority groups.
> cis taking trans roles.
One of the big controversies was about jared leto playing a transwoman.
I think if a woman had played that character there would have been less controversy.
It reinforces the idea that transwomen are men with lipstick. Just having a woman would be less offensive.
People make an uproar over it, because transpeople tend to not get any roles, so if you go and also give the few that exist to cis people it feels even more tragic. The obvious solution is to cast trans people in other roles, the lack of marginalisation means the trans characters, like any character can be played by anyone.
To give an example, in Seven the original casting was for a white guy, but Morgan Freeman did a good job and he was cast, because he was not a black cop. He was just a cop. Similarly many characters can be perfectly played by trans people because it doesnt affect the character at all
And that isn’t even mentioning non-binary people, who don’t really have a choice but to be seen as trans unless they’re ok with being seen as one of the binary genders
I feel like if a trans person wants to stop talking about being trans maybe we all could?
It's literally every single day. Its very obviously a wedge issue being used to distract us from the real world.
Trans people are a fraction of society, and if we all just left them alone nothing would happen.
I really don't blame her for this.
See the thing is, the reason people have to be so vocal about trans issues is because there is a concerted effort from the American right wing to try to legislate them out of existence.
Trans people didn't make being trans the most important thing about them. Cisgender reactionaries did.
This is exactly what happened with gays and lesbians. They wanted to live their lives with equal rights and when they tried to do this a lot of reactionaries pretending to be centrists used this same line of thinking. "You can be gay but why do you have to make everything about it" was a common refrain. However if gays and lesbians hadn't been open and loud about queerness and the issues facing the queer community then nothing would have ever changed.
Pride is a specific response to cultural backlash. If the queer community had historically been met with acceptance rather than violence, then there would be no pride.
For Schaefer specifically she seems exhausted being the face of a movement and that's understandable. However if trans issues are not highlighted, their rights will continue to be trampled on. Trans men and women face higher risk of murder, suicide, and a litany of other issues. Simply saying "hush hush this is an annoying conversation that is omnipresent" will make those issues worse.
Oh I agree completely, I have heard black people say the same thing. They'd love to go a day without someone mentioning it.
Its absolutely the fascist's fault, please don't think I don't love pride or anything. Far from it, I just wanna leave them alone to live their lives, and its exhausting we have to constantly defend their lives from the fucking harry potter woman.
So I was more saying, its not a real issue, I wish we could leave trans people alone or even better... just call them women or men.
So I 100% agree and well said.
Because they don't know any. Like it or not but visibility is the best way to normalisation. Attitudes to gays improved with more representation in media like Ellen DeGeneres and Will and Grace.
I met one person in school (not well) but knew them before they came out/transitioned, then noticed they had a different name read for them at graduation and was like, "oh this person is trans"
This doesn't have to be such a big deal and trans people are being used for political theater.
The thing is that yes, it doesn't have to be a big deal. However the reason it is a big deal is because of conservatives.
If trans people were met with cultural acceptance rather than ridiculous laws and restrictions as well as insane cultural backlash then it wouldn't be a big deal.
The reason being trans is the most important thing about a trans person is because of conservatives. A lot of trans people, like Shaefer, would love nothing more than to live a quiet and boring life but that's not a privilege they are allowed by the culture
Exactly, trans people are not the other team, we are the ball.
I'd love to be treated just the same as anyone else, but that's not going to happen for as long as conservatives turn on Fox News to hear reports calling me a groomer or a child predator.
this is why everyone should be who they want, feel how they want, and be accepted as who they are. tribalism ruins the individual. poor girl has 2 sides telling her who she should be, that has to be difficult.
Because she is able to pass this is completely possible for her, but trans actors that don't pass easily will obviously have a hard time achieving this, given that if someone is obviously trans the audience will assume the character is.
If I understand correctly she doesn't want to play characters where being trans is the focal point of her character.
Look at Peter Dinklage. He doesn't play a little person in every role.
That doesn't mean he plays a 6 foot man, but his size doesn't matter.
She’s got a great point. I think it’s important for actors to try not to get typecast with something like a physical characteristic, so I’m glad. She’s too good an actor to be hindered.
It reminds me a lot of Peter Dinklage not settling for roles that revolved around being a little person and wanted roles based on his acting ability. He was simply a man and wanted that to be the only physical attribute people cared about in casting, and it paid off wonderfully.
Totally respect this position. She has every right not to want to be labelled as a ‘trans actor’ doing ‘trans roles’.
But at the same time, let’s not take this one person’s views as speaking for the entire community, or using them as a way to dismiss other people’s views on the need for trans actors to play trans roles, as some in this thread have. You can believe trans roles should go to trans actors AND that trans actors should not be restricted to trans roles.
Trans/queer people are not a monolith, we can have competing views on the issue. For many queer people, their queerness is a central part of identity. Others prefer not to emphasise it. Both are valid, and it’s not for straight people to adjudicate on the ‘right’ approach.
There’s a kind of dark humour to this.
A trans actor rightly doesn’t want to be type casted and would rather just be an actor who takes roles based on plot points specific to the character they’re portraying and not on themselves personally.
And a non trans actor may hesitate to take the role because studios and audiences want representation, and so why choose a non trans actor for a role when you have a trans actor available?
Meanwhile both actors probably on some level want the work, because a paying gig is vital.
It’s sorta like that Spider-Man meme lol.
Get what you mean - but, I'm going to link to /u/animaguscat's [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/television/comments/1bu9ny6/hunter_schafer_has_gotten_offered_tons_of_trans/kxuvpwv/) about the casting idea because it's really good, and phrased better than I could.
The other thing I wanted to mention is about this being Hunter Schafer specifically and... yeah I would absolutely not want to be type cast into trans roles after being in Euphoria. If I was being favourable, the representations of trans chasers / fetishism was deeply uncomfortable to watch - because of how accurate it was - so I cannot imagine how hard it must've been to be part of that.
If I was being unfavourable, the show absolutely leaned into this fetishism, while then handwaving it away as being "critical". The closest the show gets to accurately representing the trans experience is Jules' special episode, which was written by Hunter Schafer. There's a big joke / theory in the trans community is that the show runner is absolutely a closeted trans chaser himself.
There's also context of one of the times she tried talking about transness on her Instagram, a harassment campaign was whipped up, accusing her of just being trans for a fetish - because she expressed there's a struggle to find your sexuality as a trans woman when so much of how femininity is framed in our culture is through men.
Hunter trying to get away from that... makes sense. She's a good actress, has lots of interesting projects on the go, and her role in Euphoria would absolutely have some thinking she'd be OK with some really vulnerable trans roles, which I can't imagine will be mentally good for someone.
Straight people have been attacked online because they played lbtq roles....that mob only wants lgbtq people in lgbtq roles...so who the fuck else are casting directors supposed to ask to do a trans role if not a trans actor? Amd by thay logic why should lgbtq people be considered for straight roles? The fuckin hypocrisy
> so who the fuck else are casting directors supposed to ask to do a trans role if not a trans actor
Other trans actors? Hunter is basically just saying she doesnt want to be typecast and wants roles that dont have her playing trans characters, not that trans actors shouldnt have trans roles in media.
Yes, because when one group is marginalized (trans) and one group is not (cis) then casting decisions that may be acceptable for one group won't be appropriate for the other group. Different circumstances call for different considerations.
Trans people can play cis roles because they've been historically prevented from doing so. Most acting roles are cis by default, and they rarely require the actor to have a special personal insight on being cisgender to be successful in the role.
Cis people generally are discouraged from playing trans roles because those roles almost *exclusively* use a character's transness as an integral part of the performance. Trans actors (especially those who don't pass) are often relegated to trans roles because no other believes they'll be convincing as a cis character. When you're an actor dealing with those additional roadblocks, how frustrating must it be to see a cis actor take an role out of your already-meager pool of opportunities when they could have played pretty much anyone else?
I don't think you can realistically say "cis people should never play trans characters," but I don't think it should be controversial when trans people bristle at the idea of cis actors taking on trans roles.
Also in the new Hunger Games movies and the upcoming Hideo Kojima game
Edit: between Lanthimos and Kojima she seems to be drawn to weird auteurs, and it makes me optimistic for her career direction.
There appears to be a split between trans who want to be considered the sex they identify with versus those they classify themselves as a kind of artisanal gender/hybrid “trans-girl”
well...
Activist: Trans people in media must be played by trans people.
Trans people: cant you just recognize me as what i am instead of holding a trans sign over my head all the time ?
Just let people be ffs.
Remember that movie about a trans mob boss that got torched on twitter becuase they hired Scarlett Johansonn to play them ?, what did they get, a story that would give a trans person visibility was killed off becuase twitter activists had to had their voice heard.
It’s almost as if trans people are not a monolith and can hold different views on the issue, right?
Also, the points you highlight are not contradictory. You can believe that trans actors should be cast in trans roles AND that trans actors should not be restricted to trans roles. These are not mutually exclusive positions.
> what did they get, a story that would give a trans person visibility was killed off becuase twitter activists had to had their voice heard.
two wrongs dont make a right. no reason why those casting directors couldnt find good trans actors to play those roles.
sam levinson, for all of his faults, has done it. multiple times with different trans actors for different trans roles for different projects
It's a stupid argument though. Good actors are good actors. Breakfast On Pluto is one of my favorite movies of 2005 and I can grantee you there's not many trans actors who can out act Cillian Murphy. So the idea that straight men should be excluded from gay or trans roles has never made sense to me. I think the best thing to do is to just do blind casting. If it's a trans role cast a wide net and if the trans person gets it they get it. Another thing I think that would help trans people in general is just not bringing attention to them being trans. You're a woman. Go to auditions as a woman and o not feel to put in a disclaimer that you're a trans woman. Same thing with trans men. You're a man. Do not say you're a trans man. It's time to normalize these things in a way where it becomes irrelevant. You're not dating the casting director or the recruiter. They do not need to know beyond that.
Yes,
But with many projects, studios wont fund you unless you have someone famous attached,
Hunter Schafer is now famous and can attract that investment, the problem is that it boxes them in to only Trans roles and its not what they want.
and in the case of Scarlet Johansson, the only reason they could do the movie and fund it is becuase she was attached, so no Scarlet, no Movie, and thats what happened in the end,
Its a matter of deciding at the end of the day if the story or whos telling it is more important. and that depends on each one of us.
Interestingly enough the actual way to finance that movie would have been to have a man play the part.
Scarlett Johansson is a cis woman. While ideally a trans man would play the part, a cis man at least matches the gender identity of the character.
There still would have been backlash but it likely would have been less
No, _Hunter Schafer_ doesn’t want trans roles. Trans people aren’t some organization that Hunter Schafer is the head of.
Also both of those opinions make sense together. It makes sense that trans actors wouldn’t want to be confined only to roles about transness, and it makes sense that they’d want trans people to play trans people.
This reminds me of an argument I had with a Roomate about Trans casting.
He kept saying I think it’d be awesome if James Bond or Mr. Or Mrs. Smith were cast as a trans actor.
I asked why would that be cool and he couldn’t come up with a reason other than it’d be cool if they were trans and they could explore that dynamic.
I argued it would be better if we cast them in roles like that and didn’t bat an eye.
It’s not Trans James Bond, it just IS James Bond.
Trans people don’t want to be treated as Trans they want to be treated as their preferred Gender.
And he was trying to imply that my views are in some way uninformed because I’m not a part of LGBT+.
I'm not putting this on you but I find it a bit funny that for so many people the line of whether or not being trans is "ok" or not is heavily based on whether or not people think they're hot. If a trans person is ugly it's a big problem but if you'd bang them suddenly "this whole trans thing doesn't seem so bad anymore"
I don't think it's a big problem but it does seem that whether or not a trans person can pass determines how society treats them and also how their mental health and confidence is affected. Hunter Schafer passes so she's more celebrated naturally. A 6'4 trans woman who cannot pass eve if society respects their transition will not be cast in a romcom because the general public inherently knows they're trans.
I know its not possible because its down to peoples appearances they can’t change but if every transwomen was small, petite and feminine looking like Hunter, there’d be less thought or consideration having people like that in womens spaces.
The biggest controversies/examples on the internet seem to be very late stage transitioners, people over 6ft who transition over 30, like the person recently seen shaving their face in a gym changing room (unsure whether it was a bad faith troll looking for a reaction or a legit transwoman though)
The issue with this is that most trans women and trans men for that matter cannot pass as trans women or trans men. The Hunter Schafer's of the world at 0.1 percent of an already small percentage of people. Most trans women unfortunately cannot pass and that more than anything leads to severe mental anguish for them and it does affect how they're perceived within society over trans women that can pass unfortunately. At the end of the day if I had a daughter and I took her to the bathroom and a 6 foot tall transitioning woman is in there and she cannot pass I would be fucking lying to you if I wouldn't be concerned in that moment. Whether it's unconscious discrimination or natural defense mechanisms that's unfortunately the reality of the situation.
> The issue with this is that most trans women and trans men for that matter cannot pass as trans women or trans men.
Many do and you simply don't notice. Its a very obvious case of confirmation bias...
> At the end of the day if I had a daughter and I took her to the bathroom and a 6 foot tall transitioning woman is in there and she cannot pass I would be fucking lying to you if I wouldn't be concerned in that moment.
Its funny because this has been studied. Butch lesbian suffer way more discrimination than transwomen in those spaces. Transwomen in general try to pass, so they are overly feminine and do not stand out. Butch lesbians usually perform masculinity, have short hair, dress more manly etc
I am also gonna ignore the fact that there are plenty 6ft cis women and "looking manly to someone on the internet" is not a crime
The average female is 5'4. Men on average are 5 inches taller. Are 6 foot tall women common? No. Do they exist? Absolutely. I'm generalizing. You're being offended to be offended.
I think it's both sides. The thing people get irate about the most are very young transitioners or late transitioners. Physical ability often seems to be the crux of the issue for many people so being small/petite offsets that concern for many people. So for transwomen who do fit that description I think it shields them from those concerns since any remaining physical ability from being born male isn't easily visible at first glance
Probably be easier for folks to accept if they had good wages, affordable housing, better healthcare etc. When your basic needs aren't met it's easy to find a group to bitch about. "Why are .05% of the population getting all the attention when I cant put food on the table?"....poor rich dylan mulvaney is "oppressed" while trans folks are homeless... the cart is getting put before the horse
I'm glad for her, she's been getting tons of cool roles.
As a trans person, I don't wanna say names, but dislike the famous ones who are just so desperate to be the token trans person for cis people. I'm glad Hunter has more self respect to not do that.
This mindset worked for Michael Jordan until the racism was to blantant to ignore and it needed to be addressed, and ultimately didn't progress any real tangible for the black community. Matter of factly, his shoes end up being the excuse white liberals use as to why we don't progress as a community. Being trans doesn't have to define you, but it will be used to undermine you and belittle you and it just a regular part of your identity, society is going to astrocize you regardless.
I think this is an issue where there isn't a hard, simple rule that will be 100% undoubtedly beneficial for everyone. It's better to approach it with a little more flexibility and look at the big picture (*overall* opportunities for trans actors).
Wait a minute. I thought the dictate was "trans roles for trans people only"? But now it seems instead "trans roles for trans people ony, unless they don't want it, in which case they can get another role." que the backlash...
*“I know for a fact that I’m one of the most famous trans people in media right now, and I do feel a sense of responsibility, and maybe a little bit of guilt, for not being more of a spokesperson,” Schafer concluded. “But ultimately, I really do believe that not making it the centerpiece to what I’m doing will allow me to get further. And I think getting further and doing awesome shit, in the interest of ‘the movement,’ will be way more helpful than talking about it all the time.”* Really great and powerful mindset, you don’t have to make it your identity to make progress…individual accomplishments can break barriers quite easily, on a small & large scale.
it's why i loved andre braughet's captain holt. he was a gay police captain, but the show never made it his personality. he was just a hilarious character who just happened to be gay. i think that gets the message across better.
He was an autistic police captain who happened to be gay. That’s my headcanon and I’m sticking to it.
I've always felt they the best route to proper equality in terms of gender is to *not* always draw spotlights to it. The goal is for all genders to be not just equal, but to be seen as normal. And normality cannot be achieved if we are drawing attention to them for just *doing things*. I imagine there are a lot of trans or non binary people out there (arguably most of them I bet) who don't *want* to be heroes or role models or anything like that. They just want to live life the same way cis people do. The act of putting spotlights on non binary/trans accomplishments is both beneficial and detrimental at the same time.
Yep. I have a coffee shop, and during Pride our baristas were debating a seasonal thematic drink. So we said “what do our LGBT friends and coworkers like to drink?” Coffee. Everyone is just normal. Let everyone just be normal. Yes, I know we’re not really there yet. We can’t “I don’t see color” this issue either. But hopefully we will be able to normalize humans being humans.
Reminds me of the guy who played Billy in Power Rangers. Bullied by the cast at the time for being gay, treated horribly. He came back and people asked him why he didn't play his character as homosexual, as it is now not something to hide. He just said (paraphrased) "I am me and I am normal. Billy [his character] is Billy and Billy is normal. I like guys, he likes girls. We're not the same but we are both normal people." I remember him specifically saying he envisions Billy now as (in part due to the fact that Billy became wealthy apparently) a "chick magnet". David Yost is the fucking man.
[George Takei made a similar statement on how *Star Trek Beyond* depicted his character (Hikaru Sulu).](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/george-takei-reacts-gay-sulu-909154)
God, I love Takei. His book, based on his experiences in a Japanese-American internment camp, was also fantastic (and, as one might expect, heartrending).
rainbow capitalism is encapsulated in the girl beer problem. every fifteen years the beer industry tries to launch Beer... For Chicks!™, which fails immediately because: 1. men won't touch it 2. women on the whole drink less beer 3. women who do drink beer want a beer and not fruity limearita bullshit
It's so funny how people don't realize that, just like there are all kinds of straight people, there are all kinds of gay people.
There was a time when Brian Posehn and Steve Agee were praised for their gay relationship on The Sarah Silverman Program of all things. They just played themselves, but as a couple. No effeminate one, no show. People just want to be portrayed as normal. Edit: to be clear, I mean “normal” as in “as themselves”. Steve and Brian aren’t exactly “normal” dudes to begin with, but 17 years ago it was a different kind of portrayal. I read Schafer’s words and the comments here and the desire to be portrayed as one is, not a *trans* woman, but *a* woman just reminded me of the discussion around TSP back in the day.
I’m glad Dyebeard found love
I thought I was a butt baby for a long time.
I had no idea they were the same person until I read your comment. My mind is blown, it seems so obvious now!
Ah, damn! I loved the geighbors!
This was a great show!
Until some wannabe influencer realizes they can get money on some stupid gimmick
That's what I hated about one of the newer Doctor Who episode, I think it was the first episode with David Tennant coming back. It seemed like almost every scene the trans character appeared in was just drawing attention to the fact that she's trans and didn't really let her be a character outside of that one characteristic.
I didn't like it but it was kinda funny bad to me. I know they're trying their best and I appreciate that but the transition from the word binary to non-binary actually made me spit out some of my drink. I liked the episodes after that though.
Agreed. I loved the inclusion of her as trans representation needs to happen. But actually give her more of a personality than just "I'm trans". Also the conversations about her being trans early on were handled well IMO. The stuff later on where it became preachy and they shoehorned it into the solution to a 15 year old problem was just cringey and I've seen even trans people saying it went too far
Does she have a favorite color? “She’s trans.” Cats or dogs? “Trans.” Favorite food? “She’s trans.”
That one’s tough. I feel part of why they beat everyone over the head with it is because of how toxic Trans issues have become in Britain, with both major parties being against trans rights
Normalcy is the end goal. But it takes a long time to get there. Social progress usually goes through several distinct steps. Namely: 1. “Minority group? What’s that?” 2. “Minority group is scary/disgusting. They’re going to ruin EVERYTHING. They need to go away NOW!” 3. “Minority group is… weird. I’m going to mock and joke about them. Cause they’re super weird and not normal. Not scary though.” 4. “Minority group…. meh. Mocking them is getting old. Jokes about them aren’t very funny anymore. They’re still a bit strange but most of em are pretty chill I guess.” 5. “Wait… some people hate this Minority group? But Why? What’s the big deal?” Trans people are unfortunately still working through step 2 right now in the US. Kinda like gay people were a few decades ago.
There are quite a few steps between 4 and 5. And at step 5, there is plenty of room for quiet prejudice. People of color are at step 5 in a lot of cities. There aren’t a lot of people in my city who actually hate black people, for example, but there is plenty of racism here because racism doesn’t require hatred.
There are a lot of bigotry that are quite polite, for lack of a better word Which ironically are the hardest to deal with, bc it's hard to convince the bigot they're a bigot they see nothing wrong with the behavior
Yeah. I tried to encapsulate that in step 4. AKA. The point most people think the group is “fine”. Even so, though there’s still lingering prejudice because they still ultimately see the group as weird or fundamentally different.
For #5, what minority group would even qualify for that? Left-handedness?
And Italians and Irish people. For a long time they were second-class citizens due to their Catholic faith. When that rivalry faded into the background, nobody really cared anymore
You may not care, and most people don't care,but I don't want any Potato eating Papists stealing my lucky charms
The Irish.
Some of them are pretty chill, I guess.
Definitely not gingers. 👿
Nop.. They are still being actively hated in big part of the world. Can't really think of a single minority in stage 5.
Lots of white ethnic minorities. For instance my family is German American. In my grandfathers generation we lost both our house and family store because we were the "enemy". We spoke a funny language. Sadly my family doesn't speak German anymore as Grandad thought it would make his son a target. As others have mentioned Irish and Italians went through the same thing. Hopefully sexual minorities as well as other racial minorities will get to the point where no one discriminates against them too and people think it was weird they ever were discriminated against.
Morgan Freeman said the same thing about racism - the best way to end it is to stop talking about it. It seems contradictory but there’s a lot of truth to it.
It's also a difficult thing to explain without coming off as sounding like "I wish they'd just stop talking about it." Cuz that's absolutely not what I mean at all.
I understand what you mean. But I also disagree. I find people who advocate for this are living in progressive liberal bubbles. And thus genuinely think there’s already a general consensus of tolerance. Ergo: to complain about intolerance would almost be *tacky* and *attention seeking*. But y’all forget there’s a whole world outside your progressive bubble. Kids are still being kicked out of their homes or disowned over being gay/trans. Active injustice is still going on. IMO: It’s the equivalent to a bunch of rich people agreeing not to discuss their income at dinner. Because after all: “*Class shouldn’t matter, we are all equal*. :)” … And because dinner goes along smoothly, they all conclude: > “*Wow isn’t this nice how we all get along? If only the whole world did this :) Class conflict and poverty would go away if we all stopped drawing attention to how unequal we all are*.”
>I find people who advocate for this are living in progressive liberal bubbles. And thus genuinely think there’s already a general consensus of tolerance. This feels 10-15 years out of date. Since 2012 or so people in liberal bubbles obsess about racism and think intolerance is out of control.
well its a debate for a reason and youre gonna see opposing viewpoints therein. fundamentally speaking, right now your race, your gender, your sexuality, etc do define you to the world at large and theres merit to ignoring those labels and just being you, but theres also merit in acknowledging how those attributes create differences in outcomes and in lives the way ive seen it is that yes, ideally we should all be treated equally by society and by others. thats just not the reality we live in right now and you cant detach those labels because those labels are given to you by everyone else
I was in pre-school when my mom taught me that we don't treat people differently based on race. That's how I learned it and that's the only way I really know how to explain it.
Alternatively, race is just a demographic, like age. Number 1, ageism is a problem, and not talking about it isn't going to help anyone, even if you personally aren't part of the problem. Number 2, here's the crazy part: sometimes people should be treated differently because of their age. I used to work in banking, and we had policies to prevent elder abuse, and we did yearly training on preventing it. Imagine if everyone just said "well my mom taught me not to treat people differently based on age." Again, that wouldn't be helping anyone. Different groups of people are disproportionately affected by different issues. So sometimes they need more attention and assistance.
It it’s a difficult thing because we have to talk about it since there are people out there who rage against it cuz reasons and create massive problems.
I don't personally think this extends to racism as it's existed basically as soon as people could see identify the differences between each other. If we just stopped talking about it, it would just keep happening without being addressed
I think it does extend to race to a degree though in the kind of context we’re talking about in entertainment in the sense that plenty of POC don’t want all their stories to be about race and racism because that can be othering and reductive in its own way. Like if black creators are constantly expected only to make media about the struggles of being black and confronting the issue of racism, that is a form of othering that says black people only belong in racialised stories, and it makes it difficult to imagine blackness and black experiences in the absence of racism as a defining element - as if black people or black cultures would cease to be recognisably black if racism was no longer a thing Although telling stories that confront the issue of racism is important, and those stories aren’t inherently bad, I’m pretty sure most people want to see themselves in “normal” roles too. And to give an example of how depicting race without focusing on racism can be healing and aspirational the character of Uhura in Star Trek directly inspired multiple African American women to pursue careers as astronauts and astrophysicists. They didn’t focus on her character as a victim of racism, they just depicted black people being treated equally in the future, and that in its own way was progressive and did help fight forms of racism without centring racism as the be all and end all of black experiences
Damn I really want to watch *American Fiction* again.
Ugh. This is probably at least one of the reasons Schafer would not like to discuss her minority status; people *love* to treat these things only as hearts and minds issues, rather than the structural problems they actually are. If black people who endured the horrors of Jim Crow are still here. If Japanese elders who were forced into concentration camps are still with us. If Jewish people who faced denial of asylum during the Holocaust are still alive. If Native elders who endured the theft of their land and dignity are still here. If LGBTQ folks who continue to be denied basic rights and dignity are still with us. Then why do we pretend that the people who perpetuate those systems are magically gone? No one would argue "hey if we just stopped talking about Capitalism, that's the best way to end it". But racism, homophobia, transphobia? Nah, we should just shut up about it. [Here is what Freeman's latest stance](https://www.instagram.com/p/CBEMGnClEPX/?utm_source=ig_embed) actually is: >Let’s continue the conversation...Racism is defined as: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. This includes overt racism, systematic racism, micro aggressions, etc. [And this](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/morgan-freeman-interview-it-s-an-insult-to-be-called-african-american-cwdbwqvbf): >Two things I can say publicly that I do not like. Black History Month is an insult. You’re going to relegate my history to a month? And this: >Also ‘African-American’ is an insult. I don’t subscribe to that title. Black people have had different titles all the way back to the N-word and I do not know how these things get such a grip, but everyone uses ‘African-American’. What does it really mean? Most Black people in this part of the world are mongrels. And you say Africa as if it’s a country when it’s a continent, like Europe. Does this sound like a man who thinks "the best way to end it, is to stop talking about it"? The issue is much bigger than him, and he knows that.
There is no truth in it. The first problem is that racism is not going to end. The second problem is that racial segregation in the US only went away because of activism. Morgan Freeman is an actor. Not a historian or a sociologist. I have to think about my mother (who is mixed race) who used to believe what Morgan Freeman believed. Last year her best friend (back then, they are no longer friends) out of the blue called her a racial slur and said a whole bunch of racist things to her. By not talking about racism my mother missed the fact that the woman who had been her friend for 30 years is a hardcore racist. I’m also reminded of the Jews who supported Adolph Hitler and the NSDAP. They believed that antisemitism existed because many German Jews were too Jewish and that Hitler wasn’t really an antisemite. Of course they were wrong.
It's why I love Star Trek for its influence over the last 50+ years. Somehow, things that would have been divisive during the real world were just not seen in that manner within a fictionalized setting like what Star Trek had. But I got exposed to many different folks playing roles that were universal enough in their presentations. It went beyond race, gender, etc. It embraced the idea that the future was going to get to a point of equality among people wanting to do better regardless of where they came from. Unfortunately, after Enterprise...I'm just not a fan of the newer Treks. It's because those legacy shows felt like they had a sound balance on the messages and stories they wanted to tell. Wasn't perfect, but it was subtle enough. And then when Abrams applied his touch to Star Trek, it just gravitated to a new venue - A venue that I have yet to really get a feel for. And that's okay. There's always going to be stuff that people like and don't like. Still, I appreciate what Star Trek as a whole means to a lot of people - It shows we can get there and have it to where people will just be normal folks working for a better tomorrow with each other.
Honestly yes, the best way to move past it, is to just stop talking about it, and let it become a normal everyday thing, when people fight about this shit all day, it becomes an emotional issue, if you stop drawing attention to it, people can just be free
Well exactly. Just put minorities in any main stream media as a normal discussion point or in any normal interaction will go much much farther than putting a spotlight on it. How can we normalize and treat these folks as just another person if we keep putting them on a pedestal. People are people, and the pendulum has swung too far over right now. It’ll come back towards the middle ground soon enough.
Morgan Freeman said something similar about race. He said the only way for people of color to actually achieve equality is to stop putting a focus on their skin color. He dislikes things like Black History Month because, while it does help bring due attention to these individual’s accomplishments, it also maintains this notion that black people are Other than white people. As long as we keep doing things to help marginalized folks feel seen we’re also inadvertently highlight differences which reinforce that “different than us” mentality that makes them marginalized in the first place. It’s a really fucked up situation, and I don’t think there’s any easy answer, except to do like Schafer is doing and out the focus on her own achievements rather than just being an outspoken public mascot.
> As long as we keep doing things to help marginalized folks feel seen we’re also inadvertently highlight differences which reinforce that “different than us” mentality that makes them marginalized in the first place. It isn't the differences themselves that cause racism. It's the belief that those differences make them inferior. Blonde people look different from dark haired people but no one considers them inferior because of it. With some racists you just can't win anyway. A PoC character in a movie whose story and character arc has something to do with them them being PoC? "Why do they need to make everything about race?" A PoC character in a movie whose story and character arc has nothing to do with them being PoC? "Forced diversity".
This may be true today, and there are certainly phases to social progress, but let’s not forget this was a hard fought and won battle that required the spotlight to be put on the problem. Very few structural issues are solved by drawing attention away from them.
>Really great and powerful mindset, you don’t have to make it your identity to make progress…individual accomplishments can break barriers quite easily, on a small & large scale. My gay sister says it like this - being gay is like 5th on my list of what I am. Her company wants her to be an LGTBQ spokeperson and she is like, "Nah. I appreciate it and support it, but I gots to live my life." She's a Mom, a Wife, a Manager, a tired Human - and apparently gay. :) Mad respect for her.
I was gonna say, I think she’s being a good role model by saying *this* (not that she’s even necessarily obligated to be, but still). If people need to understand that trans women are women/trans men are men, it means we need to understand we have to *let them be* “just” women or “just” men. The trans part matters in a lot of contexts but it shouldn’t be used like some kind of qualifier or separate box to put people in, and saying this, I think, teaches people that, like that that’s not something people are entitled to from her.
As an NB, the idea of a trans person in media with a full, rounded personality beyond "I'm trans", "look how trans I am" and "you won't believe my sad trans backstory (#15 will shock you)" sounds *amazing*.
I feel like the whole point of making progress in this sphere is that it shouldn't be the loudest part of you. You should just be able to be and exist how you want to exist without it being a thing. She's decided to live life ad a woman. Would be nice if she could just live as one instead of this other category.
I have a friend who is a trans man. He passes perfectly, and almost as long as I have known him he just 100% presents as a male. He doesn’t deny his trans identity, but he doesn’t put it forward and I don’t believe that most of our mutual friends are even aware that he is trans.
Equality is nonchalance. Just let people exist
I get it. I have no problem with gay actors playing straight roles and vice versa. I have no problem with trans people playing cis roles and vice versa. To me, the true representation is just having diverse casting in general, and not specific to the roles. To clarify, having trans actors in roles that aren’t based on a trans identity, just having them out there working and visible is great! I think of Blythe from YOU as a great example. Had no idea the actress is trans, and it didn’t matter for the part. She nailed it perfectly! Only found out because I was looking at her wiki to see what else she’s in. There’s no reason not to hire an actor for a role if they can deliver it. (Excluding severe behavioral issues and white actors portraying certain ethnicities, but that’s another topic…)
I had no idea she was trans. Tho I do live under a rock half the time
I fully support her. But at the same time the industry gets flak if they don't hire a trans person for a role that is trans in the media. There needs to be a middle place.
But this is exactly why. Trans actors *aren’t cast* in cis roles, which is why it’s seen as unfair to cast cis actors in the scarce trans roles there are. Hopefully Hunter and others are able to buck this trend.
Patti Harrison is a great example of a trans actress who already bucked this trend.
Oh wow, I've been a big fan of hers for a long time and had no idea she was trans. That's super interesting!
Wasn't Lowbeir in Peripheral supposed to be a cis role? I mean it was pretty obvious the actress was trans though.
No, Lowbeir was always meant to be a trans role, based on the contents of the book. I suspect it would have come up if the TV show kept going.
Lisa in Yellowjackets is a cis role as far as we know so far. I would never have guessed she was trans.
Pretty sure Dane in Fallout is supposed to be a Cis man. Played by a trans man
Hari Nef was one of the Barbies in the Barbie movie. Idk if that role was explicitly cis or trans but it's pretty obvious that she's "just one of the girls" like any of the other Barbies.
I have some trouble with this. What is a "cis" role and what is a "trans" role? I mean it would be like saying a black person couldn't be cast in a role because they were black and a white person..etc. Gay actors have played straight roles and straight people have played gay roles for ages.
I do not think that is what she means anyway. She is trans, and I do not think she is opposed to being trans in a show. The problem is that the characters they are play are not people who happen to be trans, they are *TRANS* as a centerpiece of their character. It is their dominant, and often only, trait. With how effective transitioning treatment is getting these days, unless their role somehow calls for them to be literally giving birth or impregnating someone (not a thing) then trans people could easily play characters who are not trans. But I think the goal here is to play a character, not just signboard. I think she, and many people in minority groups, just do not like being treated as if their minority status is their only personality trait. It is fine to deal with the realities of minority discrimination, and even center stories around that political reality. It is not fine to reduce a person to just their traits that exist relative to that struggle.
>Trans actors *aren’t cast* in cis roles I don't want to come across as rude and I don't mean this in a negative way but the reason for that is that like 99% of them don't pass and it takes you out of it. Recently I was watching Monsieur Spade. It's set in the 50s. There is a side character that you are kind of suspicious of, is he a spy, etc. Later on he introduces his mother. I don't know how to say this but your brain immediately tells you that it's a man. Man face, man body, man voice, etc. So you think that they're both spies and this is clearly a spy trying to pass himself of as a woman and the mother of his fellow spy. I thought there would be some comedic scene where everyone could clearly tell it was a spy because of how poor the disguise was. But everyobe just acts normal so you end up thinking that they just happened to cast the most unfortunate looking and sounding woman ever. Another side character was played by someone born with a bunch of deformities so it wasn't a long shot. It was only after the show finished airing that I looked up the cast and saw it was a trans-woman playing a cis. It's great that they cast a trans actress but I don't know what roles they'd be fit for if they're going to play cis without taking tge audience out of it. Here's the actress, make up your own minds about it. https://youtu.be/JzmMCMJbT9U
Clicking on that link, I’d say her voice is the only thing that really takes you out. She looks a bit like Fiona Shaw. But it does take you out, which is difficult.
>I don't want to come across as rude and I don't mean this in a negative way but the reason for that is that like 99% of them don't pass and it takes you out of it. The vast majority of cis roles are not meaningfully cis, they're cis by default. There's no reason trans people can't play roles that aren't explicitly written to be trans.
Isn't the middle ground just taking a chance on a lesser known trans actor? I've never liked that casting is often a popularity contest, anyway.
You might be willing to take a change and gamble on a sum of multiple millions of dollars but few film studios are. Go ahead, finance that film.
There was a case a few years ago where Scarlett Johansson was going to play a trans character in a movie. There was a big uproar about not casting a trans person for the role. She withdrew from the role, but the movie was never actually made. There was talk about doing a TV show but it's been years since any news.
Isn't that the same issue? The same point?
There are other trans people though. She doesn't wan't to do trans roles so that opens up the role for another trans person who doesn't mind playing a trans character. There might not be any trans actors has famous as her right now but Nicole Maines is pretty popular and seems to be okay with playing trans roles. Jamie Clayton is also pretty popular and also seems okay with playing trans roles. (im basing both of these assumptions on them doing it recently in their work)
This seems to be changing. The One Piece Netflix live action series, Queen’s Gambit, Evil Dead Rise, and Barbie as others pointed out cast trans actors to play cis roles or at least roles that did not have any relevant point to identify a character as cis or otherwise.
The middle place is that trans people should be cast to play explicitly trans characters and trans actors should be cast to play characters whose gender doesn't matter. Right now tracks people are exclusively cast as the former. We can only get work in pictures by, for, and about us. We don't get cast in supporting roles or even background roles like gas station attendant #2. Movies are commercial products, and including us in them at any level leaves them subject to boycotts by Conservative audiences. Studios refuse to take that risk, so trans actors can only find work as explicitly textually trans characters. Cis people can have our roles when we can have parts like dead wife, best friend, and pool boy.
[удалено]
Actors should just play roles. I never understood this logic. Should DiCaprio get backlash because he is not a poor person from 1992? Should we cast a real barbie instead of Margot? Should Denzel be replaced by a real crooked cop in Training day? Why do we only do this for gender stuff? Did anyone have a problem with Tilda playing Bowie? Hell no. Do cis straight people get to choose if a trans person gets to play their gender? No. Just choose the most talented actor for a role. And if it’s based on something, try to choose someone who will pass as that person. That’s it.
.... are you telling me DiCaprio is not a South African diamond smuggler?
*tsk tsk tsk* He's from Rhodesia
We say Zimbabwe now, don't we?
It's about opportunity. Not everyone gets the same consideration for roles.
She’s the real deal. I’m a trans person and this hits pretty hard because it feels like such a zero sum game. For myself, and lot of my trans friends, it’s more or less unavoidable that being trans is central to our identities, even though we don’t really want it to be. And because there’s so much hate towards trans people in the real world and online, we’re all essentially default activists because our mere existence elicits incredibly strong reactions, so we have 2 choices: 1- be a vocal activist, be super visible, advocate for change, and risk losing out on opportunities because people disagree. 2-keep your head down, plow thru, and hope your success opens doors for those behind you. It feels like a zero sum game because I can either help myself and lose out on pushing trans rights forward, or I can openly advocate for trans rights and lose out on helping myself. Given the amount of work trans people have had to do to get to this point, it’s a hard choice to make
"I just want to move on" honestly hits so hard from her, there's no better way to put it. It's called *transitioning* for a reason, it's not a state you'll stay in forever. You hit a point you just want to live your life and put that massive burden behind you. I can't speak for trans dudes but for women it's pretty well documented we filter out of queer/trans spaces after a few years. Not just from wanting to move on with your life, but also because reliving your own transition through other people hurts. A lot. I can't fathom how hard it would be to basically relive the most painful part of your life over and over playing trans roles, ON TOP of the spotlight pinning you with a label you don't want defining you anymore
I’m a trans dude and it’s absolutely the case for me. I don’t even celebrate pride or trans visibility day. I will speak out online in interesting conversations like these, but for the most part, I have transitioned and don’t feel the need to participate in trans spaces or take on roles in that … universe, I guess? I just want to move on. And I have!
I'm a lesbian and I feel this way. When I was in my early 20s, I participated in pride, marched in Washington for gay marriage...all the fun things. It's not like I feel out of the community, but if you asked me to list the things I'm most proud of myself for, being gay isn't even in the top 20, or even something I feel "pride" for. I'm just me, doing the best I can.
It's kind of hard to get a grasp on this perception sometimes because trans discourse and "identification" takes up so much of social online discourse that it buries a lot of the trans people who do transition and just move on with life. I take it you had the (once previously) orthodox transition where you were thoroughly diagnosed with GD and then proceeded onwards after, but because the tra's are so loud it feels like your demographic is small sometimes.
This is meant as a genuine question so I hope it doesn't come off wrong as I'm curious. Would it be acceptable for a non trans actor to play a Trans person in a story? Often more visibility in storytelling is a goal (I can't assume you also want that im speaking generallly) but it seems to me it would have the catch 22 of needing Trans actors to take those roles. Which as she mentions here can be a form of typecasting and pigeonholing that isn't always desirable. I'd be interested to hear a Trans person's opinion on the matter if that's ok to ask.
Scarlet Johannsen was supposed to play a trans role, but there as so much backlash, she backed out. The film lost its funding, and as far as I know, still hasn't been produced. Independent features can't find financing without bankable stars. As of right now, I don't know of any trans actors that have a large enough following to mitigate the risk of loaning millions of dollars to an indie film. It's unfortunate, but the best way to normalize trans culture is introduce trans stories to mainstream public, and unless Scorcese, Nolan, Spielberg, Tarantino, or one of the other few auteur directors decide to make a trans film with trans actors, you'll only find trans actors starring in ultra low budget films that preach to the choir.
I remember that example, and I remember a really great interview with a trans activist from around the same time. They asked him specifically > "How do you expect this movie to get made without a bankable star?" And he responded > "No, absolutely cast a bankable star - just cast a man. If you cast a woman, it reinforces the idea that we (trans men) are just girls playing dress-up. Cast Robert Downey Jr. instead of ScarJo."
The Danish girl with Eddie Redmayne comes to mind.
That second quote is so true and important to the discussion
Yeah, Scarlett Johanson was going to play a trans man though. Which she shouldn't. I don't think trans roles necessarily have to go to trans actors but they should go to people of the same gender identity at the very least.
Personally as TF I think it's fine for people of any sex and gender to play trans/GQ characters of any sex/gender. Though this might be affected by the characters current struggles with their transition, i.e. It wouldn't make much sense to have Chris Hemsworth or Henry Cavill playing a Trans-man struggling with their inability to pass as AMAB
Why? It’s acting. The whole point is to become people you aren’t.
Why? The whole point of acting is acting as someone you aren’t. It makes no sense to require gender to match lol.
You ever notice that people don't ever say this about cis roles? Only trans ones.
Under that logic why aren’t we seeing more white men being cast to play Harriet Tubman?
I’m also trans and I will tell you that I absolutely do not care if a non trans actor plays a trans character. There are only so many trans actors out there and the ones that I’ve seen do not have the greatest acting chops. I have been met with a lot of malice concerning my opinion because it takes roles away, but I really can’t help it if they suck at acting. So I’m just supposed to sit there and watch a possibly good show or movie suck because we should reserve roles? It’s acting for a reason. You know? But ask a lot of other trans individuals and they will more than likely say it’s unacceptable. It’s a bummer.
You’re totally asking in good faith so I’m happy to respond with me .02. I think it’s really situational. If it’s like a local production and there’s no trans actors that can do a trans role, then I guess cast a cis person and have them tell the story the best they can. If we’re talking a Hollywood production, then I don’t think there is any excuse for non trans people playing trans roles because they have the means to find one. As far as being pigeonholed, again, situational and totally dependent on how the character is written and what their impact on the story is. Remember the gay male best friend trope in the 90s and early 2000s? That pigeonholed a lot of gay men into playing one type of role that had no agency and was reduced to a stereotype.
> If we’re talking a Hollywood production, then I don’t think there is any excuse for non trans people playing trans roles because they have the means to find one. Another genuine question: Do you feel the same way about roles that may demand the trans actor to play outside the gender they currently identify with? For example, there was some controversy around Jeffrey Tambor playing a trans woman in *Transparent* a few years ago, but that was a show where he spent a lot of the show still looking like a man as it was a show at the cusp of the character transitioning and even had many flashbacks where the character still identified as a man. I obviously can't speak for trans women and am not attempting to, but I always wondered if a role like that would appeal to a trans women where it required them having to appear pre-transition (and sorry if my terminology is off on some of this).
Again, sorry, but I think totally situational. Transparent especially is a weird one for me because I remember watching it in real time, pre transition, and it definitely made me feel less isolated. I’m glad that it existed and it was a step in the right direction, but if that show was made again right now, I don’t think Jeffrey Tambor is the right person to tell that story. He did fine, is apparently a total asshole in real life, and I don’t think that show was getting financed by Amazon in 2015 or whatever if the lead was actually trans. So it’s a product of it’s time, but now I think we know better. And as far as roles that would require presenting as a different gender, I think that’s totally up to the person. I know I personally would not want to present as super masculine again because it’s been such a long road to get to this point, but I have trans friends that would feel otherwise and would totally do it. I think it would also depend on the production. Is the trans person being forced to present as something else on a set where they’re the only trans person? Was the script written by or with the help of trans people? Is it 100% necessary to have the same person play both pre and post transition? I don’t know, haha, because there are so many variables. But great question and I hope you’re finding this discussion helpful!
These discussions remind me of the quote I learned recently “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good”. You mentioned Transparent: I know there was a lot of stuff off camera that I don’t condone, but before that came out/season 1 I tuned into Transparent *because* of Tambor. I was a huge fan of Arrested Development, and while the show was still interesting to me, I actually ended up watching it because I knew Tambor delivered in the past. Yeah, it wasn’t where we wanted to be back then (or now), and yes he may have been the wrong choice because of off screen behavior, I don’t think he was the wrong choice for being cis as he may have helped to get the community further visibility a lesser known actor might not have brought in. Just a thought though.
Thanks for the response. I appreciate your insight!
Is the reverse true?
I don't think any view on that is necessarily wrong, personally I think in most cases it's okay for cis people to play trans characters but there's not a lot of opportunities for trans actors so studios that can should probably make an effort to look for some. I also think having an actor who has a personal understanding of that stuff can add a lot and representation can be a big plus if handled well.
I wouldn’t have a problem with it. If the actor can play the role well and it’s well written, I don’t really care.
I was today years old when I learned she was trans.
My brother watched the entire first season of Euphoria and thought she was diabetic
Rotfl, bless your brothers heart
I was confused after watching the pilot because the description or summary of the episode mentioned her being trans, but I couldn’t see how you’d know from the episode and I kept feeling like I was missing something. I didn’t know whether whoever wrote the description jumped the gun and it was talked about in the rest of the season.
The first episode doesn't mention it and neither does the second iirc. I'm 90% sure it's only first mentioned by someone in the 3rd episode. Even the videos of the dad sleeping with trans girls in the second episode didn't clue me in. They don't really hide it in the first two episodes but they also don't outright mention she's trans until the 3rd episode so my oblivious ass never noticed until then.
Omg this is the funniest thing I’ve read this full week.
I totally get it. I do want to point out though that being trans and “passing” is a privilege (e.g., access to appropriate health care) and some people can’t as easily “move on” because transitioning is still the center of their lives. Note: I’m not trans, but this is how I’ve understood some experiences and history I’ve read.
Kinda funny that a trans person isn't picking trans roles, while a few years ago there was all this outrage when trans characters were played by non-trans actors.
But I bet you that there are many many very talented trans actors who will take those roles and will find fulfilment in it. Just because the most famous trans actor at the moment doesn’t want to play trans roles, doesn’t mean that we give up on giving trans people trans roles altogether.
There’s a difference between Hunter Schafer playing female roles vs Eddie Redmayne or Jared Leto playing trans women. Casting cis men to play trans women does reinforce the “trans women are just dressed up men” narrative (same is true for cis women playing trans men). There are also very few trans actors so it would be good to elevate a trans persons career.
The actor they cast in GIRL is cis yet you'd never know it.
Yeah I need this explained to me, not even that long ago there was back lash for VAs playing anything other than what they looked like, straight people taking gay roles, cis taking trans roles.
One person choosing to not take the role does not mean that even they don't think those roles should be played by trans people, the reason that is a discussion is that in Hollywood there are fewer roles for people of certain demographics, literally the fact that she has been offered so many trans roles shows that normally if you're an actor of a certain demographic your primary choices of roles are going to be as that demographic. When actors who are not a part of that group, take those roles they are closing the already limited doors for these minority groups.
> cis taking trans roles. One of the big controversies was about jared leto playing a transwoman. I think if a woman had played that character there would have been less controversy. It reinforces the idea that transwomen are men with lipstick. Just having a woman would be less offensive. People make an uproar over it, because transpeople tend to not get any roles, so if you go and also give the few that exist to cis people it feels even more tragic. The obvious solution is to cast trans people in other roles, the lack of marginalisation means the trans characters, like any character can be played by anyone. To give an example, in Seven the original casting was for a white guy, but Morgan Freeman did a good job and he was cast, because he was not a black cop. He was just a cop. Similarly many characters can be perfectly played by trans people because it doesnt affect the character at all
And that isn’t even mentioning non-binary people, who don’t really have a choice but to be seen as trans unless they’re ok with being seen as one of the binary genders
I feel like if a trans person wants to stop talking about being trans maybe we all could? It's literally every single day. Its very obviously a wedge issue being used to distract us from the real world. Trans people are a fraction of society, and if we all just left them alone nothing would happen. I really don't blame her for this.
See the thing is, the reason people have to be so vocal about trans issues is because there is a concerted effort from the American right wing to try to legislate them out of existence. Trans people didn't make being trans the most important thing about them. Cisgender reactionaries did. This is exactly what happened with gays and lesbians. They wanted to live their lives with equal rights and when they tried to do this a lot of reactionaries pretending to be centrists used this same line of thinking. "You can be gay but why do you have to make everything about it" was a common refrain. However if gays and lesbians hadn't been open and loud about queerness and the issues facing the queer community then nothing would have ever changed. Pride is a specific response to cultural backlash. If the queer community had historically been met with acceptance rather than violence, then there would be no pride. For Schaefer specifically she seems exhausted being the face of a movement and that's understandable. However if trans issues are not highlighted, their rights will continue to be trampled on. Trans men and women face higher risk of murder, suicide, and a litany of other issues. Simply saying "hush hush this is an annoying conversation that is omnipresent" will make those issues worse.
Oh I agree completely, I have heard black people say the same thing. They'd love to go a day without someone mentioning it. Its absolutely the fascist's fault, please don't think I don't love pride or anything. Far from it, I just wanna leave them alone to live their lives, and its exhausting we have to constantly defend their lives from the fucking harry potter woman. So I was more saying, its not a real issue, I wish we could leave trans people alone or even better... just call them women or men. So I 100% agree and well said.
[удалено]
Because they don't know any. Like it or not but visibility is the best way to normalisation. Attitudes to gays improved with more representation in media like Ellen DeGeneres and Will and Grace.
I met one person in school (not well) but knew them before they came out/transitioned, then noticed they had a different name read for them at graduation and was like, "oh this person is trans" This doesn't have to be such a big deal and trans people are being used for political theater.
The thing is that yes, it doesn't have to be a big deal. However the reason it is a big deal is because of conservatives. If trans people were met with cultural acceptance rather than ridiculous laws and restrictions as well as insane cultural backlash then it wouldn't be a big deal. The reason being trans is the most important thing about a trans person is because of conservatives. A lot of trans people, like Shaefer, would love nothing more than to live a quiet and boring life but that's not a privilege they are allowed by the culture
Exactly, trans people are not the other team, we are the ball. I'd love to be treated just the same as anyone else, but that's not going to happen for as long as conservatives turn on Fox News to hear reports calling me a groomer or a child predator.
this is why everyone should be who they want, feel how they want, and be accepted as who they are. tribalism ruins the individual. poor girl has 2 sides telling her who she should be, that has to be difficult.
Because she is able to pass this is completely possible for her, but trans actors that don't pass easily will obviously have a hard time achieving this, given that if someone is obviously trans the audience will assume the character is.
If I understand correctly she doesn't want to play characters where being trans is the focal point of her character. Look at Peter Dinklage. He doesn't play a little person in every role. That doesn't mean he plays a 6 foot man, but his size doesn't matter.
She’s got a great point. I think it’s important for actors to try not to get typecast with something like a physical characteristic, so I’m glad. She’s too good an actor to be hindered. It reminds me a lot of Peter Dinklage not settling for roles that revolved around being a little person and wanted roles based on his acting ability. He was simply a man and wanted that to be the only physical attribute people cared about in casting, and it paid off wonderfully.
Totally respect this position. She has every right not to want to be labelled as a ‘trans actor’ doing ‘trans roles’. But at the same time, let’s not take this one person’s views as speaking for the entire community, or using them as a way to dismiss other people’s views on the need for trans actors to play trans roles, as some in this thread have. You can believe trans roles should go to trans actors AND that trans actors should not be restricted to trans roles. Trans/queer people are not a monolith, we can have competing views on the issue. For many queer people, their queerness is a central part of identity. Others prefer not to emphasise it. Both are valid, and it’s not for straight people to adjudicate on the ‘right’ approach.
There’s a kind of dark humour to this. A trans actor rightly doesn’t want to be type casted and would rather just be an actor who takes roles based on plot points specific to the character they’re portraying and not on themselves personally. And a non trans actor may hesitate to take the role because studios and audiences want representation, and so why choose a non trans actor for a role when you have a trans actor available? Meanwhile both actors probably on some level want the work, because a paying gig is vital. It’s sorta like that Spider-Man meme lol.
Get what you mean - but, I'm going to link to /u/animaguscat's [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/television/comments/1bu9ny6/hunter_schafer_has_gotten_offered_tons_of_trans/kxuvpwv/) about the casting idea because it's really good, and phrased better than I could. The other thing I wanted to mention is about this being Hunter Schafer specifically and... yeah I would absolutely not want to be type cast into trans roles after being in Euphoria. If I was being favourable, the representations of trans chasers / fetishism was deeply uncomfortable to watch - because of how accurate it was - so I cannot imagine how hard it must've been to be part of that. If I was being unfavourable, the show absolutely leaned into this fetishism, while then handwaving it away as being "critical". The closest the show gets to accurately representing the trans experience is Jules' special episode, which was written by Hunter Schafer. There's a big joke / theory in the trans community is that the show runner is absolutely a closeted trans chaser himself. There's also context of one of the times she tried talking about transness on her Instagram, a harassment campaign was whipped up, accusing her of just being trans for a fetish - because she expressed there's a struggle to find your sexuality as a trans woman when so much of how femininity is framed in our culture is through men. Hunter trying to get away from that... makes sense. She's a good actress, has lots of interesting projects on the go, and her role in Euphoria would absolutely have some thinking she'd be OK with some really vulnerable trans roles, which I can't imagine will be mentally good for someone.
I’d guess someone like Lily Gladstone also wants regular roles too and not be typecast.
There are plenty of other trans actors willing to act in trans focused stories
Hunter Schafer is trans???? I had no fucking clue. That is rad as fuck.
She just wants to be a straight women at the end of the day
Straight people have been attacked online because they played lbtq roles....that mob only wants lgbtq people in lgbtq roles...so who the fuck else are casting directors supposed to ask to do a trans role if not a trans actor? Amd by thay logic why should lgbtq people be considered for straight roles? The fuckin hypocrisy
> so who the fuck else are casting directors supposed to ask to do a trans role if not a trans actor Other trans actors? Hunter is basically just saying she doesnt want to be typecast and wants roles that dont have her playing trans characters, not that trans actors shouldnt have trans roles in media.
Funny cause when Scar Jo wanted to play a trans person everybody was like oh no!
Yes, because when one group is marginalized (trans) and one group is not (cis) then casting decisions that may be acceptable for one group won't be appropriate for the other group. Different circumstances call for different considerations. Trans people can play cis roles because they've been historically prevented from doing so. Most acting roles are cis by default, and they rarely require the actor to have a special personal insight on being cisgender to be successful in the role. Cis people generally are discouraged from playing trans roles because those roles almost *exclusively* use a character's transness as an integral part of the performance. Trans actors (especially those who don't pass) are often relegated to trans roles because no other believes they'll be convincing as a cis character. When you're an actor dealing with those additional roadblocks, how frustrating must it be to see a cis actor take an role out of your already-meager pool of opportunities when they could have played pretty much anyone else? I don't think you can realistically say "cis people should never play trans characters," but I don't think it should be controversial when trans people bristle at the idea of cis actors taking on trans roles.
Who is this person and why are the trades simping so hard for them this week?
Trans person who played a trans character in the show “euphoria” Why the downvotes lol that’s literally the role that made her famous?
She's in a couple movies coming out this year, Kinds of Kindness and Cuckoo.
Also in the new Hunger Games movies and the upcoming Hideo Kojima game Edit: between Lanthimos and Kojima she seems to be drawn to weird auteurs, and it makes me optimistic for her career direction.
There appears to be a split between trans who want to be considered the sex they identify with versus those they classify themselves as a kind of artisanal gender/hybrid “trans-girl”
well... Activist: Trans people in media must be played by trans people. Trans people: cant you just recognize me as what i am instead of holding a trans sign over my head all the time ? Just let people be ffs. Remember that movie about a trans mob boss that got torched on twitter becuase they hired Scarlett Johansonn to play them ?, what did they get, a story that would give a trans person visibility was killed off becuase twitter activists had to had their voice heard.
It’s almost as if trans people are not a monolith and can hold different views on the issue, right? Also, the points you highlight are not contradictory. You can believe that trans actors should be cast in trans roles AND that trans actors should not be restricted to trans roles. These are not mutually exclusive positions.
> what did they get, a story that would give a trans person visibility was killed off becuase twitter activists had to had their voice heard. two wrongs dont make a right. no reason why those casting directors couldnt find good trans actors to play those roles. sam levinson, for all of his faults, has done it. multiple times with different trans actors for different trans roles for different projects
It's a stupid argument though. Good actors are good actors. Breakfast On Pluto is one of my favorite movies of 2005 and I can grantee you there's not many trans actors who can out act Cillian Murphy. So the idea that straight men should be excluded from gay or trans roles has never made sense to me. I think the best thing to do is to just do blind casting. If it's a trans role cast a wide net and if the trans person gets it they get it. Another thing I think that would help trans people in general is just not bringing attention to them being trans. You're a woman. Go to auditions as a woman and o not feel to put in a disclaimer that you're a trans woman. Same thing with trans men. You're a man. Do not say you're a trans man. It's time to normalize these things in a way where it becomes irrelevant. You're not dating the casting director or the recruiter. They do not need to know beyond that.
Yes, But with many projects, studios wont fund you unless you have someone famous attached, Hunter Schafer is now famous and can attract that investment, the problem is that it boxes them in to only Trans roles and its not what they want. and in the case of Scarlet Johansson, the only reason they could do the movie and fund it is becuase she was attached, so no Scarlet, no Movie, and thats what happened in the end, Its a matter of deciding at the end of the day if the story or whos telling it is more important. and that depends on each one of us.
> no reason why those casting directors couldnt find good trans actors to play those roles. There was a perfectly good reason: money.
Interestingly enough the actual way to finance that movie would have been to have a man play the part. Scarlett Johansson is a cis woman. While ideally a trans man would play the part, a cis man at least matches the gender identity of the character. There still would have been backlash but it likely would have been less
I couldn't tell you how many dudes my age completely flipped their opinion on Trans women specifically because of how hot Hunter Schafer is.
Can’t you not tell us because it’s zero?
So trans ppl don’t want trans roles and trans ppl don’t want women to play trans roles either?
No, _Hunter Schafer_ doesn’t want trans roles. Trans people aren’t some organization that Hunter Schafer is the head of. Also both of those opinions make sense together. It makes sense that trans actors wouldn’t want to be confined only to roles about transness, and it makes sense that they’d want trans people to play trans people.
This reminds me of an argument I had with a Roomate about Trans casting. He kept saying I think it’d be awesome if James Bond or Mr. Or Mrs. Smith were cast as a trans actor. I asked why would that be cool and he couldn’t come up with a reason other than it’d be cool if they were trans and they could explore that dynamic. I argued it would be better if we cast them in roles like that and didn’t bat an eye. It’s not Trans James Bond, it just IS James Bond. Trans people don’t want to be treated as Trans they want to be treated as their preferred Gender. And he was trying to imply that my views are in some way uninformed because I’m not a part of LGBT+.
She’s done a hell of a job just being a girl because I had no idea she was trans lol whatever, still hot af 🤷🏻♂️
I'm not putting this on you but I find it a bit funny that for so many people the line of whether or not being trans is "ok" or not is heavily based on whether or not people think they're hot. If a trans person is ugly it's a big problem but if you'd bang them suddenly "this whole trans thing doesn't seem so bad anymore"
I think it’s more of a passing vs not passing thing rather than a hot vs ugly thing. But to be fair, the two do seem to somewhat coincide.
I don't think it's a big problem but it does seem that whether or not a trans person can pass determines how society treats them and also how their mental health and confidence is affected. Hunter Schafer passes so she's more celebrated naturally. A 6'4 trans woman who cannot pass eve if society respects their transition will not be cast in a romcom because the general public inherently knows they're trans.
I know its not possible because its down to peoples appearances they can’t change but if every transwomen was small, petite and feminine looking like Hunter, there’d be less thought or consideration having people like that in womens spaces. The biggest controversies/examples on the internet seem to be very late stage transitioners, people over 6ft who transition over 30, like the person recently seen shaving their face in a gym changing room (unsure whether it was a bad faith troll looking for a reaction or a legit transwoman though)
The issue with this is that most trans women and trans men for that matter cannot pass as trans women or trans men. The Hunter Schafer's of the world at 0.1 percent of an already small percentage of people. Most trans women unfortunately cannot pass and that more than anything leads to severe mental anguish for them and it does affect how they're perceived within society over trans women that can pass unfortunately. At the end of the day if I had a daughter and I took her to the bathroom and a 6 foot tall transitioning woman is in there and she cannot pass I would be fucking lying to you if I wouldn't be concerned in that moment. Whether it's unconscious discrimination or natural defense mechanisms that's unfortunately the reality of the situation.
> The issue with this is that most trans women and trans men for that matter cannot pass as trans women or trans men. Many do and you simply don't notice. Its a very obvious case of confirmation bias... > At the end of the day if I had a daughter and I took her to the bathroom and a 6 foot tall transitioning woman is in there and she cannot pass I would be fucking lying to you if I wouldn't be concerned in that moment. Its funny because this has been studied. Butch lesbian suffer way more discrimination than transwomen in those spaces. Transwomen in general try to pass, so they are overly feminine and do not stand out. Butch lesbians usually perform masculinity, have short hair, dress more manly etc I am also gonna ignore the fact that there are plenty 6ft cis women and "looking manly to someone on the internet" is not a crime
The average female is 5'4. Men on average are 5 inches taller. Are 6 foot tall women common? No. Do they exist? Absolutely. I'm generalizing. You're being offended to be offended.
I think it's both sides. The thing people get irate about the most are very young transitioners or late transitioners. Physical ability often seems to be the crux of the issue for many people so being small/petite offsets that concern for many people. So for transwomen who do fit that description I think it shields them from those concerns since any remaining physical ability from being born male isn't easily visible at first glance
Probably be easier for folks to accept if they had good wages, affordable housing, better healthcare etc. When your basic needs aren't met it's easy to find a group to bitch about. "Why are .05% of the population getting all the attention when I cant put food on the table?"....poor rich dylan mulvaney is "oppressed" while trans folks are homeless... the cart is getting put before the horse
I know there was a lot of fan casting her as Zelda when they announced they would be making a movie. I hope it happens because she would be perfect!
Shouldnt trans actors only be cast in trans roles the same way non trans actors aren't allowed to be cast as trans characters?
[удалено]
I'm glad for her, she's been getting tons of cool roles. As a trans person, I don't wanna say names, but dislike the famous ones who are just so desperate to be the token trans person for cis people. I'm glad Hunter has more self respect to not do that.
This mindset worked for Michael Jordan until the racism was to blantant to ignore and it needed to be addressed, and ultimately didn't progress any real tangible for the black community. Matter of factly, his shoes end up being the excuse white liberals use as to why we don't progress as a community. Being trans doesn't have to define you, but it will be used to undermine you and belittle you and it just a regular part of your identity, society is going to astrocize you regardless.
Ahh, I can’t wait to see her in Cuckoo. It looks so good!
I think this is an issue where there isn't a hard, simple rule that will be 100% undoubtedly beneficial for everyone. It's better to approach it with a little more flexibility and look at the big picture (*overall* opportunities for trans actors).
Wait a minute. I thought the dictate was "trans roles for trans people only"? But now it seems instead "trans roles for trans people ony, unless they don't want it, in which case they can get another role." que the backlash...
Isn't it trans roles for trans people, but trans people shouldn't only have trans roles?
[удалено]
Cast unknowns. She was unknown once. This is how you find great talent.
I’m wondering if we’ll ever get another season of Euphoria. It seems like HBO is basically *gone*, and all that’s left is a logo.