Ask the Transperson

[xoxoxoBruce]

Argument being bounced around several sites, I brought it in it's entirety.

A cis person playing a trans role in “the Danish girl” is transphobia? So what should it have been? A trans actress who has already transitioned should act as a cis man for months of filming triggering her dysphoria because of social justice? Or a trans actress who hasn’t transitioned should be outed when she’s not comfortable with that yet? Sorry but when a movie is showing a transition story, using a cis person is just logical.
Please lgbt community, keep boycotting all the attempts to bring your stories to the mainstream media because they aren’t perfect in every way… the bigots don’t even have to do any work these days.

cottonkandymisogynist:It is transphobic because
1. Trans people were not involved in the writing or casting in both
2. Trans people did audition for the films but they were passed over! To hire well known cis actors!!! Trans people were denied a role that would’ve launched a mainstream career! This is hard economic discrimination !!!!!

^^^^^^^trans people wanted to play these roles!!!!^^^^^^^ main point!


3. Not every trans person is dysphoric. Lots-LOTS- would be happy to be part of a big screen release telling trans stories (Laverne Cox!)
4. Fuck off if you’re not trans. Trans people say it’s transphobic to elevate cis actors while Trans people are denied the rare role specifically for them.

5. Cis people are making money off trans stories It’s transphobic and commodifies the suffering of minorities
6. TRANS PEOPLE ARE CONSTANTLY DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO TELL THEIR STORIES GREEN LIGHTING CIS PEOPLE TO TELL TRANS STORIES IS TRANSPHOBIC.

REPEAT cis people making money off of Trans people being discriminated against in the movie industry is transphobic and shitty do not support the Danish girl.

batrachoid:Yeah no. You can not support the Danish girl if you want to but Please stop telling others what to do. There’s literally nothing transphobic about it. It doesn’t promote hate for trans people. A trans person was in fact involved in the creation of the character. Trans people were passed over? Probably because they were not as good as Eddie Redmayne . Also a non dysphoric trans person? You mean a cis person? I’m not trans. Not fucking off tho. People making money by doing their jobs isn’t transphobic TYPING IN CAPS DOESN’T MAKE YOU CORRECT.

cottonkandymisogynist:
1) This is a kooky argument because it implies that trans people are entitled to the role just because they’re trans. That’s like an argument for discrimination based on gender identity. Weird. If you could prove that there was a fantastic trans actor who was passed over because the people making the movie were transphobic even though they were making a movie about it… but that seems implausible.

2) People making movies have to make movies that will sell. They’re obligated to their backers unless they are self-funded indie filmmakers. They have to consider the marketability of their stars. Trans actors are just starting to get the kind of recognition that has been long in coming, but they’re just not there yet.

3) Um, shouldn’t a trans person be able to act in any role? I mean why limit them to playing trans characters? That makes even less sense.

Cotton Kandy is right, progressive people will take every opportunity to shit all over every achievement if it doesn’t fit into their own radical view. Look, my trans friends- if this movie does well, every movie producer in Hollywood is going to be shopping around for scripts that depict trans stories, that have trans characters, that feature trans actors. If it does poorly, they’re just going to think, “Well, I guess the moviegoing public isn’t interested in this sort of thing. Don’t make any more movies like that, they’ll flop.” You should be seeing it 10 times, not boycotting it.