Scarlett Johansson faces backlash for trans role

[Claymore 671]

18 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

When this topic has come up before, I've asked these questions: wouldn't it not be best to cast someone who isn't trans? Surely a biological woman is the best choice to play a biological woman who wants to change gender? Isn't a fully transititioned person actually counterproductive because they look too masculine/feminine post-op? Wouldn't a cisgender person accurately portray the before stage of a transsexual's life (in their initial state, with no hormones or surgery) as opposed to a person who had fully transitioned? Wouldn't a transsexual potentially even find it traumatising to undo their hard work and present themselves as man/woman which they don't want to be?

Just some food for thought.

1. Not every trans person is on hormones nor willing to do surgery.

2. Oh so now we're not casting trans individuals because we care about their mental health? Miss me with that.

[KingRedd 3,139]

2 hours ago, Dominic said:

This comparison, let's not even go there with that one  

The issue is trans people were not given equal opportunity, it was not a case of "oh scarlet just happened to smash the audition".  He was trans, so why not cast a trans person? The reason why is because they fear commercial failure and prefer to hire an A lister for profit.  Sure it's a business but come on, trans people are never going to be given a voice unless they are given a platform and they damn well would never be cast in the role of a cis person either. So where does that leave them eh? Damned to be overshadowed by the Hollywood lights and you can bet they'll get a standing ovation for 'pushing boundaries' when all they did was reinforce them. 

The comparison is valid so idk why you mad It seem random. Actors play roles. If we boycott movies for an actor not being the same as the actual character, then it’s the same with the scenario I used. 

Hollywood is Hollywood. Instead of boycotting and complaining on Twitter, everyone who feels bad should support the movies that DO cast correctly. There has to be trans producers, casting directors, actors, actresses, and directors. If we supported their work instead of putting our attention on things we cannot control, it would actually make a difference. But for some reason society feels it’s best to complain rather than support. 

[KingRedd 3,139]

3 hours ago, Claymore said:

apples and oranges but ok

It’s not apples and oranges... it’s a valid reason and it’s hypocritical. If you want to stand up for the LGBTQ, then stand up for all of it. Why do we not car if a man dresses as woman in films but we care if a woman gets casted to tell the story of a transgender who identifies as a man? Makes no sense and it weakens the cause. You can’t pick and choose when it comes to defending LGBTQ rights. Defend it all 

[StrawberryBlond 14,881]

14 minutes ago, Claymore said:

1. Not every trans person is on hormones nor willing to do surgery.

2. Oh so now we're not casting trans individuals because we care about their mental health? Miss me with that.

Yes, but a lot of trans people do want to pursue that route, if they can. If they're rich and famous actors, chances are, they'll have the funds to do it. And if they've had facial surgery, well, they're really going to look too overly masculine or feminine to play the role of the opposite gender.

And yes, their mental health is a valid point. Lots of transpeople have had to present themselves as a gender they don't feel they are for years. When they've finally turned it all around and can present themselves how they like, the last thing a lot of them would want to do is revert back to that time and remind themselves of it. I'm a biological woman and no way would I want to play a male role because that isn't the gender I want to present myself as. Getting made up to resemble a man wouldn't please me at all. So how is that any different from a transsexual who has to remove their identity to play this role?

[Claymore 671]

Just now, StrawberryBlond said:

Yes, but a lot of trans people do want to pursue that route, if they can. If they're rich and famous actors, chances are, they'll have the funds to do it. And if they've had facial surgery, well, they're really going to look too overly masculine or feminine to play the role of the opposite gender.

And yes, their mental health is a valid point. Lots of transpeople have had to present themselves as a gender they don't feel they are for years. When they've finally turned it all around and can present themselves how they like, the last thing a lot of them would want to do is revert back to that time and remind themselves of it. I'm a biological woman and no way would I want to play a male role because that isn't the gender I want to present myself as. Getting made up to resemble a man wouldn't please me at all. So how is that any different from a transsexual who has to remove their identity to play this role?

There's your answer.

[Claymore 671]

5 minutes ago, KingRedd said:

It’s not apples and oranges... it’s a valid reason and it’s hypocritical. If you want to stand up for the LGBTQ, then stand up for all of it. Why do we not car if a man dresses as woman in films but we care if a woman gets casted to tell the story of a transgender who identifies as a man? Makes no sense and it weakens the cause. You can’t pick and choose when it comes to defending LGBTQ rights. Defend it all 

Because the ones you mentioned were DRAG roles.

[SKANK 14,288]

4 hours ago, mmmmmonster said:

Idk at least there is a trans character in a show.

 

 

That is an interesting point that is almost always lost in these conversations.

While it's the job of an activist to never accept the status quo, I think most reasonable people can see that the status quo has become incredibly inclusive for the LGBT community.

This casting choice isn't reminiscent of "Black Face" nor is it as "traumatic" as the hysterics would have you believe. But it is a great opportunity to remind folks that trans actors should be given more casting opportunities, to portray both cis and trans characters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Squeeshy Keety 9,908]

And once again gay men attempt to speak on behalf of the community they ignore all other 364 days of the year 

All you have to do is listen to people within the community and how this type of casting affects them to understand that this is a big deal. Sometimes what might not seem like a big deal to you can make a huge difference in someone else's life. Being LGBTQ+ means sticking with your trans siblings as well and looking past just your experience.

[monsterdino 31,997]

lmfao first she stealing an asian role and now this??? ffs get yo **** togetha

[Regina George 59,387]

12 hours ago, Claymore said:

How about the cast of ''Pose''? Chock full of trans women giving Emmy worthy performances.  Or Daniela Vega in ''A Fantastic Woman'' (that won an Oscar for Best Foreign Picture)?

Acting like trans people are not being cast because they lack talent is gross.

I said it’s not common- never said anything about them not having talent. Should we look for every specific thing that role requires is actors? Like if she’s playing paralyzed person then we should find paralyzed actress? 

[Claymore 671]

6 minutes ago, ReginaGeorge said:

I said it’s not common- never said anything about them not having talent. Should we look for every specific thing that role requires is actors? Like if she’s playing paralyzed person then we should find paralyzed actress? 

Yes.

[Scathach 6,674]

7 minutes ago, ReginaGeorge said:

I said it’s not common- never said anything about them not having talent. Should we look for every specific thing that role requires is actors? Like if she’s playing paralyzed person then we should find paralyzed actress? 

Yes

[Regina George 59,387]

1 minute ago, Claymore said:

Yes.

 

1 minute ago, darkness said:

Yes

Amm then it would be documentary and not movie. Acting is pretending. Acting is something people love to do and it would be really difficult for people who love doing it to do it if role requirements are something they have no control over. 

Acting is acting. Acting would not exist if there was no pretending part. 

[uo111 5,265]

1 minute ago, ReginaGeorge said:

 

Amm then it would be documentary and not movie. Acting is pretending. Acting is something people love to do and it would be really difficult for people who love doing it to do it if role requirements are something they have no control over. 

Acting is acting. Acting would not exist if there was no pretending part. 

Okay, cool.

Only gay people can play straight roles now!!! This is great news for the lgbt community.

 

But wait.  That means only trans people can play cis characters :’(

Man, diversity in hollywood is allowed to go wayyyyyyy down. Oh well, still great for the lgbt community. 

[Scar97 1,643]

The hate she’s getting is ridiculous and convenient. She’s a big-time name, studios want A-listers to help promote their movies. If anything, people should be happy that this movie is getting more attention, SO in the future you won’t need a big name to take a risk on a trans movie.