Scarlett Johansson Exits 'Rub & Tug' Following Transgender Casting Backlash

[Dominic 11,922]

2 minutes ago, Antichrist said:

no idea who laverne cox is tho.

please list me some examples of people who are trying to become actors, cuz all im hearing is trans visibility trans visibility, but no actual people who are trans & are striving to become actors.

 

and while we're at that point, its acting. what more do you need? why does everyone need visibility in every single damn aspect of the world?

We wouldn't know them because they are trying to become actors  all you need to do is a quick Google search to gain an insight into a lot of the trans ideas regarding this film.

...because that's what makes the world a fair place to live in. That's like saying why do gays need visibility on TV? Because it then helps to tackle the homophobia in our world if people are more exposed to them. Same thing here. The more exposure the now normalised it becomes. 

[Antichrist 9,818]

34 minutes ago, Dominic said:

We wouldn't know them because they are trying to become actors  all you need to do is a quick Google search to gain an insight into a lot of the trans ideas regarding this film.

...because that's what makes the world a fair place to live in. That's like saying why do gays need visibility on TV? Because it then helps to tackle the homophobia in our world if people are more exposed to them. Same thing here. The more exposure the now normalised it becomes. 

the world a fair place to live in? you do realize that's not how the world goes, right? and if that's what someone needs to live a happy life, i suggest they check their priorities first, & then be pissed at the world for not having enough trans actors visible on TV

[StrawberryBlond 13,303]

9 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

She's apologizing for being ignorant on the issue to the community she feels she has harmed... (I mean, in theory, for all we know she doesn't give a ****) The position you are taking tells me you don't think that there was a problem with her taking the job, nor that there was a problem with the way the job existed in the first place... and if that's so, well we're going to have to strongly disagree, and its a different discussion to be had.

I don't find any problem with actors doing their job - which is pretending to be someone else. No one's up in arms with a childless actor plays a parent or when a healthy actor plays a cancer patient or when an able-bodied actor plays a disabled person. On that last example, why do you think Eddie Redmayne played Stephen Hawking? Why couldn't someone who actually had motor neurone disease play the role? Because Stephen didn't always have the condition. He developed it when he was at university, meaning that someone had to portray him up as a completely healthy person up until that moment, as well as still play him when the condition was slowly worsening. A person with the condition in its fully-formed state could not have pulled it off because they're wheelchair bound and can't speak, so can't play the role throughout the whole movie, only towards the end, when we see the end result of years of the condition. Well, I look at the role of a transperson in movies similarly. A lot of transpeople haven't had the luxury of expressing themselves as they'd like at a young age. Many didn't start pursuing any kind of means of transitioning until they were at least 18, even nowadays. That means that the actor who plays them in a pre-transition period would be more convincing if they actually were the biological sex that the transperson was at the time. A post-op transsexual, who's been highly masculinised or feminised with surgery (not to mention, perhaps even had vocal chord surgery) wouldn't play the role of somebody in pre-transition years well. It would look like they were dressing up and they'd sound too masculine/feminine. And as I said previously, for them to undo their hard work and dress like a man/woman again and portray themselves in a way that they hate, could actually be traumatising for a lot of transpeople.

Above all, the amount of transpeople are very low and out of that low population, how many of them want to be actors? And how many of them want this role? And how many of them are in a position where they can travel to an audition for this role? And how many of them actually resemble this factual character being portrayed? The chances of finding someone who ticks all these boxes is slim. That's why the smallest of minority groups tend to be played by actors who aren't actually from these groups. Because finding someone who fits the profile perfectly is too difficult and it just saves time and hassle to have someone established take the role so the film can start production. I'm not trying to make an insensitive joke here, just using an old adage...transpeople don't grow on trees. It's all very well to demand more of them in the media but if there's not enough of them, they're going to be a rare thing.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

 

2 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I don't find any problem with actors doing their job - which is pretending to be someone else. No one's up in arms with a childless actor plays a parent or when a healthy actor plays a cancer patient or when an able-bodied actor plays a disabled person. On that last example, why do you think Eddie Redmayne played Stephen Hawking? Why couldn't someone who actually had motor neurone disease play the role? Because Stephen didn't always have the condition. He developed it when he was at university, meaning that someone had to portray him up as a completely healthy person up until that moment, as well as still play him when the condition was slowly worsening. A person with the condition in its fully-formed state could not have pulled it off because they're wheelchair bound and can't speak, so can't play the role throughout the whole movie, only towards the end, when we see the end result of years of the condition. Well, I look at the role of a transperson in movies similarly. A lot of transpeople haven't had the luxury of expressing themselves as they'd like at a young age. Many didn't start pursuing any kind of means of transitioning until they were at least 18, even nowadays. That means that the actor who plays them in a pre-transition period would be more convincing if they actually were the biological sex that the transperson was at the time. A post-op transsexual, who's been highly masculinised or feminised with surgery (not to mention, perhaps even had vocal chord surgery) wouldn't play the role of somebody in pre-transition years well. It would look like they were dressing up and they'd sound too masculine/feminine. And as I said previously, for them to undo their hard work and dress like a man/woman again and portray themselves in a way that they hate, could actually be traumatising for a lot of transpeople.

Above all, the amount of transpeople are very low and out of that low population, how many of them want to be actors? And how many of them want this role? And how many of them are in a position where they can travel to an audition for this role? And how many of them actually resemble this factual character being portrayed? The chances of finding someone who ticks all these boxes is slim. That's why the smallest of minority groups tend to be played by actors who aren't actually from these groups. Because finding someone who fits the profile perfectly is too difficult and it just saves time and hassle to have someone established take the role so the film can start production. I'm not trying to make an insensitive joke here, just using an old adage...transpeople don't grow on trees. It's all very well to demand more of them in the media but if there's not enough of them, they're going to be a rare thing.

I feel like you haven't been listening to the actual criticism of this whole thing, just noting that its there... It's not about "what's possible" it's about whats appropriate, and what the real life consequences are. Anyone can "act" as another person, animal, object, etc. but sometimes they probably shouldn't. It's the specific reality of cis people playing trans people in films - especially big films - that has negative effects on the trans community, that we are objecting to, not the concept of any 1 person being "able" to act as another person  Which is why all the converse "but what about gay people playing straight, trans people playing cis" etc. arguments go right out the window. It's arguing against a position that isn't being made in the first place, and that's honestly kind of hard to do if you really listen to what people are saying and ask questions when you don't understand as opposed to filling in the gaps with malicious assumptions.

Ableism is a separate concept from Transphobia/cissexism, but many disabled people do find it problematic to see themselves portrayed by able-bodied people, and their feelings are totally valid. On that note though, no one saying "cis actors probably shouldn't play trans people" is saying that all reason must be thrown out the window like you are suggesting in your narrative...

Dante Gill was a trans* man. He looked like this:

He didn't physically transition, but still lived his life as a man. Are you really gonna tell me Scarlett Johansson, not just a cis woman, but looking like she does - is the best fit for this role   Cutting her hair short and trying to portray Dante as a butch lesbian does not do his experience justice and its highly likely that was going to be the effect or result when they showed it on the big screen. Honestly, I'm probably not alone in saying that actually casting a cis man as a trans man would actually be more appropriate. At least then it doesn't perpetuate this idea that trans people are just playing dress up as the opposite gender as opposed to simply expressing their gender however the hell they see fit. Trans women being just "men in dresses and a wig" is a pernicious lie, and trans women are murdered for it, its a serious problem. In the past, murderers of trans women, and trans women sex workers could get away with murder under this Trans panic argument like, in the heat of the moment they were so shocked and felt so betrayed that they... *insert euphemisms for blatantly and brutally murdered an innocent person* Even today, people struggle to report transphobic crimes as hate crimes, and even blatant murders are downplayed as "random acts of violence"  

That being said, It is totally possible in this modern age with technology to alter people's appearances both physically, digitally, etc. in a way that is not super obvious or noticeable to a viewer. We have people playing people of different ages, heights, face shapes, body shapes, and of even more radical differences all of the time. In fact, I'm sure if Scarlett had kept the role she would have been altered in many ways as well as to be accurate as possible, but its beside the point. It's not always about finding someone that immediately "looks" the role, its about believability and talent and in this case appropriateness. There is a whole field of people that do this kind of thing for a living, so to argue that the way one person looks now is immutable when it comes to acting is kind of silly to me.. which leads me to the whole "retraumatizing" aspect... That sounds made up to me tbh. Like, it sounds like you think that's what happens or what would happen in this situation, but you don't actually know if that's a thing that happens to Trans actors, so there's no real reason to accept this as a reasonable argument for the practicalities of casting  In fact, trans actors sometimes do play themselves pre and post transition, though it is standard practice when changes are too radical that casting directors go to extensive lengths to hire people who can approximate the main appearance of a character, and in this day and age with so many people in the business, its actually not that impossible to do. The range of possibilities and potential cosmetic altering that can be done is astounding. Trans people aren't monolithic, but they also shouldn't be assumed to be irrational in their demands for attention/opportunity. I only know of so many  trans actors, but when the decision to portray them pre-transition (if they have transitioned surgically/hormonally in the first place) arises, I can only think of instances where they were either fine to play them pre-transition, or okay with the idea of hiring someone - cis or trans - to play them. It's a practical solution. 

I should pause to note that these "changes" aren't always radical for trans people. One does not need have to have surgery or take hormones to be trans. Some people never transition either to the extent that they want, or with any amount of success, but it doesn't negate their transness. For some it can be as simple as a wardrobe + carriage difference. I don't consider myself trans, I consider myself gender queer or demigender, and while I experience dysphoria, It's not so debilitating that I feel I must transition with HRT or any kind of top/bottom surgery, plastic alteration, voice training, etc. I just express myself in a mostly feminine way and that's fine for me

Also, actors literally change their entire bodies for roles sometimes, that's kind of part of the role. People gain weight, they lose weight, they entirely change their hair, they do a ton of stuff in order to fit the role as much as possible. I can't imagine any trans actor that is serious about acting is going to absolutely demand that they only appear one way. If they audition for the role of a cis femme fashion model, but are a butch trans lesbian, we should assume they, as adults, have the maturity + fortitude to either decline the role, or do it. My best friend and roommate of the last 3 years is a trans nonbinary actor and musician, and I actually have several actor friends that are trans. My roommate has literally have gone from wearing binders and growing facial hair, body hair, a moustache, etc. to wearing frilly dresses, shaving it all off, growing their hair down to their waist again, and presenting as feminine. They aren't traumatized by acting, because they are a mature adult that has come to grips with the reality of their perception. While they may extremely dislike being perceived as feminine, they are also an actor and they completely understand what that job entails. It's no different from cis actors. What would be triggering is to be misgendered as themselves on an everyday basis. Not to be appropriately gendered as a person they are portraying. 

 

Finally, you're right that there aren't *That* many trans actors. But there are some and that's the point. It doesn't cancel out the fact that part of the reason for this perception of their being none is because studios don't want to cast them, because of stereotypes about them, or personal bias, maintaining the status quo, keeping up appearances etc. Ofc there will always seem like there are 0 trans actors in the world when no one hires them - for cis or trans role  There's almost no trans visibility anywhere in mainstream media, thats why this is important.

Also, It's also not like there are hundreds and hundreds of major motion picture (or even indie, sundance level or indie college level) films that are being made specifically about trans experiences. But when there are? They definitely have the resources to be as historically accurate and ethical in their casting as possible. It's pure laziness and a disregard for the trans community that leads them to not do so - as it was in this instance. They can afford to pay Scarlett Johansson, a woman who looks criminally unlike Dante Gill, but they can't scout for trans actors, or even consult GLAAD, or the whole slew of organizations whose entire purpose is to help screen for misportrayal of LGBTQIA+ experiences, share resources and information about the community? It shows that they wanted to make a movie about the "trans experience" and capitalize off of a story, but they didn't actually want it to be about trans people's real experiences.

***

Spoiler

Our perception of "trans" now wasn't exactly a thing in the past in the sense that there wasn't always terminology for that specific experience, so retrospective labeling of Gill as a "trans man" might be somewhat inappropriate

 

[aaronyoji 2,007]

On 7/13/2018 at 3:46 PM, imnotyourbabe10 said:

Don't gay people play straight people and vice versa?    Can a cis person play a non-cis person and vice versa?  I am confusion. 

 

Coming from a social science background, I can't even deal with the PC police these days.  It's not like Mike Pence stood up and said he wanted the part.  I imagine Scarlett Johansson is an ally to the community anyway.

I would argue that there are no good roles for the LGBTQ community in Hollywood or TV.  They're all insanely heteronormative or homonormative.  I've heard that even the new Queer Eye is making over gay people -- like, WTF -- that just adds fuel to the fire of divisiveness and conformity in  what is supposed to be a rad, queer, outlandish community.

what an outlandishly stupid comment.... 

 

the reason the new queer eye series make over not just straight men anymore is because trans and gay men don't even feel comfortable being themselves!! i can't even go to an actual gay bar without being confronted with all my insecurities, being surrounded by white, 6 foot tall, straight adjacent status gays who see right through you. gay men hate themselves, thats why queer eye expanded to include gay men and trans men. its not divisive, its trying to teach self love. cuz gay men have been completely brain washed into chasing what is considered "normal" aka, white straight men. 

[StrawberryBlond 13,303]

15 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

 

I feel like you haven't been listening to the actual criticism of this whole thing, just noting that its there... It's not about "what's possible" it's about whats appropriate, and what the real life consequences are. Anyone can "act" as another person, animal, object, etc. but sometimes they probably shouldn't. It's the specific reality of cis people playing trans people in films - especially big films - that has negative effects on the trans community, that we are objecting to, not the concept of any 1 person being "able" to act as another person  Which is why all the converse "but what about gay people playing straight, trans people playing cis" etc. arguments go right out the window. It's arguing against a position that isn't being made in the first place, and that's honestly kind of hard to do if you really listen to what people are saying and ask questions when you don't understand as opposed to filling in the gaps with malicious assumptions.

Ableism is a separate concept from Transphobia/cissexism, but many disabled people do find it problematic to see themselves portrayed by able-bodied people, and their feelings are totally valid. On that note though, no one saying "cis actors probably shouldn't play trans people" is saying that all reason must be thrown out the window like you are suggesting in your narrative...

Dante Gill was a trans* man. He looked like this:

He didn't physically transition, but still lived his life as a man. Are you really gonna tell me Scarlett Johansson, not just a cis woman, but looking like she does - is the best fit for this role   Cutting her hair short and trying to portray Dante as a butch lesbian does not do his experience justice and its highly likely that was going to be the effect or result when they showed it on the big screen. Honestly, I'm probably not alone in saying that actually casting a cis man as a trans man would actually be more appropriate. At least then it doesn't perpetuate this idea that trans people are just playing dress up as the opposite gender as opposed to simply expressing their gender however the hell they see fit. Trans women being just "men in dresses and a wig" is a pernicious lie, and trans women are murdered for it, its a serious problem. In the past, murderers of trans women, and trans women sex workers could get away with murder under this Trans panic argument like, in the heat of the moment they were so shocked and felt so betrayed that they... *insert euphemisms for blatantly and brutally murdered an innocent person* Even today, people struggle to report transphobic crimes as hate crimes, and even blatant murders are downplayed as "random acts of violence"  

That being said, It is totally possible in this modern age with technology to alter people's appearances both physically, digitally, etc. in a way that is not super obvious or noticeable to a viewer. We have people playing people of different ages, heights, face shapes, body shapes, and of even more radical differences all of the time. In fact, I'm sure if Scarlett had kept the role she would have been altered in many ways as well as to be accurate as possible, but its beside the point. It's not always about finding someone that immediately "looks" the role, its about believability and talent and in this case appropriateness. There is a whole field of people that do this kind of thing for a living, so to argue that the way one person looks now is immutable when it comes to acting is kind of silly to me.. which leads me to the whole "retraumatizing" aspect... That sounds made up to me tbh. Like, it sounds like you think that's what happens or what would happen in this situation, but you don't actually know if that's a thing that happens to Trans actors, so there's no real reason to accept this as a reasonable argument for the practicalities of casting  In fact, trans actors sometimes do play themselves pre and post transition, though it is standard practice when changes are too radical that casting directors go to extensive lengths to hire people who can approximate the main appearance of a character, and in this day and age with so many people in the business, its actually not that impossible to do. The range of possibilities and potential cosmetic altering that can be done is astounding. Trans people aren't monolithic, but they also shouldn't be assumed to be irrational in their demands for attention/opportunity. I only know of so many  trans actors, but when the decision to portray them pre-transition (if they have transitioned surgically/hormonally in the first place) arises, I can only think of instances where they were either fine to play them pre-transition, or okay with the idea of hiring someone - cis or trans - to play them. It's a practical solution. 

I should pause to note that these "changes" aren't always radical for trans people. One does not need have to have surgery or take hormones to be trans. Some people never transition either to the extent that they want, or with any amount of success, but it doesn't negate their transness. For some it can be as simple as a wardrobe + carriage difference. I don't consider myself trans, I consider myself gender queer or demigender, and while I experience dysphoria, It's not so debilitating that I feel I must transition with HRT or any kind of top/bottom surgery, plastic alteration, voice training, etc. I just express myself in a mostly feminine way and that's fine for me

Also, actors literally change their entire bodies for roles sometimes, that's kind of part of the role. People gain weight, they lose weight, they entirely change their hair, they do a ton of stuff in order to fit the role as much as possible. I can't imagine any trans actor that is serious about acting is going to absolutely demand that they only appear one way. If they audition for the role of a cis femme fashion model, but are a butch trans lesbian, we should assume they, as adults, have the maturity + fortitude to either decline the role, or do it. My best friend and roommate of the last 3 years is a trans nonbinary actor and musician, and I actually have several actor friends that are trans. My roommate has literally have gone from wearing binders and growing facial hair, body hair, a moustache, etc. to wearing frilly dresses, shaving it all off, growing their hair down to their waist again, and presenting as feminine. They aren't traumatized by acting, because they are a mature adult that has come to grips with the reality of their perception. While they may extremely dislike being perceived as feminine, they are also an actor and they completely understand what that job entails. It's no different from cis actors. What would be triggering is to be misgendered as themselves on an everyday basis. Not to be appropriately gendered as a person they are portraying. 

 

Finally, you're right that there aren't *That* many trans actors. But there are some and that's the point. It doesn't cancel out the fact that part of the reason for this perception of their being none is because studios don't want to cast them, because of stereotypes about them, or personal bias, maintaining the status quo, keeping up appearances etc. Ofc there will always seem like there are 0 trans actors in the world when no one hires them - for cis or trans role  There's almost no trans visibility anywhere in mainstream media, thats why this is important.

Also, It's also not like there are hundreds and hundreds of major motion picture (or even indie, sundance level or indie college level) films that are being made specifically about trans experiences. But when there are? They definitely have the resources to be as historically accurate and ethical in their casting as possible. It's pure laziness and a disregard for the trans community that leads them to not do so - as it was in this instance. They can afford to pay Scarlett Johansson, a woman who looks criminally unlike Dante Gill, but they can't scout for trans actors, or even consult GLAAD, or the whole slew of organizations whose entire purpose is to help screen for misportrayal of LGBTQIA+ experiences, share resources and information about the community? It shows that they wanted to make a movie about the "trans experience" and capitalize off of a story, but they didn't actually want it to be about trans people's real experiences.

***

  Reveal hidden contents

Our perception of "trans" now wasn't exactly a thing in the past in the sense that there wasn't always terminology for that specific experience, so retrospective labeling of Gill as a "trans man" might be somewhat inappropriate

 

I am listening to the arguments about being appropriate and sensitive, I just still don't see an issue. I just work logistics and feelings together. Maybe not everyone operates that way but I'm only trying to go about it the way I would like to be treated. And it's your right to interpret my words how you want but know that I never meant "malicious assumptions." My intentions are good about 95% of the time.

The fact that he didn't physically transition is part of the reason why I think it's ok to have a biological woman play the role. Like it or not, transpeople have a biological sex that is different from their gender identity. A woman playing the role would merely be a reflection of reality. Yes, Scarlett hardly resembles him at all but the director clearly knows her well and decided to give her another role like he did last time. Not the best way to get a role but it's business. Casting a cis man would actually be more difficult as his voice would be the ultimate problem - do we know if Dante changed her voice? My point is, a cis man portraying the role would probably come off a bit too masculine to the point where no one's going to believe they're watching a pre-op transman at all. And finding a transman who hasn't transitioned and most importantly, hasn't had a vocal change, is going to be difficult. I really don't think cis people playing the roles plays into the "just playing dress up" idea if they really try to look like the character. Plus, the people watching it will not be transphobes.

I suppose it isn't beyond the bounds of reason to apply transformative make up to give the illusion of a different gender. Angelina Jolie went through make up changes to disguise her as a man in Salt and apparently even her own son didn't recognise her.

I didn't say that retraumatising would happen to every transperson. Just that a lot of them have really bad memories of being forced to present themselves as the gender they weren't comfortable with in the past and don't want to go back to those days ever again. As a cis woman, I know I wouldn't want to dress up and present myself as a man (casual, tomboy styles notwithstanding) complete with facial hair and body padding. I can't imagine the average transperson would want to do the same thing.

No, not every transperson has gone through with full surgery but trying to find one who hasn't and wants to act in this role and can act well is narrowing things right down to the wire.

Sure, there aren't many trans actors about but to say that there's a lack of transpeople in the media in general just doesn't wash. These days, I'm constantly seeing them being invited onto tv for interviews and presenting televised awards and being photographed in magazines. Just a few years ago, I literally couldn't name one famous transsexual, now I can name multiple ones, most off the top of my head (Laverne Cox, Janet Mock, Blaire White, Theryn Meyer, Dana International, Caitlyn Jenner, Riley Dennis, Buck Angel, Gigi Gorgeous, Lauren Harries, Kim Petras, Lana Wachowski...) and likely many more that I just can't place. Trans visibility is higher than ever. Very high, considering how small the group is.

I suppose, yeah, they could scout for actors at LGBT organisations. Putting the word out to the actual source of the kind of people they're looking for. I'm sure it would mean a big deal that the studios at least try to suss out the right fit for the role. I don't think there's any right and wrong way to think about this. I just don't think a different viewpoint should be seen as intolerant and misunderstanding.

[imnotyourbabe10 5,995]

On 7/14/2018 at 9:15 PM, aaronyoji said:

what an outlandishly stupid comment.... 

 

the reason the new queer eye series make over not just straight men anymore is because trans and gay men don't even feel comfortable being themselves!! i can't even go to an actual gay bar without being confronted with all my insecurities, being surrounded by white, 6 foot tall, straight adjacent status gays who see right through you. gay men hate themselves, thats why queer eye expanded to include gay men and trans men. its not divisive, its trying to teach self love. cuz gay men have been completely brain washed into chasing what is considered "normal" aka, white straight men. 

I see what you're saying.  I guess I should supplement my comment with the fact I come from an anti-capitalist background so, while I see what you're saying about normativity towards white, straight men -- I'd also argue the community has assimilated to capitalist norms/expectations -- indeed heteronormativty as well as homonormativity.  Just thought the LGBTQ community would have been more revolutionary and "**** you" to Western culture/identities.  

I wish you wouldn't have called my comment stupid so I'm trying to meet you halfway and engage in constructive dialogue on the topic.  Take good care.