The Gender and Sexual Minorities Thread II: So Many Wonders

(?) · Post by **Momo** (?) » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:30 am

Oh TERFs, when will you stop being such shitty shitheads?

(?) · Post by **Momo** (?) » Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:24 am

So apparently Scotland has just offered asylum to all gay Ugandans. Which is a pretty fucking big deal, especially given current Western domestic policies regarding immigration.

Gravenstein · Post by **Gravenstein** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:08 am

Hey so um I sort of have a date on Tuesday with someone I met on OKCupid

...a fella

...I'm pretty sure this is an appropriate level of anxiety

Logicgate · Post by **Logicgate** (?) » Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:34 am

Gravenstein wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:08 am
Hey so um I sort of have a date on Tuesday with someone I met on OKCupid

...a fella

...I'm pretty sure this is an appropriate level of anxiety

Wait, you need to clarify. Is this a one

-level anxiety, or a

level?

Gravenstein · Post by **Gravenstein** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:37 am

It's at least

, possibly as much as

point

Call of Duty Ghosts · Post by **Call of Duty Ghosts** (?) » Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:53 am

Venusy wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:19 am
http://www.thefineyoungcapitalists.com/
At first glance, this seems like a good idea to get more women involved in game design.

Then you read the FAQ, which has a specific question about transwomen.

And then you find out that they seem to fully believe in the "bathrooms" argument.

Good job unnecessarily alienating a lot of people who would otherwise be sympathetic to their cause?

I don't need hacks like them as a publisher anyway.

Mir · Post by **Mir** (?) » Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:12 am

Momar wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:24 am
So apparently Scotland has just offered asylum to all gay Ugandans. Which is a pretty fucking big deal, especially given current Western domestic policies regarding immigration.

Woah. That's actually a really, really big deal. The sort of statement that makes and the implications are fairly unprecedented.

CorvusCaw · Post by **CorvusCaw** (?) » Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:20 am

How do they prove that they're actually fleeing Uganda from persecution, and not just trying to get into Scotland?

(?) · Post by **Momo** (?) » Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:03 am

They can't. That's why a blanket asylum offer is such a big deal.

Though I imagine the area around the British embassy is going to get pretty hairy.

West Filly · Post by **West Filly** (?) » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:11 pm

Our government announced that it would be removing its foreign aid from Uganda. Sounds like they've found a justification for cheaping out. I can see how it might sound like an act of defiance against this awful law, but I feel that the approach of providing refuge tackles the problem more directly. I feel that providing refuge tackles the issue in a way that supports vulnerable people, rather than potentially pulling a carpet out from underneath vulnerable people. I can only hope these sanctions apply pressure, rather than worsening a bad situation.

But with the vast majority of Scottish constituencies strongly favouring either the Labour party or the Lib Dems, and with the devolved government offering social support which far exceeds that of the central government, combined with the limited threat of Scottish Independence coming from the referendum planned for later this year, it's no surprise that Scotland might want to make statements which further solidify their identity as a liberal government. They're showing themselves as supportive of the people, and willing to act on their own accord - exceeding the UK. Particularly when our Tory government, who is obviously not well liked in Scotland, comes down hard on immigration.

But the UK's current asylum policy is that you are eligible for asylum if you are in the UK and cannot return to your native land for fear of persecution - including on the basis of gender identity or sexuality. Central operational guidelines issued for Ugandan refugees do take into account the new laws and the extensive societal issues in Uganda. While it's always on a case by case basis, and while you'll always find LGBT individuals in many situations who were denied asylum and who were later abused and/or killed, I do wonder if Scotland really is doing something special, or just saying this while effectively doing nothing more than advertising what their agencies would have already done. I want to know more than the headline "Scotland will do her part..." And ask what physical provisions are being made. For example, is any part of the foreign aid now being re directed to the refuge effort? Are the authorities of Scotland being ordered to act any differently in these new circumstances? At the minute, it just seems like talk, more for making Scotland feel warm and fuzzy, rather than any refugees.

Lilli · Post by **Lilli** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:30 pm

Venusy wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:19 am
http://www.thefineyoungcapitalists.com/
At first glance, this seems like a good idea to get more women involved in game design.

Then you read the FAQ, which has a specific question about transwomen.

And then you find out that they seem to fully believe in the "bathrooms" argument.

Good job unnecessarily alienating a lot of people who would otherwise be sympathetic to their cause?

I decided to write them because I was bored and had 30 minutes. If you want me to follow up with any other points while I'm in communication with them feel free to elaborate.

Hello,

I wrote to you earlier on twitter inquiring about the policy you have regarding transgender women with regards to the contest. I'm going to try to lay out in a coherent manner the problems that I see potentially arising from such a policy; excluding any ill publicity effects it may cause.

First and foremost, the policy is somewhat needless in terms of gatekeeping. I'll try to explain the reasoning for this. From my view, the policy exists to ensure the contest is focused on women and to exclude any men who are simply posing as women. The problems that arise from this are three fold. First of all it draws attention to the fact that this is even a thing people will try, it creates a priming effect. It's a minor issue, you're still fairly unlikely to have anyone attempt it in the first place.

Secondly, your policy is vague with what qualifies as transitioned. It's lack of specificity leaves it open to further questions regarding whether transwomen can participate. You mention that as long as they have transitioned before the contest began than they're allowed to participate, but you make no distinction on what defines transitioning. Do you need SRS? Do you need official documentation changed to reflect your new gender (i.e. Photo ID, birth certificate, SS card)? Do you need to be actively presenting? This directly leads into the third part.

The policy is nigh unenforceable in any case (I know we briefly discussed this on twitter); attempting to verify the status of a transwoman is not only invasive, it's also fairly difficult. If your enforcement is sufficiently lax, then the policy is permissive enough that you could have answered the question of "Are transwomen allowed to participate" with a simple yes - which would have had the added benefit of less created backlash. If the enforcement is strict then you not only create a hostile environment to transwomen, you also waste time and effort policing who is and isn't a woman that could be better directed elsewhere.

I'm not actually a game developer and I don't plan on participating in this contest so this does not affect me directly, but these are some of the issues that immediately came to mind when I saw your policy. It may or may not be worth your time trying to clarify, rectify, or adjust your policy, but it's worth considering.

Have a nice day,
[Lilli]

Cthulhu Inc · Post by **Cthulhu Inc** (?) » Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:12 pm

I envy your wordcraft.

(?) · Post by **Perrydotto** (?) » Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:32 pm

Yeah, I can only second that. You know what to say and how to say it, it's great.

CorvusCaw · Post by **CorvusCaw** (?) » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:46 pm

Let us know if they even respond

Fontra · Post by **Fontra** (?) » Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:54 pm

Also, good to see you here again, Lilli!

Ninetails · Post by **Ninetails** (?) » Sun Mar 02, 2014 11:33 pm

Cis actor Jared Leto gets an award for playing a transwoman.

"Transmisogyny does not deserve an award," an unidentified woman shouted from the audience. Leto, who was apparently unfamiliar with the term, coined in Julia Serano's 2007 book, Whipping Girl, which essentially refers to misogyny-fueled transphobia against transgender women, engaged the audience member.

"What do you mean by that?" Leto asked from the stage.

The woman in the audience responded: "You don't deserve an award for portraying a trans woman, because you're a man."

"Because I'm a man, I don't deserve to play that part?" Leto asked in response. "So you would hold a role against someone who happened to be gay or lesbian — they can't play a straight part? Then you've made sure people that are gay, people that aren't straight, people like the Rayons of the world, would never have the opportunity to turn the tables and explore parts of that art."

The crowd reportedly burst into applause at Leto's response...

In other completely unrelated news, Kitty Kate still hates people.

CorvusCaw · Post by **CorvusCaw** (?) » Sun Mar 02, 2014 11:50 pm

Hmm... this makes me curious. How often have trans actors played cis characters... or are they universally trapped in trans roles?

Weird Autumn · Post by **Weird Autumn** (?) » Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:34 am

I'm not sure I like either side in this argument. On the one hand, I don't see anything wrong with Jared Leto playing a transwoman-- portraying somebody different from yourself is an actor's job, after all, and so long as they fit the part and play it well there's no reason a man can't play a woman, a woman can't play a man, a straight person can't play a gay person, etc. etc.

On the other hand I'm having a hard time parsing what Leto's actually trying to say but I'm pretty sure it's either a really dumb point or a salient point made in a really dumb way.

Lilli · Post by **Lilli** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:52 am

I'm not going to get into the typecasting Hollywood does with regards to trans actors because I don't think that's worth defending. However, I do want to chime in to say that at the same time it's dumb to reinforce the idea that non trans actors can't portray trans roles. If we try to reinforce the reverse kind of type casting here where we say only trans actors can portray trans characters, then it reinforces the idea that trans actors can only portray trans characters and leads to a vicious cycle where they're never able to break out of that niche.

The idea of gender/race/sexuality blindness in acting is actually kind of important, in my opinion, specifically because if not for it minority individuals are extremely hobbled in their ability to obtain roles. The problem does not originate from the policy of letting individuals play roles outside of who they are as a person, but rather in the biases of the people making the movies. I think they're basically blaming the wrong person in this case when they attack Leto. Him playing a trans character is not inherently wrong; the bigger problem comes from whether the person who dealt with the casting for the role specifically disincluded transwomen from their casting call.

Ninetails · Post by **Ninetails** (?) » Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:27 am

My main problem with that quote is that yes, actors should be able to play roles outside of who they are, but the way he says it, he's using that to justify not having a trans actor play a trans role, and thus pushing trans people out of their own representation. It'd be great if trans people could get more roles, but having a cis actor play a trans role doesn't help that happen, it just continues a history of not actually caring about real trans people.

Also, most of the people on tumblr complaining are pointing out that the reverse doesn't happen; it's not that sometimes trans people play cis characters and cis people play trans characters, it's that cis people play both and trans people play neither. Maybe we wouldn't want to stick trans actors with only trans roles, but if we're not allowed to portray ourselves, what roles could we possibly get?

CorvusCaw · Post by **CorvusCaw** (?) » Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:45 am

As progressive as Hollywood likes to pretend it is, they still manage to get their heads lost up their own asses on things like this. It's very much a "cis kids only" club

Lilli · Post by **Lilli** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:46 am

Yeah that's why I said I wasn't going to defend the type casting that Hollywood does with trans actors because, as that article says, they very rarely get roles outside of trans roles (which with our media most frequently means dead bodies or prostitutes). However I still think its going about it the wrong way to blame Leto. Its the biases against trans actors being able to play cis roles that's the problem in my opinion, not cis people being able to play trans roles. I think by trying to argue that it was wrong that Rayon wasn't played by a transwoman you further reinforce that forced niche that trans actors can only play trans roles.

Ninetails · Post by **Ninetails** (?) » Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:53 am

I don't blame him for taking the role, I blame him for saying something to take the focus away from trans people despite being given an award for playing a trans character and for saying something that tries to help us but supports doing the exact opposite. Him getting cast is the fault of the casting directors or whoever, him defending it with logic that should defend us instead is his fault. Also, he did engage in conversation about it, so he's a part of this issue now.

That being said, I recognize he probably doesn't really want to hurt anyone and it's cool that he's at least trying to discuss things even if he's done stuff wrong. I blame him and I'm talking about him, but I'm mad at everyone else for letting this stuff happen.

CorvusCaw · Post by **CorvusCaw** (?) » Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:08 am

Well yeah, the way he defended it was stupid since he immediately framed it as a gay issue rather than a trans one. Straight people have been playing gay characters and vice versa for decades now; that's a non- issue.

Lilli · Post by **Lilli** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:08 am

Welp my entire post just got erased because somehow my phone got logged out within 10 minutes of logging in. Tl; dr version I agree, but I just don't see a good result arising out of the situation of engaging Leto in the first place, especially with him being uninformed on trans issues.

West Filly · Post by **West Filly** (?) » Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:00 pm

This discussion isn't going to be closed over heckling at the oscars. The telling part of the story is not what the heckler, or what the actor, said in this exchange. The telling part of the story is how the audience, who consist largely of the big figures in the movie industry, gave rapturous applause to his words. Presumably this is not because they've thought deeply about LGBT issues and have come to the conclusion that his argument is sound. If I'm wrong about that, then I'd love to see more of the industry's discourse on LGBT inclusion.

CorvusCaw · Post by **CorvusCaw** (?) » Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:08 pm

[quote="In post_id=54205 time=1393866000 user_id=130]This discussion isn't going to be closed over heckling at the oscars. The telling part of the story is not what the heckler, or what the actor, said in this exchange. The telling part of the story is how the audience, who consist largely of the big figures in the movie industry, gave rapturous applause to his words. Presumably this is not because they've thought deeply about LGBT issues and have come to the conclusion that his argument is sound.[/quote]
It's because he's a handsome, famous person saying something vaguely progressive and oh, he's so brave for doing it. Let's applaud him!

Lilli · Post by **Lilli** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:36 pm

[quote="In post_id=54205 time=1393866000 user_id=130]This discussion isn't going to be closed over heckling at the oscars. The telling part of the story is not what the heckler, or what the actor, said in this exchange. The telling part of the story is how the audience, who consist largely of the big figures in the movie industry, gave rapturous applause to his words. Presumably this is not because they've thought deeply about LGBT issues and have come to the conclusion that his argument is sound. If I'm wrong about that, then I'd love to see more of the industry's discourse on LGBT inclusion.[/quote]

Uhhhhh, for what it's worth this wasn't at the Oscars. The article was written February 6th, the ceremony took place "during the Santa Barbara International Film Festival's Virtuosos Award presentation." to quote the very first sentence. I'm not sure how important this award ceremony is because I don't really keep up on the film industry to any degree, but my assumption is its not quite so noteworthy to claim that it consists of big figures in the movie industry. Furthermore, to someone who is not tuned into the struggles of trans individuals (most likely inclusive of Leto in this case) his response doesn't sound unreasonable. I'd be skeptical of how many of them even know of the limitations and struggles that trans actors face in obtaining roles as cis characters in productions.

West Filly · Post by **West Filly** (?) » Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:49 pm

Yeah I didn't read the article, but would you at least let me keep talking out of my arse concerning trans issues. I mean this guy got applause for it and he's not even trans.

CorvusCaw · Post by **CorvusCaw** (?) » Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:51 pm

I don't think where it happened really matters in this case so keep firing away, iwf

FightingDreamer · Post by **FightingDreamer** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:22 am

Yeah, the more I read about Dallas Buyers Club, the less I want to see it. I'm sure it's well made, but everything I'm hearing from the production team and cast save McConaughey is...not good.

Logicgate · Post by **Logicgate** (?) » Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:55 pm

Opposing Farce wrote: ↑Isn't Thailand a little more lax about actually letting people perform the operation, too? I always got the impression that it was almost impossible to get it done in the US at all.

Less true from both directions: Thai law requires two letters (one from a therapist confirming your diagnosis, one from a psych professional declaring you capable of making decisions), and the clinic I'm going to requires one year of publicly living as my identified genderand that's in line with the WPATH Standards of Care.

Similarly, trans healthcare in the US has been moving towards those standards as well, though you can always find people who want to keep those gates as hard as possible

londonarbuckle · Post by **londonarbuckle** (?) » Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:30 pm

Quebec filmmaker Jean-Marc Vallée, who directed Dallas Buyers Club, spoke to CBC's Jian Ghomeshi, who asked whether he ever considered casting a transgender actor.

"Never. [Are] there any transgender actors?" he said. "I'm not aiming for the real thing. I'm aiming for an experienced actor who wants to portray the thing."

Fucking bluh. Even if you overlook the offensiveness, how good of a movie can it even be when the director's so willfully ignorant about one of the main subjects?

ShieldedDiamond · Post by **ShieldedDiamond** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:35 pm

Wouldn't the "real thing" have enough experience to play the role as well?

(?) · Post by **Momo** (?) » Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:42 pm

I've seen Dallas Buyer's Club, and while Leto did a very competent job, and the portrayal seemed to be respectful, it's also a highly caricaturized and one-dimensional portrayal.

ShieldedDiamond · Post by **ShieldedDiamond** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:31 pm

Something just occurred to me. I don't know how much hate I'm going to be able to put up with. I mean, when I came to terms with myself, I was thinking about myself, what I needed. And doing what I'm doing now is what I need. But now I'm getting concerned, because I don't know how I'm going to handle myself in the face of rejection from some people. I mean, right now there are people I know who think I am mentally insane for "wanting to be a woman". I think I just realized that my low self esteem will damage my happiness in doing what I'm trying to do, and I don't think I can focus on getting rid of it at this second.

(?) · Post by **Momo** (?) » Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:32 pm

That sounds like a pretty big rationalization. I'd know because I made the same one oh-so many years ago. Anyone who hates you because you're trans wasn't worth knowing in the first place. The only time you need to start giving a shit about other peoples' personal prejudices are when they start to affect your employment, your housing, or your safety.

West Filly · Post by **West Filly** (?) » Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:06 pm

Or, with one person I've met, their ability to see their own child.

Also, there is good news from my family, possibly. Dad knows I've been going to the gay bar quite a lot, just to dress and chill with a few people I've gotten to know. Recently, he asked if he could meet me there, while I'm presenting as female. I'll do it, but I can see that dad is terrified. It's a really positive step forward from him, even if it's just talk at the moment.

Highbrow Dash · Post by **Highbrow Dash** (?) » Wed Mar 05, 2014 4:10 pm

Highbrow Dash wrote:Anyway, I was discussing it with my (very conservative) dad and of course he came up with a slippery slope argument. "I'm not racist against gay marriage but if we're allowing 2 guys to marry then why not 3? I'm sure if we legalized polygamy there'd be way more muslim marriages than gay marriages, what with all the immigrants."

Of course I answered that I had no problem with polygamy if there was an actual demand for it (Apparently 20,000 gay marriages doesn't count as real demand because they're a tiny minority), and that it was none of his business what consenting adults did behind closed doors. His answer was that he wasn't going to pay for 10 widows' pensions when their single husband died. And I just gave up

Had this exact same argument again when discussing Arizona's anti-gay law, because I don't learn

I liked the new "every tv show host is gay so there's discrimination against straight people" argument

BackgroundPony · Post by **BackgroundPony** (?) » Wed Mar 05, 2014 4:52 pm

It's hard to avoid getting derailed when arguing with someone who immediately starts talking about polygamy, or about marrying your dog. Just got to stay on target. Polygamy is an interesting debate, but has nothing to do with gay marriage. Bringing it up is just a distraction tactic. If someone starts talking about that, I'd ask them if they're ready to concede the point on gay marriage, since they seem inclined to change the subject. (Note, this sort of rhetorical sarcasm could piss people off, but it's fun)

And as far as marrying your dog, horse, and turtle, well that's unarguable. As long as the turtle looks good in a suit.