Julie Hesmondhalgh, who played Hayley Cropper on Coronation Street, wouldn't take the role today as she's 'cis-gender'

😑

I remember a bit about the storyline when it was in the early days. Tracy and the others didn't want Hayley (or Harold as the character was called sometimes) using the women's toilet in the knicker factory.

I saw JH on Lorraine this morning. Infuriating. She just doesn't get it. Neither does LK tbf though.

Exactly.

I’d love one of the soaps to recreate this exact storyline, with say, Eddie Izzard, playing the role of Hayley - the storyline being that absolutely no-one guessed Eddie’s character was a transwoman until their big reveal.

I think EastEnders should give it a go, it seems right up the BBC’s street.

Pity she had no such qualms as she assisted the writers in selling a false story to the nation.

Not wading in on the gender ideology stuff, but just wanted to say that as someone who clearly remembers watching it at the time- I was 12 and in year 7 at school- we can't compare it to how it might be received now. It was shocking and everyone was talking about this "new idea" of "transsexuals" as they were called then. I distinctly remember a conversation about it with my parents and grandparents around the Sunday dinner table. Remember, section 28 was still a thing and 'Queer as a Folk' was more than two years away. It was just about getting anyone to talk about this "perverted" stuff then, back when the age of consent for gay men was still 21, the finer nuances hadn't been ironed out. Even her leaving Corrie was almost ten years ago. A lot has changed in that time frame.

Yes this, I watched it first time round and I am watching it again on Classic Corrie, the only reason it worked is because obviously Hayley is a real woman, there is no way the storyline or her character would have worked otherwise.

It was an odd watch at the time.

she was introduced as a woman who was then revealed to be a transwoman.

Nobody has guessed she was a transwoman but then again she was not played by one so why would they?

It is a confusing point she’s trying to make.

If transwomen are women, and it’s offensive to make a distinction between the two, then what wrong with a ciswoman playing a transwoman? Surely that is just a woman playing a woman, according to Stonewal et al?

Or perhaps transwomen aren’t women 😱

Personally I have no problem with actors playing anyone or anything. In drama class I used to act as a tree, or as the wind. I had no idea it was a thoughtcrime to act as something that I wasn’t actually.

I guess to be on the safe side all accountants should be played by real accountants, and The Crown should only use genuinely royal actors, etc.

but she was worried that person would get too much flack/abuse so nobly decided to take the role herself

Given that at any time 99% of actors are out of work, I doubt there was anything 'noble' about taking a long running part in a soap that's a national institution for millions. Self-interest, more like.

This.

Teenagers yelling at parents for ‘wrongthink’ is so Orwellian. It always reminds me of the cultural revolution in China and how for a while they thought it was a good idea to burn books and humiliate teachers.

Then they realised that letting lunatics run the asylum does not facilitate scientific progress or business profits, and had a bit of a rethink.

I don't think that's what she is saying though. She's saying she was representing what she'd see as a subset of women which she didn't belong to. Like a white woman playing the part of a black woman. I don't agree with that analysis, but I don't think the logic is what you think it is.
Though I guess you could argue that to acknowledge trans women as a category at all you have to acknowledge sex exists.

No one is talking about subsets. If this female actor considers now she should not have taken on this role its because it wasn't a female part. This actor is confirming that males are not female. Something we already now.

It wasn't believable at the time precisely because she was a woman.

*She’s saying a transwoman should have played the part.

Because transwomen are different from women.

Therefore transwomen are not women.*

Now look, I don't agree that TW are a subset of women, but that's what they are claiming. It would not be illogical to advocate for e.g. a disabled woman to play the part of a disabled woman. I don't think your deduction works.

All A are B is a statement that As are a subset of Bs. It doesn't follow that all B are A.

What it does scotch is their claim that sex doesn't actually exist and is a social construct etc. The whole concept of trans/cis contradicts any kind of sex doesn't really exist argument.

Thought it was called "acting" for a reason?
Is her real name Hayley? Perhaps the role should have gone to someone called Hayley.

Where does this end? Can only actual members of the Royal family play Royals? Can British actors no longer take American roles?
Should Doctors be played only be actual Doctors?

This is all such virtue signaling bullshite.

I thing Eddie Redmayne also came out with something similar after the Danish Girl.
Which is weird, because the part he was playing WAS a biological man, as is he.

But you know, woke points.

Yes! Baffled that so many can't see this inconsistency !

I eyerolled through a lot of this. You almost need a bingo card - cisgender, pronouns, intersectionality etc.

I heard this interview on r4 tonight, and rarely have I heard a front row guest be really quite as up their own arse as this. From the initial salvo about immediately closing all private schools, (with no thought as to the ramifications for children attending them) she then managed to simultaneously explain what an honour it was to play the trans character whilst also saying that she doesn't think a cis(shudder) woman should play the part of a transwoman now. She didn't seem to have the self reflection to see the problem with this statement.

Yes, that’s the point….?

She’s saying a transwoman should have played the part.

Because transwomen are different from women.

Therefore transwomen are not women.

Eddie wasn’t available, so that had to get a cis woman ( sic)

or maybe the illusion wouldn’t have been sustainable? Willing suspension of disbelief is one thing, that would be quite another.

She claimed in the interview that she thought the role of Hayley should have been given to a trans woman back in the nineties - decades before the debate reached the mainstream - but she was worried that person would get too much flack/abuse so nobly decided to take the role herself. I mean… maybe that’s true but it seems unlikely to me. The considerations and debate about actors without ‘lived experience’ was hardly rife then. It struck me as a retrospective pardoning and a bit hollow.

It's all such utter fucking bollocks.

@GordonShakespearedoesChristmas But if transwomen are women (as they claim) then she is just a woman playing a woman. I would have thought that a transwoman who truly believes they are an actual woman wouldn't bat an eyelid at whether a TW character is played by a TW or a 'cis' woman. After all, we're all the same, aren't we? Oh, oh, wait a minute...

I think that she is saying that a trans woman should have played the part. However all of the research, information and guidance was indeed provided by Annie Wallace throughout Hayley's trans storylines.