What's your view on Jack Whitehall playing a gay character?

[LyndorCake]

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2018/aug/13/jack-whitehall-role-gay-disney-character-row-jungle-cruise

People have gone wild on twitter about it.
One argument says that as he is straight, he can't understand the role properly and is taking roles always from LGBTQ+ actors. The other side of that is he's an actor and therefore he is always pretending to be someone he isn't in any role, how is this different?

I can sort of see both sides but curious as to what you think?

A good male actor who was straight should be able to play a gay character convincingly (although I suppose I do assume that 'a gay character' would be identifiable as gay because he, um, fancied men, and I really hope there wouldn't be any other assumptions about what 'acting gay' might entail).

No matter how good the male actor, or trans woman, they could not play a female because it would be blindingly obvious they weren't.

Thanks for explaining bon.

As I said, I’d be happy to campaign for a third space, I would always use whatever pronouns someone requested me to use, (I have known two people who were transitioning and always used their pronouns), I also wouldn’t mislabel someone or force labels into them.

What makes me profoundly uncomfortable and worried is that self ID is entirely open to abuse as it stands, and it’s not that the activists necessarily want that, it’s that they don’t care because they’re only bothered about their rights and nobody else’s.

The thought that self ID could be misused to allow an abuser access to a women’s refuge for example (and please don’t tell me that wouldn’t be likely because it entirely fits with exactly what abusers would do if they could), or a sex offender access to women and girls in a female changing room/toilets.

I think the biggest problem I have with all of it (and the “you’” I use here is not directed at you personally) is that you cannot demand your rights are heard and respected, by silencing others and disrespecting them.

Because that is exactly what is happening.

Many feminists I know are fully behind the third space idea, and I feel it is one which would respect the needs and rights of everyone.

The minority group or the oppressed group @bonquiqui ?

Because I would take language cues from the oppressed group. Otherwise you're taking cues from white South Africans during the apartheid era. I'd argue that the people with vaginas are historically oppressed. Not those with penises.

The thought that self ID could be misused to allow an abuser access to a women’s refuge for example (and please don’t tell me that wouldn’t be likely because it entirely fits with exactly what abusers would do if they could), or a sex offender access to women and girls in a female changing room/toilets.

I should clarify that men who are not trans women posing as trans women would abuse this. That’s what I meant.

@MrsTerryPratchett I see your point, but I don't see trans women (phrase used for sake of argument) as having penises and being the male oppressors, if you see what I mean. I think their experience living as men who knew they weren't living in their right body was invariably hard and sure they too didn't fit in with groups of toxic masculine men. (Not always, eg. Caitlyn Jenner I have issues with as there's a lot of white privilege and internalised misogyny there). But I agree, lot of grey area.

I see your point, but I don't see trans women (phrase used for sake of argument) as having penises and being the male oppressors, if you see what I mean

Whether someone has a penis or not isn’t a matter of opinion though. It’s a fact. Either someone has a penis or they don’t. It really is that simple.

@YeTalkShiteHen

I think a lot of people would agree with that, though maybe not in the strictest definition of a Third Space if you see what I mean. For example, sure we'd all like an all inclusive world, but can't force people to change long held views.

I can't imagine anyone wants those kind of abuses. I certainly don't. But as I said, surely the incidences of that happening are a tiny part of trans people existing in society? I think that worry can be overly focused on, like when homophobes used to use the excuse of LGBTs poisoning children with their gayness if they were teachers etc.

Maybe it does happen, but all right thinking people wouldn't let it, whatever their beliefs. For example, if I ran a refuge and an abusive husband came in in a skirt and demanded entry, I'd tell him to piss off, despite what the law says. However, that's a different thing to people that say "well I have the right to call you whatever offensive thing I like because I don't believe you have the right to be called a woman" (for example), which I just can't get behind (especially as an LGBT person who's had years of the same).

@YeTalkShiteHen

True, it is a matter of fact. I suppose I was referring to post op trans women, which was probably a sweeping assumption on my part. Previous holders of a penis then!

but I don't see trans women (phrase used for sake of argument) as having penises

You don understand that they either do or do not have penises though, completely outside of your perception of it?

If you don't understand that penises exist whether or not you see them as important, then you really shouldn;t be having any discussions.

. However, that's a different thing to people that say "well I have the right to call you whatever offensive thing I like because I don't believe you have the right to be called a woman"

To clarify, I mean to people who are trans women rather than the aforementioned husband imposter as one.

There are certainly transwomen who have benefitted from male privilege, whereas there aren't any women who have. Some transwomen will have benefitted directly from misogyny due to them being perceived as men, even if they felt they weren't. So eg the idea that someone who thought they weren't in the right body pre-transition wasn't also benefitting from not being seen in the workplace as someone likely to go off and have babies is fanciful. To take one example.

He is an actor, it's a non story.

• You don understand that they either do or do not have penises though, completely outside of your perception of it?

If you don't understand that penises exist whether or not you see them as important, then you really shouldn;t be having any discussions.*

See my clarification post. Sorry for being unclear, but "You really shouldn't be having any discussions" is a bit harsh though. Realise we have differing views, but dismissing someone with different opinions than yours as a form of argument to get your point across isn't very productive. I feel I've been rational in my posts. Just don't respond if you think they're that pointless.

@MingeUterusMingeMingeYoni

I agree that previous privilege exists. That's why I used Caitlyn Jenner as an example. Rich white republican whose views are still very much that of a Trump supporting sexist. However, that's not every trans experience, just like it's not every man's experience. I feel it's more important to focus on what the person experiences now. Their privilege did exist, but they're now very low on the social scale I feel.

Heath ledger and Jake Gyllenahall weren’t gay but starred in broke back mountain I don’t think it matters what their sexuality is but how they acted in their roles

Whether they're very low on the scale will depend on other factors. It's clear that the mere fact of being trans doesn't in itself lead a person to have a particularly difficult existence though. And trans women as a group aren't more marginalised than natal women as a group, either. Important to spell that out when we're talking about terminology and who should 'trump' who.

It matters to the gay community though.

I never even really considered him an actor. I mean I know he was in bad education and fresh meat, but lots of comedians do some ‘acting’. I find it very very hard to believe he was the best actor they could find for this role, gay or otherwise.

Maybe it does happen, but all right thinking people wouldn't let it, whatever their beliefs. For example, if I ran a refuge and an abusive husband came in in a skirt and demanded entry, I'd tell him to piss off, despite what the law says. However, that's a different thing to people that say "well I have the right to call you whatever offensive thing I like because I don't believe you have the right to be called a woman" (for example), which I just can't get behind (especially as an LGBT person who's had years of the same).

If you think that I was saying an abusive husband would stick a skirt on and turn up aggressively it shows you have spectacularly missed the point and have absolutely no idea of the lengths abusers will go to in terms of charm and manipulation. I was suggesting that an abuser could (and would) use self ID in order to present as a woman, and gain access that way.

“Right thinking” is another term, it’s subjective isn’t it? And often a way to silence people who disagree.

And I have never and would never advocate abuse or being deliberately offensive. However I object to the use of woman to describe somebody who isn’t, because that is appropriating something and redefining it.

As an autistic woman, I have had my fair share (more than my fair share) of ignorance, abuse, rudeness and nastiness.

If actors only played roles which fit their archetype, theatre would go out of business.

Men have been playing women for literally hundreds of years and women playing men for the past few decades too.

bonquiqui but a post operative trans woman doesn’t have a penis?

Heath Ledger and Jake G were nominated for Oscars - that would have been groundbreaking if they had both been openly gay actors.

It’s a bit like Hollywood saying it can cope with gay roles but it can’t cope with actual gay people playing them yet.

If Brokeback has been played by gay actors I think it would have seemed less mainstream, more niche. I think straight men would have found it more complicated to watch. It’s ok because they’re not really gay.

Also, it is not post operative trans women posing any kind of threat to women.

It is people who have a penis.

However, that's a different thing to people that say "well I have the right to call you whatever offensive thing I like because I don't believe you have the right to be called a woman

This is literally an precisely what you are doing when you call us cis.

@YeTalkShiteHen

I wasn't using you personally as an example of someone who would be offensive, so sorry if that came across.

The example of husband in a skirt was extreme and deliberately silly perhaps, but feel I'm agreeing with you on the risks of self ID thing. I can believe that abusers will go to extreme lengths. But I was saying I hoped people in positions of trust/the law makers would use a common sense approach to ensure that didn't happen. I think I was mainly trying to get across that not all believers in trans rights are these snowflake lefties who just think "live and let live regardless of risk" kind of thing.

I suppose I am referring in general to trans people living as their "new" gender too, rather than this idea of men that want to keep penises but benefit from women's rights.

I don't know. Know my views might be more trans sympathetic, but don't think we're that far apart in the core of it all.