Page 34 | Well, hello Emma Watson

teawamutu · 01/10/2025 22:46

CleopatraSelene · 01/10/2025 22:37

No, Hadrian & Alexander weren't people you could boss about anyhow 🤣 Wonderful books.

I was thinking that both Mary Renault and Marguerite Yourcenar were in LTRs with women when they wrote those books. I wonder if this was maybe partly an aspect of why they wrote them : to explore same-sex dynamics without getting too personal/drawing suspicion . Obvs their motives were much more than that, bit I wonder if that was part of it.

Whereas modern slash/yaoi writers just seem to want to portray 2 hot guys without much depth or realism.

Sorry, a bit off topic!

Show quote history

Miles more interesting than yet more TRA-adjacent cultural appropriation, though.

And I'm sure you're right. I'm re-listening to the History of Rome at the moment, and recently got to the bit where Gibbon (I think) described Claudius as the only Roman emperor of the first tranche who had 'correct' (no boys) tastes in love.

A TV culture where 14 out of 15 romances are 'boy meets girl and then another boy, usually simultaneously' would be... Different.

(Btw I have been admiring your username 😁)

KTheGrey · 01/10/2025 22:49

JNicholson · 01/10/2025 22:21

It’s on record that they were first published in 1609 and ‘Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day’ was in the grouping of poems addressed to a fair youth. It’s on record that Shakespeare died in 1616, so he had seven years to complain about that publisher’s ordering if he wasn’t happy with it.

Show quote history

There’s this whole thing about the intro to the original edition suggesting he cursed the publishers - it was in one of the long boring articles. And the fact that there is no record of his complaining means nothing. A negative can’t prove anything.

JNicholson · 01/10/2025 22:49

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 01/10/2025 22:18

I didn't say it was unthinkable to have a trans character in a Shakespeare play. I said you can't really do it without queering the whole thing, which is what you are doing when you decide to reimagine a character as trans.

You're not going to cast a trans woman as Juliet or Lady Macbeth in an ordinary production of Shakespeare. And you're particularly not going to cast them in any role where the female character disguises herself as a man, because then what you have got is a male actor wearing men's clothes and the whole plot device doesn't work. It only works if you can see with your own eyes that this is a woman pretending to be a man and suspend your own disbelief that the other characters in the play couldn't see it too.

Show quote history

you're particularly not going to cast them in any role where the female character disguises herself as a man, because then what you have got is a male actor wearing men's clothes and the whole plot device doesn't work. It only works if you can see with your own eyes that this is a woman pretending to be a man and suspend your own disbelief that the other characters in the play couldn't see it too.

Bad luck for every Shakespeare production till 1660 then, since Rosalind and Viola would have been played by male actors wearing men’s clothes. I hope poor Shakespeare wasn’t too devastated that his plot device didn’t work until 44 years after his death!

CleopatraSelene · 01/10/2025 22:51

JNicholson · 01/10/2025 22:49

you're particularly not going to cast them in any role where the female character disguises herself as a man, because then what you have got is a male actor wearing men's clothes and the whole plot device doesn't work. It only works if you can see with your own eyes that this is a woman pretending to be a man and suspend your own disbelief that the other characters in the play couldn't see it too.

Bad luck for every Shakespeare production till 1660 then, since Rosalind and Viola would have been played by male actors wearing men’s clothes. I hope poor Shakespeare wasn’t too devastated that his plot device didn’t work until 44 years after his death!

Show quote history

I think in his time it was more that the girls dressing up as boys, as well as a necessary plot device, was an extra joke AND allowed to boys to act in clothes they'd be more comfy in.

JNicholson · 01/10/2025 22:52

KTheGrey · 01/10/2025 22:49

There’s this whole thing about the intro to the original edition suggesting he cursed the publishers - it was in one of the long boring articles. And the fact that there is no record of his complaining means nothing. A negative can’t prove anything.

Show quote history

‘suggesting he cursed the publishers’ (apparently for reasons not specified?) doesn’t sound like it proves much either.

CleopatraSelene · 01/10/2025 22:56

teawamutu · 01/10/2025 22:46

Miles more interesting than yet more TRA-adjacent cultural appropriation, though.

And I'm sure you're right. I'm re-listening to the History of Rome at the moment, and recently got to the bit where Gibbon (I think) described Claudius as the only Roman emperor of the first tranche who had 'correct' (no boys) tastes in love.

A TV culture where 14 out of 15 romances are 'boy meets girl and then another boy, usually simultaneously' would be... Different.

(Btw I have been admiring your username 😁)

Show quote history

Yes, it's def preferable to 'the eunuchs were actually getting gender-affirming care' or similar.

Goodness, had no idea it was that many! TV would certainly be different. I wonder if it was really that high? I suppose some could have been gossip...also gayness does run in families to some extent so I suppose that could have been a factor.

Thanks re the username : I read a book about Cleopatra Selene recently (Jane Draycott) &she seemed very impressive herself as queen of Algeria & Morocco, shame her parents have got most of the spotlight.

teawamutu · 01/10/2025 22:57

For someone who's tired, you do go on. Once more tonight.

I don’t know why you keep claiming to have total objective and unassailable knowledge of the motivations of fictional characters. That isn’t how fiction works.

Yeah, I know. That's why I didn't.

Characters like Rosalind and Viola aren’t real people, they’re made out of words. So there isn’t any final truth about why they ‘really’ dressed as boys. There are interpretations, and I don’t think it would be difficult to build a trans one if you wanted to.

Rosalind: "Were it not better, / Because that I am more than common tall, / That I did suit me all points like a man? / A gallant curtal-ax upon my thigh, / A boar-spear in my hand—and in my heart / Lie there what hidden woman’s fear there will— / We’ll have a swashing and a martial outside, / As many other mannish cowards have / That do outface it with their semblances."

Viola:
"For such disguise as haply shall become
The form of my intent. I'll serve this duke:
Thou shalt present me as an eunuch to him:
It may be worth thy pains; for I can sing
And speak to him in many sorts of music
That will allow me very worth his service.
What else may hap to time I will commit;
Only shape thou thy silence to my wit."

Of course Emperor Hadrian wouldn’t have said he was proud to be gay, as the word gay didn’t have that meaning then, but that doesn’t mean the concept of pride (as opposed to shame) in same-sex attraction in the face of social condemnation didn’t exist before 1970 and the first pride parade. I’m not an expert on Ancient Rome so I can’t tell you about that period specifically, but there are certainly examples of expressions of what we would now call gay pride in pre-20th century materials.

It was massively shaming to be the receptive partner in the ancient world. Young men were allowed a period of being 'initiated' by older men, but much scorned if they continued. See the rumours around Caesar and Augustus.

Similarly, yes of course someone in the Renaissance wouldn’t have said ‘I identify as a woman’ because that wasn’t the phrasing then, but that’s not the same as saying that no-one in a male body ever saw themselves as a woman prior to about 2015, or whenever you want to set the arbitrary invented boundary.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But they weren't, however they saw themselves. And the culture at the time certainly wouldn't have encouraged them in the delusion.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 01/10/2025 23:07

JNicholson · 01/10/2025 22:43

I don’t know why you keep claiming to have total objective and unassailable knowledge of the motivations of fictional characters. That isn’t how fiction works.

Characters like Rosalind and Viola aren’t real people, they’re made out of words. So there isn’t any final truth about why they ‘really’ dressed as boys. There are interpretations, and I don’t think it would be difficult to build a trans one if you wanted to.

Of course Emperor Hadrian wouldn’t have said he was proud to be gay, as the word gay didn’t have that meaning then, but that doesn’t mean the concept of pride (as opposed to shame) in same-sex attraction in the face of social condemnation didn’t exist before 1970 and the first pride parade. I’m not an expert on Ancient Rome so I can’t tell you about that period specifically, but there are certainly examples of expressions of what we would now call gay pride in pre-20th century materials.

Similarly, yes of course someone in the Renaissance wouldn’t have said ‘I identify as a woman’ because that wasn’t the phrasing then, but that’s not the same as saying that no-one in a male body ever saw themselves as a woman prior to about 2015, or whenever you want to set the arbitrary invented boundary.

Show quote history

Characters like Rosalind and Viola aren’t real people, they’re made out of words. So there isn’t any final truth about why they ‘really’ dressed as boys. There are interpretations, and I don’t think it would be difficult to build a trans one if you wanted to.

OK. Say you're queering Shakespeare and you want to do a retelling in which Rosalind dresses as a boy because she identifies as one.

In Shakespeare's time, of course, Rosalind would have been played by a boy, who looked feminine enough to play a girl, but would at some point be on the stage as a boy dressed as a boy playing a girl dressed as a boy. But the audience is used to an all male cast so they make do.

Today, we have the freedom to cast both sexes into theatrical roles.

So, in our imagined retelling where Rosalind is a trans boy, who are you going to cast?

A man? No. Because he'd look like a man in women's clothes and then a man in men's clothes, and so he'd be disguised as the opposite sex for the scenes where Rosalind is supposed to be presenting as herself, and presenting normally for the scenes where she is supposed to be disguised as the opposite sex. The plot device fails.

A trans woman? No, for the same reasons.

A woman? Yes, but how are you going to retell the story in a way that recasts her as a trans man? Are you going to rewrite chunks of the Shakespeare? Or do away with the Shakespeare altogether, changing both the poetry and the plot? In which case, how far can you push it before it's not Shakespeare anymore?

A trans man? Yes, but if he's got a deep voice or male pattern baldness due to testosterone he won't be convincing as pre-transition Rosalind. And the same questions apply about the script.

Ultimately, if you want to reinvent Rosalind as a trans man you'd still have to cast a female actor in the role, otherwise it wouldn't work. And I kind of think that in reinventing her as a trans man you are really just reinforcing the idea that a trans man, like Rosalind, is a girl pretending to be a boy.

JNicholson · 01/10/2025 23:10

teawamutu · 01/10/2025 22:57

For someone who's tired, you do go on. Once more tonight.

I don’t know why you keep claiming to have total objective and unassailable knowledge of the motivations of fictional characters. That isn’t how fiction works.

Yeah, I know. That's why I didn't.

Characters like Rosalind and Viola aren’t real people, they’re made out of words. So there isn’t any final truth about why they ‘really’ dressed as boys. There are interpretations, and I don’t think it would be difficult to build a trans one if you wanted to.

Rosalind: "Were it not better, / Because that I am more than common tall, / That I did suit me all points like a man? / A gallant curtal-ax upon my thigh, / A boar-spear in my hand—and in my heart / Lie there what hidden woman’s fear there will— / We’ll have a swashing and a martial outside, / As many other mannish cowards have / That do outface it with their semblances."

Viola:
"For such disguise as haply shall become
The form of my intent. I'll serve this duke:
Thou shalt present me as an eunuch to him:
It may be worth thy pains; for I can sing
And speak to him in many sorts of music
That will allow me very worth his service.
What else may hap to time I will commit;
Only shape thou thy silence to my wit."

Of course Emperor Hadrian wouldn’t have said he was proud to be gay, as the word gay didn’t have that meaning then, but that doesn’t mean the concept of pride (as opposed to shame) in same-sex attraction in the face of social condemnation didn’t exist before 1970 and the first pride parade. I’m not an expert on Ancient Rome so I can’t tell you about that period specifically, but there are certainly examples of expressions of what we would now call gay pride in pre-20th century materials.

It was massively shaming to be the receptive partner in the ancient world. Young men were allowed a period of being 'initiated' by older men, but much scorned if they continued. See the rumours around Caesar and Augustus.

Similarly, yes of course someone in the Renaissance wouldn’t have said ‘I identify as a woman’ because that wasn’t the phrasing then, but that’s not the same as saying that no-one in a male body ever saw themselves as a woman prior to about 2015, or whenever you want to set the arbitrary invented boundary.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But they weren't, however they saw themselves. And the culture at the time certainly wouldn't have encouraged them in the delusion.

We’re going round in circles. Yes, neither Rosalind or Viola say ‘I’m going to dress as a boy because I feel male’. You could argue that’s because they don’t feel male. You could also argue that’s because they were living in a time when saying ‘I feel male’ would have been socially unacceptable and they needed to come up with other reasons. Neither explanation is ultimately provable, because they’re not real people.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But they weren't, however they saw themselves. And the culture at the time certainly wouldn't have encouraged them in the delusion.

Yeah I mean this is the underlying point isn’t it, you don’t like trans people and you’d like to confine their existence to as small a period of history as possible. Denying people a history is a very effective tool of oppression, so well done there.

I’m logging off now. Night!

SionnachRuadh · 01/10/2025 23:30

It only works if you can see with your own eyes that this is a woman pretending to be a man and suspend your own disbelief that the other characters in the play couldn't see it too.

Julie Andrews in Victor/Victoria works because she's a woman pretending to be a female impersonator, so her femaleness confuses the straight men who find her attractive while being primed to think of her as a man.

I can't see a trans actor playing that role. I think you would need to have a biological female.

The other case I think of is Cathy Moriarty in Soapdish, which I know is thoroughly cancelled now because of the trans villain trope, and I don't think would pass muster on FWR either because you've got a biological woman playing a transwoman and nobody clocks her. But I actually think Moriarty's performance is a minor bit of genius - she's a tall woman with a raspy voice, but she's got obviously female features and proportions, but in the way she plays it there's something about her mannerisms that's just a little off, and her love interest Robert Downey Jr can't quite figure out what's off about her.

But that again proves the point of how difficult it is to have a trans character where their transness isn't central, and it's a role that I can't imagine being played by a MtF transitioner because it relies on them passing almost perfectly.

KTheGrey · 01/10/2025 23:49

JNicholson · 01/10/2025 22:52

‘suggesting he cursed the publishers’ (apparently for reasons not specified?) doesn’t sound like it proves much either.

Show quote history

Bringing us back to where I started - there’s almost nothing solidly documented and everything about the sonnets is still subject to debate.

Oh and the cursing was to do with the fact of it being published, the academic writing the article believed they were trying to assuage his anger at it being published at all. Not proven and frankly flimsy so fits right in.

nutmeg7 · 02/10/2025 07:05

JNicholson · 01/10/2025 22:21

It’s on record that they were first published in 1609 and ‘Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day’ was in the grouping of poems addressed to a fair youth. It’s on record that Shakespeare died in 1616, so he had seven years to complain about that publisher’s ordering if he wasn’t happy with it.

Show quote history

Just reading this thread - what does this have to do with ‘trans’ representation? It could suggest that Shakespeare was gay or bi, or was skilled enough as a writer to be able to write sonnets from the perspective of another person. Like writers do all the time.

teawamutu · 02/10/2025 08:20

JNicholson · 01/10/2025 23:10

We’re going round in circles. Yes, neither Rosalind or Viola say ‘I’m going to dress as a boy because I feel male’. You could argue that’s because they don’t feel male. You could also argue that’s because they were living in a time when saying ‘I feel male’ would have been socially unacceptable and they needed to come up with other reasons. Neither explanation is ultimately provable, because they’re not real people.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But they weren't, however they saw themselves. And the culture at the time certainly wouldn't have encouraged them in the delusion.

Yeah I mean this is the underlying point isn’t it, you don’t like trans people and you’d like to confine their existence to as small a period of history as possible. Denying people a history is a very effective tool of oppression, so well done there.

I’m logging off now. Night!

Show quote history

You seem to default to allegations that posters just don't like trans people whenever there's a point you don't like but can't answer.

Humans have never been able to change sex and never will. We agree - look at my posts if you don't believe me - that people who wish they were the opposite sex, or believe they are for whatever reason including illness, have probably always existed.

My point was that at no point before living memory would society have treated this as anything other than an illness or someone making a choice for practical reasons.

Not accepting someone's made up version of history doesn't mean I dislike them, it means I like proof.

I'm very fond of JRR Tolkien and I love his wistfulness for the lack of Norseness in our culture, but I'm not going to start pretending to believe in elves to show my support and I'm not going to rewrite Shakespeare to add in concepts that didn't exist at the time when he already provided a perfectly good motivation in the story. He's rather better at it than both of us, after all.

NeonFish · 02/10/2025 08:25

WeeGeeBored · 01/10/2025 14:59

This is a very mean post. You and I know absolutely nothing about Emma Watson's private life - if she has godchildren or nieces and nephews, is loved by her family. The description of her being a "lonely spinster" is vile and demeaning to all single women as though the crowning achievement for women is to have a man and a child.

As for JK having one old school friend at her 60th. I am in touch with many old school friends including some from when I was under 10, but what does that tell you about me? Absolutely nothing.

To compare young Emma Watson with JKR is so awful and I am sure that JKR herself would abhor that (surely?).

And imagining that she went back to school saying look at Meeeee! Even if she did do that as a youngster I would give her a pass on that because of the strange things that stardom does to the minds of the young (I knew a very "nice" girl from school who was a child star who became a drug addict).

Also, many many people can lay claim to having made EW wealthy - the person who cast her in the films, the scriptwriter on the film, the director on the film, the film production companies, her agent, her PR person. Yes, the films are based on JKR's books, but films are collaborations. For JKR to take all credit for them is arrogant beyond belief. In fact, the films added to her wealth and boosted sales. she will never want for money for the rest of her life. She should be grateful for that.

Show quote history

Also, many many people can lay claim to having made EW wealthy - the person who cast her in the films, the scriptwriter on the film, the director on the film, the film production companies, her agent, her PR person. Yes, the films are based on JKR's books, but films are collaborations. For JKR to take all credit for them is arrogant beyond belief. In fact, the films added to her wealth and boosted sales. she will never want for money for the rest of her life. She should be grateful for that.

Without JKR writing the books, there would be no films. Claiming JKR taking all the credit for HER CREATION is arrogant makes no sense, and it what is truly mean. If you created something solely yourself, damn right you have the right to claim all credit. Saying it's arrogant is batshit crazy. And JKR has always said how grateful and how lucky she is with her financial position. She's never said otherwise. It looks to me like you are trying to shame a woman from getting herself out of poverty and being successful, which is mean and misogynistic. Maybe you're simply jealous of her and that is causing your resentment.

NeonFish · 02/10/2025 08:31

worksineducation · 01/10/2025 16:02

I've been watching the Goblet of Fire.

At the end Dumbledore says 'soon we must all face the choice between what is right or what is easy' this is a change from the book where JK wrote 'Remember, if the time should come when you have to make a choice between what is right and what is easy, remember what happened to a boy who was good, and kind, and brave, because he strayed across the path of Lord Voldemort. Remember Cedric Diggory. "

But ultimately Emma and Dan chose what was easy. Not only that, they chose what was easy for them even though they knew that doing so would harm other people they must obviously think of as lesser. The victims of Katie Dolatowski, Karen White, Barbie Kardashian and the list goes on.

It's bizarre to me that they could act in those movies where the central theme is someone standing up and doing what is right against evil and protecting the vulnerable despite the awful difficulties for them personally in doing so and going against what is trendy and fashionable and in the news (the Daily Prophet's smear campaign against Harry and distortion of truth rings some bells) and wonder that JKR has taken the stance that she has. They must be very, very dim not to get it.

Men have 160% the punch power of women, even if they identify as trans. I hope Barbie Kardashian's mother is in hiding.

But ultimately Emma and Dan chose what was easy. Not only that, they chose what was easy for them even though they knew that doing so would harm other people they must obviously think of as lesser. The victims of Katie Dolatowski, Karen White, Barbie Kardashian and the list goes on.
It's bizarre to me that they could act in those movies where the central theme is someone standing up and doing what is right against evil and protecting the vulnerable despite the awful difficulties for them personally in doing so and going against what is trendy and fashionable and in the news

Fucking A!!!

NeonFish · 02/10/2025 08:39

JNicholson · 01/10/2025 16:28

You’ve got no idea, really, whether it was easy for them to make those statements or not. You don’t know whether there are people in their private life who disagreed and cut them off for it. We do know that JKR did (which is her prerogative), and it has certainly done them no favours with the right wing press or with posters here.

Show quote history

You've got things completely backwards.

GCs don't cut off people for supporting trans rights. I have never, ever, ever, ever heard of that happening. We all hope our relative/friend will see common sense eventually. It is the trans activists that cut off GCs, because nothing less than 100% complete agreement is acceptable to them.
Likewise, the trio are the ones who cut JKR off. She didn't cut them off.

NeonFish · 02/10/2025 08:48

JNicholson · 01/10/2025 19:25

You’re missing my point, it’s not about expecting large numbers, it’s about Hollywood actors not being open about trans partners when they are dating them, and a long history of trans people being portrayed as killers/evil/laughingstocks/freaks on the rare occasions when they did feature in mainstream movies. Yes there have been a few more positive portrayals recently, but to say ‘all of Hollywood has been genderist until recently’ implies a cultural memory of about five minutes.

Show quote history

They might not be dating trans people but then again, trans activists seldom do, hence the term 'pro-trans on the street but not in the (bed) sheets'. In practice, no one really does. So Hollywood is no different there from general life. But, what almost all of them now have, are trans children. Who was that actress, I can't remember which, it could have been Jamie Lee Curtis or Cynthia Nixon - anyway, who said their both or all their children are trans, their best friend is trans, and another best friend has a child who is trans, etc. That is not statistically normal in real life.

dottiehens · 02/10/2025 08:55

Emma Watson is trying hard to keep herself a bit relevant. It is not super deep. She supports the trans rights in order not be cancelled. Now why do we listen to a has been and an hypocrite?

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 02/10/2025 08:58

worksineducation · 01/10/2025 16:02

I've been watching the Goblet of Fire.

At the end Dumbledore says 'soon we must all face the choice between what is right or what is easy' this is a change from the book where JK wrote 'Remember, if the time should come when you have to make a choice between what is right and what is easy, remember what happened to a boy who was good, and kind, and brave, because he strayed across the path of Lord Voldemort. Remember Cedric Diggory. "

But ultimately Emma and Dan chose what was easy. Not only that, they chose what was easy for them even though they knew that doing so would harm other people they must obviously think of as lesser. The victims of Katie Dolatowski, Karen White, Barbie Kardashian and the list goes on.

It's bizarre to me that they could act in those movies where the central theme is someone standing up and doing what is right against evil and protecting the vulnerable despite the awful difficulties for them personally in doing so and going against what is trendy and fashionable and in the news (the Daily Prophet's smear campaign against Harry and distortion of truth rings some bells) and wonder that JKR has taken the stance that she has. They must be very, very dim not to get it.

Men have 160% the punch power of women, even if they identify as trans. I hope Barbie Kardashian's mother is in hiding.

Great post.

Let's also not forget Dumbledore to Neville Longbottom in Philosopher's Stone:

“It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends.”

Emma Watson and Dan Radcliffe lacked the courage to stand up to their shiny, glittery friends in Hollywood.

NeonFish · 02/10/2025 09:05

CleopatraSelene · 01/10/2025 20:32

Aha, LaverneCox claims many actors are secretly dating transwomen. Not sure if I believe...

https://www.out.com/television/2022/11/18/laverne-cox-spills-tea-famous-men-who-secretly-date-trans-women

Lol that reads like a porn fantasy of a man who can't get women to date him so overcompensates by trying to convince us that 'no, really, tonnes of men do want to date us! Honestly! Seriously! For real!'

All lies. I would not believe one single word that came out of his mouth. It's all fantasy and wishful thinking. Just like those reddit posts where a 'MTF' transwoman says a woman in the ladies asked him for a tampon. It's just all porn-soaked fantasy.

NeonFish · 02/10/2025 09:18

JNicholson · 01/10/2025 21:01

jumping on that bandwagon to denounce JK Rowling and her awful transphobic views… has been and still is the only acceptable viewpoint in Hollywood.

This is provably untrue.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/oct/25/ralph-fiennes-defends-jk-rowling

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/nov/28/helena-bonham-carter-defends-jk-rowling-and-johnny-depp

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/jun/09/harry-potter-tom-felton-supports-jk-rowling-trans-controversy

Re your second point: saying ‘you can’t put a trans character in Shakespeare’ is mildly hilarious, given that all his female roles would have been played by boy actors in his own time and several of his comedies feature female characters who spend most of the play dressed as men. Beyond that I’m not sure what we’re arguing about. I’ve already said I wouldn’t expect a large number of roles to be trans. My point was about Hollywood’s history of representations that significantly stigmatise trans people. You’ve said you think their inclusion is only lip service, so maybe we’re in agreement there. Though I’d suggest the success of a show like ‘Euphoria’, which has a trans actor Hunter Schafer as the love interest, implies the future of trans representation doesn’t have to be as negative as you’re arguing.

In general I think you’ve gone off on several tangents that don’t really have anything to do with my original point. Which was that it’s not convincing to claim that ‘all of Hollywood’ or ‘all of the media’ have until recently been captured by gender ideology (to use the GC framing). I think people who want to make arguments like that have got enough examples of actual capture that they could use, e.g. Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP. ‘All of Hollywood’ and ‘all of the media’ doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Show quote history

Your post is completely delusional.

First of all, Shakespeare actors had males playing female roles because FEMALES WEREN'T ALLOWED TO ACT back then. Acting was seen as a man's job. Women were barred from working, even in acting. There was no choice but to have males playing female characters. So you have absolutely no point.

Secondly, Tom Felton has been dragged to hell and back and to hell again for defending JKR. Which proves the point. That it's not fashionable to defend JKR or womens rights.

NeonFish · 02/10/2025 09:23

teawamutu · 01/10/2025 21:13

"Re your second point: saying ‘you can’t put a trans character in Shakespeare’ is mildly hilarious, given that all his female roles would have been played by boy actors in his own time and several of his comedies feature female characters who spend most of the play dressed as men."

Yes, but Shakespeare's female roles were played by men because women literally weren't allowed to act.

And the female characters dress up as men in furtherance of plot points because women wouldn't have been allowed to do the things they needed to do to keep the story moving.

Far from proving gender fluidity, it's a stark example of biological realism. They knew fine well who the males and who the females were.

Ah, I should have read through to the end of the thread before replying, you made the point already about the Shakespeare era.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 02/10/2025 09:27

NeonFish · 02/10/2025 09:18

Your post is completely delusional.

First of all, Shakespeare actors had males playing female roles because FEMALES WEREN'T ALLOWED TO ACT back then. Acting was seen as a man's job. Women were barred from working, even in acting. There was no choice but to have males playing female characters. So you have absolutely no point.

Secondly, Tom Felton has been dragged to hell and back and to hell again for defending JKR. Which proves the point. That it's not fashionable to defend JKR or womens rights.

Show quote history

And he didn't even make any statement about trans issues. He expressly avoided it.

He basically said, "I don't really have an opinion about trans issues, it's not my place to say. But I'm not going to be mean about JKR because I wouldn't be where I am today without her."

Even that is enough for him to be vilified.

Nothing less than pledging allegiance to the cause is enough for these people.

NeonFish · 02/10/2025 09:28

JNicholson · 01/10/2025 21:40

Yes, but Shakespeare's female roles were played by men because women literally weren't allowed to act.
And the female characters dress up as men in furtherance of plot points because women wouldn't have been allowed to do the things they needed to do to keep the story moving.

Sure, but you can argue this the other way as well: trans identities weren’t acceptable in Shakespeare’s time, so it’s much easier to tell people you’re dressing as a boy to mourn your dead brother or have a job or go into the woods for a while and that you’ll stop doing it at the end of the play, rather than saying you want to dress as a boy because you feel male.

Lady Macbeth seems to have managed to keep the story moving without dressing up as a boy, so it’s not a catch-all explanation.

Show quote history

Transgender actually didn't even exist back then. Crossdressers/transvestites perhaps, but not transgender. You can't have something be acceptable or unacceptable if it actually doesn't even exist. Can't have something from nothing/nothing from nothing.

worksineducation · 02/10/2025 09:30

NeonFish · 02/10/2025 09:05

Lol that reads like a porn fantasy of a man who can't get women to date him so overcompensates by trying to convince us that 'no, really, tonnes of men do want to date us! Honestly! Seriously! For real!'

All lies. I would not believe one single word that came out of his mouth. It's all fantasy and wishful thinking. Just like those reddit posts where a 'MTF' transwoman says a woman in the ladies asked him for a tampon. It's just all porn-soaked fantasy.

Show quote history

Exactly.

A lot of these men see "woman" as nothing more than a label on which to project their personal porn soaked fantasy. Clear as day that they don't see actual women as fully human.