Dylan Mulvaney cast as Anne Boleyn

[dementedpixie]

Came up on fb and thought it was satire to start with! Would put me off going to see it tbh

No one had suggested for a moment they are angry that DM 'exists'. This is simply a discussion about whether it was appropriate to cast him (a male person) in a show where having an all female cast does a lot of the heavy lifting. I don't understand why it's not possible to have that discussion without a lot of hyperbole about not wanting trans people to exist.

Again, I was reacting to the comparison between minstrelsy and trans women.

And saying that trans people existing, going about their normal lives and, yes, applying for acting jobs, is not the same thing. At all.

I would argue that your stance trivialises the centuries long systematic oppression of women- the play you’re defending documents one of the most famous cases of this.

Your stance trivialises the actual struggles faced by some trans people- exploitation by corrupt medical organisations in this part of the world, harassment, sexual exploitation and murder in others. Do you think us big nasty terfs cause that?
And as a medical professional, I absolutely do think it’s child abuse to subject a child to serious, life altering medical interventions for cosmetic reasons.

Is you child who’s so keen on DM trans? Your username suggests so. I can’t imagine the audacity of a grown women being so glib about such a serious subject “because my teenager says so”.

You are, either through ignorance or malice, combining two different things.

It is disingenuous to pretend the issue with trans people is how they dress. Where there is an issue about dress the issue is the reason they dress this way and the access they claim because of that.

How someone chooses to dress is, as you say, no one else's business as long as it's not indecent for the context like extreme fetishwear in Tescos or something offensive like a T shirt with a sexist slogan.

Conversely, a person of one sex claiming to be the other sex, or the right to be treated as interchangeable with the opposite sex, because of how they think is unacceptable sexism regardless of how they dress.

It's the difference between a man buying a fabulous women's dress because there's nothing like that for men in the market today and having the dress altered to fit his male body, and a man buying a fabulous woman's dress because he thinks he is a fabulous woman, and altering or agumemting his male body to fit the dress.

I think it's interesting that you rightly see the connection between social racism today and the abhorrent legally sanctioned abuses of black people in the past, but are blind to the connection between the abhorrent legally sanctioned abuses of female people in the past (and indeed in many places still today) and the social sexism that women (in the sex based meaning) still face and which among other things underpins the concept of gender identities.

You say "All trans people are doing is getting on with their lives whilst being trans" but what does actually mean? In what way, and why, is someone of one sex reasonably interchangeable with people of the opposite sex because of something in their mind, and how in the case of a trans woman does that quality relate to the existence of female people, our undeniable history of oppression because of our physical sex, and the existence of women-only resources, provisions and protections to mitigate that history such that there can be no reasonable case to differentiate between us?

To get back to the history of race oppression, would you consider it reasonable for a white person to claim something in the way they think makes them really a black person, and through that claim the history of black oppression as their own even though they not only would not have suffered any of it at the time, but as a white person would have benefitted from it and continues to benefit from its legacy today?

As per my post above, just as you can only appreciate the offensiveness of minstelry when you see it in the context of the cultural caricatures of blackness that were both produced by and served to reinforce social and state sanctioned oppression and marginalisation of black people, you can only appreciate the offensiveness of trans genderism when you see it in the context of the cultural caricatures of women and men that are both produced by and serve to reinforce social and state sanctioned oppression and marginalisation of female people.

Fetishistic transvestism is a diagnosis listed in the ICD. When HCPs make a diagnosis of 'gender incongruence', they are required to screen to exclude fetishistic tranvestism.

Some men dress in clothes labelled 'women's clothes' because they find it sexually arousing.

The reason they find it arousing is because of the power dynamic. The power dynamic is that women are oppressed by males, who are, statistically, more powerful physically, economically, and socially.

I am certainly angry that he is being feted for his sexism.

Dylan was in a touring production of The Book of Mormon, so he must have some musical theatre skills; that was an ensemble role though, it’s quite the step up for SIX.

I mean you don't need to see it, there's plenty of other things to spend your money on.

Shows have always had sexist stuff in them. This is just a new take. Shame, i thought we were progressing.

This.

All a bit ironic, isn't it?
The Tudors knew what a bloke was. 500 years later and we've gone backwards in our understanding of biology.

Anne Boleyn was murdered by a powerful man for failing to comply with his reproductive needs. The excuse given for murdering her was that she’d dishonoured her husband through sexual depravity. She’s a perfect example of the vulnerability of women and the brutality meted out to them throughout history.

Having a man play her on stage is rather like choosing a young while male to play Rosa Parks. It is intentionally, knowingly spitting on, ridiculing, belittling, the victims of abuse & violence. Why? Because men think violence against women is funny 🤢.

What is the FWR board for if not railing against sexist takes, old and new? And what’s progressive about a white, privileged man taking a role over less recognised women who have had to achieve double the amount to share the same stage?

Yes I’m sure they do, but they have the belief that TWAW so casting DM is not a contradiction.

Me too, I find DM really irritating. But it will sell out without our patronage.

Agree. It’s not a historical analysis. It’s just showbiz. Pick your battles, GCs.

The black and white minstrel show was just showbiz - until the penny dropped and people became more educated and aware.

But yes, tickets for this will sell, even with a male taking a part away from a woman.

I don’t think it’s so much that we’ve gone backwards in our understanding of biology as much as we are being asked to believe that which we know not to be true.

The B&W minstrels was as a result of the institutionalised racism that still exists today. It’s ironic that the BBC levelled accusations of schoolboy bullying and racism at Nigel Farage which allegedly took place at a time when they were broadcasting this kind of thing without a second thought. They were happy to broadcast blackface while there wasn’t a single actual non white face presenting anywhere else on the channel.

I quite agree - although at the time it was just seen as entertainment, in the same way womanface is now.

I agree.

I’m late to this thread and haven’t read it all yet but this stunt casting has given me food for thought, as I recently defended a trans actor in the role of Judy Garland in another play so am mulling over why this feels different.

Six as far as I’m aware is an ensemble piece, so to go for stunt casting and one famous name in the cast arguably shifts the vibe somewhat, never mind plonking Mulvaney at the top of the bill and as probably the most well known of the wives to boot. Wonder what atmosphere that makes for in the dressing rooms.

It’s deliberately provocative, and the fact they shut down their socials instead of dealing with the questions they surely knew people would ask is telling. You can’t build a show on the back of women’s stories and work then throw a spanner in the works like this without expecting some strong opinions.

I like musicals but never bothered with Six despite all the hype, because as pp alluded to the producers pulled out of appearing on Graham Norton’s(?) Radio 2 show (iirc) because JKR was a guest on the same day (a prerecord, not even there) and that was years ago. That’s been the measure of them from the start and it wasn’t very appealing, so this is hardly a surprise.

I think I defended Jinkx Monsoon because the Judy Garland play was a fringe-type production that depended on his involvement to exist. So there was an element of choice there. Six is already established and this is stunt casting for publicity and forces Mulvaney on the audience, like it or not.

They have politicised their show and forced their ideology on the audience, in a piece of work where being a woman is central to the whole premise. They naturally will pretend Mulvaney is as much of a woman as the rest of the cast and to think otherwise is awful bigotry. It’s gaslighting. As pp said it’s showbiz, and Mulvaney has every right to make a career for himself, but that he is happy to take this role in particular shows he knows and cares nothing about the issues at stake here.

Just seen a theatre critic (MickeyJo) post a very disappointing video about this on YouTube, accompanied by doubling down and misogyny from him in the comments.

He clearly has no respect for women and has completely failed to appreciate that as pp says this is a show built on women's stories.

I saw the film. It was all women. And surely everyone but people who think they are trans are non-binary i.e. don't have gender feelz? They are just people, some immutably male, some immutably female.

I thought panto season was over.