Maybe we should ease up a little in some places.

[Everbrooke]

There is a music video I enjoy quite a bit.  It is "We Exist" by Arcade Fire.  In it, Andrew Garfield plays a transgender woman who is clearly going out for what may be the first time as a woman.  We see the process before having him walk down a very country looking road.  The cars suggest that this is either a place outdated from current affairs, or perhaps taking place in the past(as do the dance routines and other set pieces at the later bar scene).  This video got controversy for not using a transgender actor.

Now, I actually do have a problem in this field in a number of places.  In Transamerica, the actual transgender actors who got to basically play themselves in bit parts manage to seem very centered in their chosen gender, while Felicity Huffman keeps up the awkward act.  I actually also really like THIS movie, but have many bones of contention with it.  I own a copy of "Whipping Girl" and agree completely with her sentiment on the film.  I've seen people be less generous to a film that completely clunks along, even if it does so ignorantly.  In that case, and in cases like the up and coming movie "About Ray" I honestly think the argument stands legitimately.

It does not in the case of We Exist.  In this case we get so little of the story that immediately identifying the character as transsexual is right out, meaning we don't know where in the umbrella of gender the character stands.  He is simply dressing in drag.  Will he choose to be a Drag Queen?  A ->-bleeped-<-?  These things are not addressed, and when asked about it, the Director and Band said that was on purpose because they wanted the message..."WE EXIST"...to transcend any one group.

A musician who was clearly inspired by David Bowie, making a song and video trying to give us saturation should not immediately be resonded with disdain because they went with a well known actor for a 3 minute part that never clarifies the characters actual stance on gender.  This seems like we are going full steam ahead and looking for things to find offense over.  Many may point out that this is mostly "Against Me!" talking, and her voice is actually very much an example of what I hear from a number of my peers.

The music video thing, though, is largely silly.  Another more glaring example of this mindset for me comes in the form of the Glasgow Pride Festival that decided it was acceptable to ban Drag Queens as offensive to the trans community.  Are you kidding me, they ARE PART of the trans community, and I don't really understand how we've reached the point where we are blindly trying to kick out one group for the comfort of another when both groups regularly face discrimination.  I also have a HUGE problem understanding how someone got it into their heads that Drag Queens were insulting trans people...at ALL!

My problem isn't that I don't think these things shouldn't be addressed, it is in the nature of the address and the very versatile and far reach the movement seems to be throwing it's voice.  As a community I feel we need to center ourselves and develop something akin to NAACP that could try and deal, in an organized fashion, with the blatant ignorance and lack of research done in matters like this.  This raw uncontrolled outrage could be a problem for legitimate issues since the average uninundated person sees the trans community represented by advocates who seem to want to "cry wolf" at anything remotely off.  We need more lee-way.  This is coming from someone who is absolutely for more trans-actors getting work, and more trans-artists getting contracts.  I just think there is a better way to go about it than what I'm seeing, and it gets very frustrating to watch.

[FTMax]

The issue with cis actors playing the part of trans people is multifaceted. It's nice to have some kind of representation, but having a cis person play a trans person is akin to a white actor in black face. It's appropriation at best, and offensive at worst. Even at its core, Arcade Fire has said the song is about a gay person coming out to their father - not trans related at all. It just sends a lot of convoluted messages. The sentiment behind "We Exist" is a good one, but there was no "we" in the video.

Glasgow removed their ban after the fact, after they were basically told off by people. As far as drag performers go, this community includes them in the trans umbrella. Others do not. A quick look online will show you the issues that people take with drag performance. Just because you don't feel a certain way doesn't mean that others are having the same experience. I'm not saying we should bend and accommodate individuals that take issue with drag performers, but an effort should be made to understand why they feel the way they do - and that root issue should then be addressed.

I'd be shocked if you could gather enough trans people with similar view points together to form or back a specific organization like the NAACP. The community has so many splintered interest groups (access to healthcare, employment security, poverty & homelessness, media representation, etc.) - it would be nice if there was one entity working on everything, but we're all quite different. The trans experience isn't a universal one, despite the "common trans narrative" - and you prove this in your post by talking about what people take issue with that you don't. If we can't even agree on what we're offended by, there's no way we could form an organization to become the public face of the trans community.

[Tysilio]

There's a phase that many groups go through when they begin to organize to fight discrimination: people are angry at the way they've been treated, and for the first time, they have an outlet for that anger, but they turn it on each other. One reason for this may be that it's safer to attack your own than it is to attack those with more power. Another is that there are always people who believe that the path to acceptance lies in showing society at large that they're "respectable" and not to be feared.  This happened in the civil rights movement of the 60s between the Black Power movement and more mainstream groups like the NAACP, it happened with second wave feminism when NOW rejected lesbians (Google "lavender menace" if you don't know about this), and it has happened at various times within the LGBT movement. There's an urge to say "But we're not like those people, we're just like you really!"

And this is also one of the reasons why it's so hard for any group to form a united front. Diversity leads to infighting, unfortunately.

I'd like to know whether Glasgow Pride's attempt to exclude drag queens was something that originated within such a segment of the trans community, one which values "respectability" over solidarity, or whether it came from the LG side. In the latter case, I'd bet that "they make us look bad" was still part of the motivation.

Saying they wanted to do it so as "not to offend" trans people is pathetic, mealymouthed BS, and I'm glad people jumped on them about it.

[IdontEven]

It's nice to have some kind of representation, but having a cis person play a trans person is akin to a white actor in black face.

Disclaimer : I haven't seen the vid in question. And I'm not specifically calling you out ftmax, but this argument in general. Please don't feel like I'm directing any of this at you specifically.

The whole thing about actors and acting is it's someone pretending to be or do a thing they really aren't. Okay so white people can't pretend to be black people. I can get behind that but only because it's probably pretty easy to tell you're looking at a white person when the story is telling you they're black. It ruins suspension of disbelief. It's an artistically poor choice.

But the argument is that it's wrong from an authenticity standpoint or something, if I'm not totally missing the mark. That it's wrong to use someone who's not what they're attempting to portray when someone who is can be found. So where does it become acceptable for an impostor to pretend a thing, and what makes it so?

Is it okay for someone who grew up with a normal home life to portray someone who was raised in an abusive household? How about someone who's never been to jail acting the part of someone in prison? Is the ideal to have the actors be as authentic as possible with the reality of market and other forces a necessary evil that should be downplayed as much as possible?

Personally I have zero problems with a cis person portraying trans, it really comes down to intent. However misguided the execution may or may not be, if there was no malicious or overtly callous intent then I have a really hard time getting offended over it in a political sense. I'd rather see an endeavor be successful from an artistic and even capitalistic standpoint than have 100% authenticity in its casting or any other decisions.

Just because you know what it's like to be trans doesn't mean you can conjure that whole thing up and put it on display for the camera, or you have the right colored eyebrows to match your supposed hair color (I'm looking at you Khaleesi >:/), or you're the right height or level of attractiveness or your requested compensation is within budget or you have the right levels of box office draw or name recognition etc etc etc.

I also think this sort of thing is short sighted and hurts more than having a trans actor would help. If you're so busy looking a gift horse in the mouth that any attempt to include you or reach out becomes too much trouble then you stop getting gift horses and become a third rail.

[Tysilio]

Well said, give or take the mixed metaphor at the end. Those horses need to get off the tracks before they're run over!!

Seriously -- these are very well-taken points.

[Everbrooke]

I also think this sort of thing is short sighted and hurts more than having a trans actor would help. If you're so busy looking a gift horse in the mouth that any attempt to include you or reach out becomes too much trouble then you stop getting gift horses and become a third rail.

Thank you so much!  That was so well said.  You even got my general thoughts on acting in their.  It's especially hard for me since I've come to the realization, which I think is simply healthy, that being trans will still be a part of me even if in the future they can flush my body with nanites which transform my body fully into a biological female(yeah, probably not gonna happen, but just bear with me).  I mean that the journey is part of my experience now...period, and I simply wouldn't be the same person, have the same political views, or even the same philosophy to life had I been..."normal"...in this case this quote really rung out to me.  It's from the lead singer of Arcade Fire, Win Butler.

"[it would be] pretty damn powerful ... for a gay kid in Jamaica to see the actor who played Spider-Man in that [part]".

I hate to say it, but Andrew Garfield was a well known figure at the time of the video's release, and we don't HAVE any trans actors with that kind of saturation.  There are parts of the world where a trans actor might even get the video banned!

Reading this article, I can really feel what they wanted to get across, even if you think it's flawed:
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/may/26/win-butler-defends-arcade-fire-we-exist-video

I'm linking this article because the video in question is also included in HD.  Kinda hard to talk about something if people haven't seen it.

Anyway, it was one example, in an area I think is premature to be in.  I think understanding and knowledge of transgender people will eventually lead to more trans actors in the public eye, which to some extent is already happening with projects like Orange is the new Black.  The bigger issue is in the social scene, where I brought up the Glasgow controversy as an example.  I understand perfectly well why some people might feel insulted by the Drag community, but I think concentrating on that might miss how the Drag community may feel about how the Drag community is felt.  Saying I need to understand blatant isolationism kinda largely misses the understanding for the group being isolated.  I have been isolated for being weird before, bad feeling that.

Ivan Coyote addressed the bathroom issues they face in the book Gender Failure.  In it they talk about using women's restrooms but looking for all purposes like a man.  They talk about how they understand and feel for women who seem uncomfortable in such situations as a man invading a place that is supposed to be for private use of embarrassing body functions is horrible.  He goes on to state that this perceived danger doesn't live up to the fact that he has suffered kidney damage from not being allowed into any restroom, and has literally been attacked in either restroom he's chosen to use on multiple occasions.  I feel this is what I feel about this over-sensitive approach to the issues at hand.

All in all, I feel maybe my communication style may overcomplicate the thought, which I feel has been addressed pretty well by IDontEven, and Tysilio.  I want to thank everyone involved in the conversation too, it's nice that this forum is so civil that we aren't breaking down into petty insults to talk about such issues.  A real sign of hope moving forward for me