Sigh, Max on the L Word - right up there in the Top 10 bad fake beards.

Quote from: Berserk on November 30, 2011, 03:24:51 PM
Not really comparable at all. Like it or not, there's a heck of a lot of discrimination that still exists in the film industry today. Queer actors are usually chosen only to play queer roles. Rarely are gay men chosen to play the roles of heterosexual men, while heterosexual men are more often chosen to play queer roles. Relatively few lesbians are given roles on mainstream TV or in Hollywood films, period. Trans actors hired to play any roles in mainstream TV or Hollywood films are virtually non-existent. There is a reason why the majority of actors in Hollywood today tend to be white, heterosexual cissexed people, and that the greatest diversity of roles is only open to white, heterosexual, cissexed men, while the roles available to people of colour, women, queers and trans people are extremely limited, with trans people being among the most limited.

The fact the current entertainment environment is like this is not because they are "looking for qualified actors." Another member compared this to blackface. I strongly agree. There isn't a lot of acceptance of the lgbtq community in the film/TV industry today. Unless we're playing the "funny gay comedian" there is a huge shortage of roles being filled by lgbtq actors, whether they the roles are lgbtq roles or not.

Nor do I think the transition argument others made is valid, either. A season of TV show like Degrassi is filmed over a matter of a few months. Seasons themselves encompass a time period (in script) of a few months to a year). The changes that would occur during that period to a transguy beginning T would not be so significant as to screw up the timeline. If they were truly interested in representing a marginalized group accurately, they could have very well spoken with trans actors. They didn't. And one of the reasons according to their words seems to be that they think a female actor like the one they chose "better represented" a transguy because the actress now has to "learn male mannerisms," generally following the idea that transguys aren't "real" guys to begin with and need to "learn male behaviour." In their attempt to be "progressive" Degrassi managed to also be pretty transphobic.

For clarification, why is it necessary for the person playing the role to also have this medical condition? The purpose of acting isn't to relate your own life and your own experiences. You're supposed to dissociate completely from your real self. So, whether the bio female actor has a male identity in real life or not is irrelevant.

Quote from: Gifted on November 30, 2011, 04:12:53 PM
For clarification, why is it necessary for the person playing the role to also have this medical condition? The purpose of acting isn't to relate your own life and your own experiences. You're supposed to dissociate completely from your real self. So, whether the bio female actor has a male identity in real life or not is irrelevant.

First of all, I don't consider being trans a "medical condition," anymore than I consider being queer a "medical condition."

Second of all, your question would be relevant if we lived in a meritocratic society or if we had a meritocratic film industry that chose actors solely on the basis of their ability. We don't, however, live in such a society, nor do we have such a mainstream film industry. If trans people shared the same social equality as cis people, then this would not be an issue. Trans people do not share the same social equality as cis people. Trans people are severely underrepresented in our society and in the media, and there is a reason for that. This is where the comparison one poster made to blackface is very apt. At one point in recent history, black people were never if not rarely chosen to even portray black characters. It is only a reflection of the advancement of civil rights, that black people have even been given the chance to represent themselves and their experiences in the mainstream media. However, even today those roles are severely limited to "portraying the black experience," rather than being granted the wide array of roles available to white males.

Similarly with trans people, as a marginalized group it is important that we are given the opportunity to represent ourselves in mainstream media forms. It speaks volumes that there has been no mainstream film or TV show depicting a trans person as a main character that has opted to actually have a trans person play the role of a trans person. Those roles are always filled by cis people. It is not mere coincidence, nor meritocratic.

Quote from: Berserk on November 30, 2011, 04:49:00 PM
First of all, I don't consider being trans a "medical condition," anymore than I consider being queer a "medical condition."

Second of all, your question would be relevant if we lived in a meritocratic society or if we had a meritocratic film industry that chose actors solely on the basis of their ability. We don't, however, live in such a society, nor do we have such a mainstream film industry. If trans people shared the same social equality as cis people, then this would not be an issue. Trans people do not share the same social equality as cis people. Trans people are severely underrepresented in our society and in the media, and there is a reason for that. This is where the comparison one poster made to blackface is very apt. At one point in recent history, black people were never if not rarely chosen to even portray black characters. It is only a reflection of the advancement of civil rights, that black people have even been given the chance to represent themselves and their experiences in the mainstream media. However, even today those roles are severely limited to "portraying the black experience," rather than being granted the wide array of roles available to white males.

Similarly with trans people, as a marginalized group it is important that we are given the opportunity to represent ourselves in mainstream media forms. It speaks volumes that there has been no mainstream film or TV show depicting a trans person as a main character that has opted to actually have a trans person play the role of a trans person. Those roles are always filled by cis people. It is not mere coincidence, nor meritocratic.

Ah, okay. I compared it to cancer because I view my transsexualism as a medical issue and not an identity. It is a birth defect; a physical brain-body mismatch and this has been seen in autopsies. I can not fathom identifying with it and do not associate with the "queer community" whatsoever.
Perception, it seems, is nine tenths of everything.

Quote from: Gifted on November 30, 2011, 05:06:56 PM
Ah, okay. I compared it to cancer because I view my transsexualism as a medical issue and not an identity. It is a birth defect; a physical brain-body mismatch and this has been seen in autopsies. I can not fathom identifying with it and do not associate with the "queer community" whatsoever.
Perception, it seems, is nine tenths of everything.

The research that's been done on the matter does not necessitate that it be called a "birth defect." What the DTIs in studies that compared the white brain matter of pre-T transmen to cismen and ciswomen show is that pre-T transmen had white matter in the normal range of cissexed males with the exception of the corticospinal tract, which was higher than ciswomen and lower than cismen. This does not indicate a "birth defect" anymore than any other sex variation is a "birth defect." Since the late 18th century, the sciences sought to become the new authorities on normalization and "sin," in many respects creating "disorders" when individuals varied from the norms that were required in order to uphold patriarchal values. This is why for decades women were hospitalized and deemed "hysteric" for refusing to obey their husbands. Why black slaves were deemed "mentally ill" for trying to escape slavery. Why "homosexuals" (a modern term that pathologises normal human sexual variation to begin with) were deemed mentally ill for having sex with other men, because it was not upholding the "heterosexual" binary that was required to maintain white male colonial power. And this is why trans people today are still deemed "mentally ill" or "defective," because our very existence threatens the traditional limitations of that binary. We represent a biological sex variation rather than a "defect," which threatens the sex binary upon which our society today is so dependent.

Yet even the binary of the two sexes is fairly new. For centuries, and even as far back as the Roman Empire philosophers/"men of knowledge" believed that there was only one sex: the male sex. Women were perceived as defective men who had inverted male genitalia, but were not perceived as their own sex. During the 18th century this changed, and we have the sex binary we now have today.

The problem is that we cannot define sex concretely, and when science tries, it runs into difficulties when it encounters variation (as it does throughout the animal kingdom. Circumstances that do not fit the ideological binary, but which science has traditionally explained using the binary). Today, the more research that is done into the reproductive sciences and in biology, the greater understanding is being developed that the binary is not the be all and end all of human sex. Sex can be defined as genitalia until variation exists...which it does. Sex can be defined as chromosomes until variation exists...which it does. Sex can be defined by hormones until variation exists, which it does. And so on and so forth. Trans people are just another biological variation. Being intersexed is not a "birth defect" and neither is being trans. The social circumstances that created these groups as being "defective" is a heavily biased society that relies on a certain binary.

Additionally, you don't need to be a part of the queer community. None of what I said has anything to do with the queer community beyond the relationship between queer rights, trans rights, as well as civil rights for people of colour, and the rights of all marginalized communities. Like it or not there are marginalized people in our society. Like it or not, trans people are one of those communities. Just as people of colour needed to fight to represent themselves, instead of having white people paint their faces black and play the role of black people, so do trans people need to fight for further representation instead of having cis people play our roles...and especially during a time when many in our community lack basic equality.

He can call his trans* status whatever the hell he wants. If he considers himself being trans* as a birth defect then that is his prerogative. He didn't say you have a birth defect. Freedom of speech, people.

Quote from: Kameron on November 30, 2011, 06:25:16 PM
He can call his trans* status whatever the hell he wants. If he considers himself being trans* as a birth defect then that is his prerogative. He didn't say you have a birth defect. Freedom of speech, people.

He can call himself a defective male all he wants, however, when he uses that perception of defectiveness as a marker of judgement on the topic at hand, then it goes beyond his "mere opinion." As far as freedom of speech, I don't really take the American perspective that "everyone's opinions are just opinions." The reality is that certain methods of thought do have negative consequences, and considering the history the SoC and mainstream perspectives of trans people, the whole idea of us as a "mentally ill" group (heavily influenced by social bias and patriarchal values) has done a heck of a lot of harm. That harm makes itself evident in topics like this one, which is the severe lack of representation of trans people and other marginalized groups in the film and television industry.

Quote from: Berserk on November 30, 2011, 06:20:21 PM
The problem is that we cannot define sex concretely, and when science tries, it runs into difficulties when it encounters variation (as it does throughout the animal kingdom. Circumstances that do not fit the ideological binary, but which science has traditionally explained using the binary). Today, the more research that is done into the reproductive sciences and in biology, the greater understanding is being developed that the binary is not the be all and end all of human sex. Sex can be defined as genitalia until variation exists...which it does. Sex can be defined as chromosomes until variation exists...which it does. Sex can be defined by hormones until variation exists, which it does. And so on and so forth. Trans people are just another biological variation. Being intersexed is not a "birth defect" and neither is being trans. The social circumstances that created these groups as being "defective" is a heavily biased society that relies on a certain binary.

So if it's a variation and not a defect then why correct it and how does it cause psychological symptoms? I'm asking out of curiosity, not trying to make a point.

Quote from: Gifted on November 30, 2011, 07:00:36 PM
So if it's a variation and not a defect then why correct it and how does it cause psychological symptoms? I'm asking out of curiosity, not trying to make a point.

I'm not clear on what you mean by psychological symptoms. Do you mean dysphoria? Or do you also mean the close connection between being trans and depression/anxiety etc? With the former, I would say that dysphoria is not eh defining factor of whether someone is trans or not (and here I include identifying as transsexual, transgender or just simply trans). Some guys don't have any dysphoria at all while still identifying as trans, and so don't pursue any surgery or hormones. Others who don't experience dysphoria choose to hormones and surgery.

Remember, also, that the DTIs in these studies were run on pre-T transguys, so we have no real way of knowing if all the guys who participated in the study planned on taking T or getting surgery. As far as depression/anxiety, I see a lot of it as social, in that if being trans was more socially acceptable society wouldn't create the circumstances where a lot of us come to suffer depression/anxiety due to not being seen as our true selves within society.

I also question if we're not looking at being trans and "correcting" the body through modern Western eyes. If we look at identities that correlate to being trans in the Western world (for example kathoey in Thailand, hijra in Indian cultures etc.), we see a variety of approaches to medical transition and identity, as well as the way society views trans people.

As far as being a trans person who does go on T and opt for some kind of surgery, I guess one way I view that as a variation rather than disorder can be expressed through an example like the following:

If I place two transguys side by side, let's say myself as a guy who opts for T and top surgery and another transguy who doesn't feel he needs it, how do we account for the variation between us, if we are both supposedly the victims of a "birth defect"? Medical tradition tells us that what we have is "psychological disorder." Yet if the premise of this "disorder" is that brain structure (in this case, having white matter in normal male levels, showing a sexually dimorphic male brain while being in a supposedly "female" body) and exposure to prenatal androgens is what possibly "causes" it, then how do we account for the variation in our feelings to supposedly "correct" it? In order for being trans to specifically be a disorder it needs to have a measurable cause. Some hypothesise that that cause is the aforementioned "male brain structure/female body structure" scenario. Yet for the above to be a disorder, it needs to consistently cause some form of negative effect in all those who it supposedly "afflicts." If we have the same "psychological disorder" that requires "correction" in the form of physical transition, then why does only one of us want to "correct it" through medical transition, while the other does not? Why can one live perfectly happy as a guy in the body he was born into?

The answer, to this, imo, is that being trans is not defined by having body dysphoria.

To put it in other terms, if we have two intersexed people, one who wishes to retain the characteristics with which they were born, deeming it a natural variation in sex (as in the existence of more than one sex: male, female, intersexed etc.) while the other wants to seek "treatment" in order to fit the binary, is being intersexed really a "disorder"? Or is it only a disorder for some people? Or is it only a disorder in a society that deems cismale/cisfemale as the only natural/"healthy" sexes possible? And if it is only a disorder for some people and only in some social circumstances, then how can you account for there being a physical, biological cause for the "disorder" that creates two totally opposite effects wherein individuals bear the same biological markers, yet only one wishes to "correct" the so-called "disorder"? The "disorder" is, then, only defined by the one who wants to "correct" rather than the one who does not want to "correct."

It also depends on if the person sees it as a "correction" at all.

For me, yes the fact that I don't have top surgery causes me a lot of psychological distress, but I don't see my dysphoria as being what makes me trans. I see being trans and having dysphoria as two different things. I know some butch women, for example, who opt to have top surgery because they have chest dysphoria and absolutely abhor their chests, but neither do they identify as trans or as male. There trans individuals who were assigned female at birth, who go on T yet who don't identify as male. They simply want the physical effects of T without the male identity popularly attached to T.

All in all, I think that human sex is a very complex matter. The more researchers discover, the more complicated it becomes. Honestly, if some guys want to view that variation as a disorder, then that's fine. But the thing is that, I think it's also worth considering why some do view it as a disorder. It's also worth considering why society chooses to give those guys and their perception of themselves as having a disorder the spotlight when it comes to trans representations. It suits societies needs to see us as somehow defective, rather than as healthy variation. There's a medical tradition in the West that has often pathologized natural variation in human beings, interpreting discovery in such a way that it supports certain social structures.

We're all largely social animals. We're socialized in a variety of ways, and we are affected by those traditions. Having dysphoria can be a really painful experience. I definitely know that much, and being stuck with the chest and anatomy that I have has been hell. At the same time, I view being trans as different than that hell that I feel. Maybe it's because I've been around a variety of female identities who have felt similarly to the way I feel, yet who don't identify as male or non-female. I've been able to relate to woman-identified lesbians who want to be rid of their "female chest" as badly as I do. Yet they aren't trans. I've known some transguys that don't care about their chests.

It's definitely a complicated topic. Relating all this back to Degrassi's choice of actor. I dunno. I think that in many respects in making the choices they did, and ignoring the fact that there seems to be a disproportionate amount of trans people involved in the arts given our small numbers, I can't help but feel the choice they made and the representation they're giving is hugely superficial.

I think it's refreshing to see a trans character in the media. Young kids watch this show and it's nice to know they're getting educated about an issue that they wouldn't normally hear about. Degrassi has made coming out to young kids sooooo much easier. I came out to my friend's younger siblings the other day and after me and my friend had tried to explain it to them they still didn't get it. So my friend goes "You guys watch Degrassi right?" and they're like "Yeah" and so he says "He's like Adam" and they were like " Oh okay, that's cool."

@Berserk: IMO the variation is only considered "healthy" if the person is OK with it. So it a woman wants to chop off her tits, her body becomes a healthy and harmless variation of female.

Parallel example: if someone is born with a third arm and a brain-based body image that only includes two arms, they will think about amputating the third 24/7 until receiving medical intervention. This constitutes a birth defect IMO because it affects the person negatively. If someone else was born with a third arm yet had no desire to correct it, this not be a birth defect but a healthy, natural variation.

I agree that being trans (by "trans" I mean transsexual, not any other form of transgender) is not defined by having dysphoria. Being trans often causes a person to have gender dysphoria, but having gender dysphoria doesn't entail necessarily that a person is trans. There are other things which can cause it.

To me, having this kinda body causes psychological symptoms (of intense dysphoria and something akin to phantom limb syndrome) which can only be alleviated through medical intervention (hormone replacement and all available surgeries). Only then will my body cease to be deformed and become a healthy variation of male. Not every trans person is like this as you've exemplified; it varies on a case-by-case basis.

So about the Degrassi character, I don't know the objective answer (if one exists) but the choice of actor doesn't bother me due to the way I view it as a medical condition.

Quote from: Berserk on November 30, 2011, 07:55:41 PM
Then how can you account for there being a physical, biological cause for the "disorder" that creates two totally opposite effects wherein individuals bear the same biological markers, yet only one wishes to "correct" the so-called "disorder"?

Good question; I don't know. I would guess there are different degrees of severity. However, I am not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject.

Personally, I wish you guys would take it to private messages.  not only is it completely derailing the thread, but I think Berserk is saying things which could be offensive to some people besides me, and I think those things are better said in PM then.