Forgive my ignorance but I thought gender fluid was Bi? The news story I read about it on straight up said as much.
So what is gender fluid?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Disney casts their first openly gay character, is played by a straight man, will be a stereotype
- Thread starter Razmos
- Start date
So what is gender fluid?
I could just be on the wrong side of this, but I really don't find an issue with roles being cast outside of the persons actual orientation. However, that's a different issue than queer people being locked out of roles and being discriminated against by an entire industry/society. So if people are just using this as a way to visibly display that issue, then I am more understanding of the issue of this topic.
I don't think that's the issue as such - you make it seem like it's a shame that white actors can't play black roles because of the bad connotations of blackface.
Except she's not cis het and she was chased off twitter by a bunch of elitist jackasses from within the LGBT community for essentially not being the 'right' kind of queer. I don't see these issues as related at all.
No, my statement was merely factual, without emotion. You can't do certain things because prior history exists.
I think there's a strong component of privilege Jack Whitehall is enjoying when folks rush to the defense of his casting that Ruby Rose did not. If you don't see a point of comparison between the two sets of reactions that's a you thing not a me thing.
I really don't understand what your point is then. Are you saying the issue isn't that a white actor couldn't act as a black man better than a black actor, it's that previously blackface has had racial connotations so that's why they aren't allowed to do it, and that's bad?
No, I'm saying it's not acceptable now, and doing it would be bad.
If this was really about positive representation there are plenty of great LGBT actors out there. And if you are going an over the top male comedy route get someone like Jim Parsons or Neil Patrick Harris.
Oh, ok. I think i misconstrued your "in an ideal world it'd be ok" comment to mean "i'd prefer it if white actors could play black roles" (specifically as you mentioned blackface being the barrier). However i may be putting a spin on your words that you hadn't intended. I'd tweak what you said a little to say that in an ideal world it wouldn't matter if the character in your film is gay/straight or any particular race or gender, and that only the story is important. But if you're going to pick a particular gender, race or sexual orientation for that character then I'd argue it's still important for someone who matches that to play them.
I don't think the racial history of blackface is really the reason that we shouldn't have any actor playing minority roles - having straight white actors in those roles robs minority actors of role models, representation in the industry and continues to normalise the idea that it's not important for those roles to be filled by the people they represent. The making them a caricature also does damage to the perception of minorities too, but that's a whole different story.
Last edited:
Nah. Make the character not a stereotype and let a gay man play them.
I have a bigger issue with this reportedly being a stereotype than I have with the casting. In fact, I don't really see the issue with the latter. I think it matters a lot more that LGBT actors get cast in general, and get good parts. Otherwise there's a risk typecasting.
I'm happy this backlash exists, because we've matured to the point of understanding that queer characters played by straight people is a pretty cheap and insulting method of representation. I think their hearts are in the right place here, but we're at the point now where queer people should be able to represent themselves. Let gay people play gay characters, let trans people play trans characters, etc. It's more responsible as a shared culture and allows representation to be navigated authentically.
Did you have a problem with Eddie Redmayne playing a transgender person?
OP
OP
I haven't even seen this movie but given the context, yes I would have a problem with that.
Yeah, that's shitty of Disney. Let people own their own milestones. Why would they think this is ok? Then I read the thread and realize, well fuck, a lot of people, even here, are fine with it.
I think the issue isn't numerical representation; LGB actors at least are almost-certainly overrepresented in Hollywod compared to their numbers among the general population. This is more about how those actors are cast. They are underrepresented in major motion pictures (MCU, I'm looking at you, Star Wars too) and as leads in films and shows. So there's cause for anger there, no doubt, and still progress to be made.
I think - hope - what he means is that while in principle any actor should be able to play any role the reality is there's a history of examples that override the principle and require more consideration to who plays what role. I reads as you note but I think this is just the sentence construction. I hope so anyway!
While I'm back in the thread again I'll add that while I agree with the principle the fact that white/straight actors have already had the privilege of playing any role that's the core of why it's important the under-represented actors by race or sexuality need to be given more opportunity. I suppose this is seen as the dreaded "forced diversity" spouted about in complaint but seriously when the situation is out of balance you have to force some change to get it actually balanced. It shouldn't be fought but embraced for the positive action it is.
You must have missed that shitstorm that was punctuated with him giving a terrible performance
You're telling me Disney couldn't find a prominent gay actor to fill the role of a gay character? Really? Regardless, this is the first time Disney is going to include an openly gay character in one of their movies, so they should at least attempt to do it with some measure of grace and respect for the LGBT community.
Did you even read my post? You have me really misunderstood lol.
thanks for clarifying, was trying to look for studies on this yesterday but was having a brain fade searching for any.
I have no problem with the casting - in fact to me it's a non-issue
It's the stereotyping for me that's the problem
Why did no-one within Disney look at this and consider how it would be received
It's the stereotyping for me that's the problem
Why did no-one within Disney look at this and consider how it would be received
I don't mean to be a downer or anything, but this is just in Resetera. Where people are more or less forced to argue their points.
Imagine places like twitter and YouTube? People "don't see an issue" and are left uncontested. Which just reinforces the idea that things should stay as is.
Oh! and if you're a gay person who "sees no problem" with this, then realize that much of what you enjoy now was paid for in blood, death and violence. It still is.
Stop being the gay equivalent of a coon and announcing it like some badge of honor.
Imagine places like twitter and YouTube? People "don't see an issue" and are left uncontested. Which just reinforces the idea that things should stay as is.
Oh! and if you're a gay person who "sees no problem" with this, then realize that much of what you enjoy now was paid for in blood, death and violence. It still is.
Stop being the gay equivalent of a coon and announcing it like some badge of honor.
Oh, I wasn't aware that LGBTQ+ people were being murdered everyday. Being a gay person living in the country with the most violent deaths of LGBTQ+ people in the world wasn't doing it, but your condescending argument finally made me see it. Thanks!
Seriously, come on. I don't see a problem with this casting like I do with whitewashing or cis people getting trans roles, I'm much more concerned with how the character is handled since I think that is what is gonna stick. Calling gay people who disagrees with you as simply misinformed of our community's struggles or "the gay equivalent of a coon" (seriously?) is insulting.
"I don't see the issue"
"Here is why it's an issue"
"No you're wrong"
K. So like you don't see the issue or you don't want to see it?
"Here is why it's an issue"
"No you're wrong"
K. So like you don't see the issue or you don't want to see it?
Then -don't- see the problem. But don't get upset when people call you out on it. I'm sorry if my wording insulted you.
You should know better than anyone why LGBT people are saying what they are or why they're upset about this decision. That you choose to prioritize other (important) aspects, doesn't make this any less so.
Last edited:
I thought the movie was quite good and he got nominated for best actor so at least the majority seems to agree.
Star Wars can do more, especially for a franchise that visualizes its good guys as the diverse fraction in the galactic war, but the queer tones in Rogue One were at least a start: http://www.vulture.com/2016/12/star-wars-rogue-one-gay-baze-chirrut.html
Throwing racial slurs at somebody who disagrees with you isn't a convincing way to make an argument.Pekola said:
Last edited:
Agreed completely with both of these
It's been pretty clear for a while they don't want to see it.
In hindsight, I don't think it was the correct word to use. I am just frustrated and lashed out.
Call me out all you want, but assuming that the only way gay people would disagree with you is being unaware of our history or a "gay equivalent of a coon" is insulting. Not the wording.
And I understand why some LGBTQ people take issue with the casting, I just don't agree with them.
It's cool, but I've seen others in this thread who keep making bad comparisons to race and the Black struggle. Black is not a sexual orientation or gender nor is LGBTQ+ a race of people.
Nah, I'm just calling out the gay people who are okay with this decision and saying it as though there was actually no problem, when it's pretty clear that there is.
Unless you think it's not a problem, or it's not a problem worth discussing. And if you don't, then why not? Are you okay with things as they are?
LGBTQ is 5-7% of the population.
Even if all of them were united on an issue they will never be the "majority", it's kind of baked into the premise of "minority".
If the "majority" doesn't see an issue with something, it's not because it's not an issue, it's because the majority is de facto the group that's most content with the status quo.
The "majority" of Victorian society didn't think women should vote or own property. Doesn't make it any less bullshit back then, or now.
The majority will never see "issue" with something, until the minority convinces them otherwise. It's the majority's destiny to sit on their hands and do nothing until moved to emotion.
Isn't the actor/actress supposed to be chosen because he/she fits the role ? why does it matter if the dude/gal are straight or not, it's just acting at the end of the day...
the role being a stereotype one is the real problem there.
the role being a stereotype one is the real problem there.
Think about why lots of actors choose to stay in the closet during their careers or why they only choose to come out once they've "made it".
If an openly gay actor is deemed "too gay" to play straight roles, and all the gay roles are being snatched up by straight people before they can even get in the door, what are they supposed to do?
I don't think this specifically casting is a problem, no. LGB people play support roles all of the time, they're not underrepresented in that way like trans or non-white actors are. That doesn't mean I disagree that there's a problem with the lack of LGBTQ characters or gay actors with leading roles.
And of course I think it's worth discussing, it's good that people are talking about these things, even if I disagree.
This is the biggest thing for me. It's the stereotype aspect of this that pisses me off more than anything else. Sexuality is not a punchline.
The biggest example of this I can recall is Game of Thrones. The knight Loras Tyrell was written by George RR Martin to be a widely praised warrior who is secretly gay and a passionate lover of the king's brother. It's rumored that he is gay but it is not his defining trait and above all else, he is loyal to his lover.
In the show, Loras is defined entirely by his sexuality and it becomes a running joke after a few seasons, in jokes that basically amount to "haha Loras likes dick". He sleeps with or flirts with most other male characters he encounters and when not being shown as a punchline for a gay joke, he's shown in a token gay hookup scene to show how "open minded" the writers are. Oberyn Martell, who is bisexual, immediately shows stereotypes as well, being portrayed as a sex-crazed player.
As someone who has struggled with their sexuality growing up, portrayals like this do plenty of harm. LGB characters when cast as stereotypes are pretty much always used as punchlines, making sexuality into a laughing matter for the amusement of straight people. Straight people defend these portrayals with comments like "well at least they're being represented at all". But that logic in the situation of a straight actor playing an LGB stereotype is pretty much the equivalent of defending white actors using blackface to portray black stereotypes for white amusement by calling it inclusive and praising the presence of a "black" character.
Straight actors could play gay characters if the writing is mature and the sexuality is not used as a laughing matter but that seems to be too much for most of Hollywood.
I don't really disagree that it's a bigger problem, but in this instance I'm only meaning to respond to your comments over why some people may want a gay actor to play a gay character.
I think for the most part folks here seem agreed on the fact that Disney's first major LGBTQ character potentially leaning into campiness is problematic. I just mean to share some personal insight on the nature of gay actors and gay characters, which seems to be a larger source of active disagreement in this thread.
Where do you guys read this kinda stuff? This is so off base it's almost funny.
Genderfluid is someone who doesn't fully identify as male or female. The 'fluid' part tends to connotate that some days the person in question feels more one gender, maybe another day feels more non-binary. It ebbs and flows.
Fluid sexuality I guess would be bi, depending on the bi person. Gender Identity =/= sexual orientation tho
One of those ''news' things you get on chrome mobile homepage.
