This video talks primarily about the way that a lot of gatekeeping discourse in queer circles actually hurts closeted and questioning people, and how some of it copies transphobic narratives about trans women, ect.
I have been thinking about this for AWHILE now. I remember having an argument with my girlfriend (who has since changed her mind about the issue, though her position is now apathy) and my now ex-best friend (not over this argument, lol, much bigger issues) about the whole “only queer actors should take queer parts” issue. And for some reason at the time I didnt think of the “that would seriously hurt a closeted actors by basically becoming forced outing” at the time (but I thought of it before Sarah mentioned it in this video lol, it was bringing it up to my girlfriend that made me learn that she had shifted her position).
The thing about “men wearing skirts are predators looking to take advantage of women” seems especially toxic to me because it is literally the SAME thing said about trans women just targeted towards GNC men who still identify as cis instead. Its one of those things that for me should seem bad ON ITS FACE in a way to the people saying it, sort of like how I was shocked to see people who say they hate TERFs echoing ace exclusion discourse) .
I’ve also been against faux-progressive/social justice language being used for bullying and gatekeeping for a long time now.
So this is just another manifestation of that.
the whole “only queer actors should take queer parts” issue
John Early put it best: straight actors should play gay characters because it’s hot
But seriously, I find it odd that anyone thinks that gay cis characters should only be played by gay actors. As long as gay actors also play straight characters, which they can and have done for the entire history of the performing arts, then why does it matter? Generally I’d say it’s more important to have queer stories that are written/directed by queer people. If those queer writers and directors are comfortable with casting straight actors in their work then that’s cool. If they think a queer actor is better suited for that particular project then that’s cool too.
Of course it’s quite a different issue when it comes to trans characters, as openly trans actors have historically not been given opportunities in the film/TV industry. There certainly isn’t much precedent for openly trans actors playing cis roles in the same way that gay actors have played straight roles. But I think that is starting to change, and we will see more trans actors taking on roles that are not necessarily trans (really the majority of characters in media are not even explicitly stated to be cis or trans, if it’s not relevant to the story). For the present time I think it makes sense that most trans characters should be played by trans actors but there’s still some grey area. Are there times when it might make sense to cast a cis actor for a trans character, especially if the character is closeted/pre-transition? Yeah maybe, if it’s handled respectfully and there are trans people working on the project behind the scenes.
[sorry I haven’t seen Sarah Z’s video yet so I dunno if these same points were brought up. I’ll watch it later]
Tbh the queer actors in queer parts issue is not as much of a focus of the video as me mentioning it makes it seem. Its brought up as an example of something that can caused forced outing, which is a bigger focus. But yeah I agree with what you have to say here.
This is possibly tangential but the forced-outing thing makes me think of A Nightmare on Elm Street 2. The lead actor, Mark Patton, was a young closeted gay man who was essentially outed because the straight writer of the film altered the script to be a not-so-subtle allegory for homosexuality when he realized Patton was gay. It ruined the guys acting career because it was the 80s and being openly gay was still not acceptable in Hollywood. Quite a sad story but there’s a pretty good documentary about the whole thing.
The concept of roles being taken by people with the same traits irl was something interesting that I’d never thought about wrt LGBT before (I don’t consume much with actors in general). I have an ex who is a wheelchair user and I have my own disabilities, but invisible, so we did a lot of comparing notes on our experiences. She brought up how she believed characters with disabilities should be played by disabled actors and it took me a long time to understand why. This is a great point in the other direction but of course it doesn’t translate to the world of visible disabilities. I think it could translate to invisible disabilities since you’re not necessarily inherently “out” but I have to give it more thought.
After rereading this and considering I’m not super familiar with hexbear, I feel like I should also note I’m not trying to say LGBT is a disability, just that it’s an ethical guideline I’ve been taught before in one way and has “intersectional ramifications” if that makes sense.
Yeah as a disabled person I generally prefer that disabled people play disabled parts especially with intelectual disabilities because otherwise it just feels like a really crass parody even in the hands of a skilled actor. I dont like films like A Beautiful Mind and such.
But with queer parts it seems different to me even though I am also queer. While I can see how it seems like a good idea on the surface to apply it to queerness as well, the forced outing issue as well as other wrinkles make it different to me.
how I was shocked to see people who say they hate TERFs echoing ace exclusion discourse
Very curious about this, could you tell me more?
So like 4/5 years ago there was a trend of “discourse blogs” on tumblr that argued about whether “cishetero asexuals” should be included in the queer community. Unfortunately i discovered this because a few people on tumblr who I used to be friends with/respect who I was checking up on one day had fallen into the exclusionary side of this argument. This post here is one I saved because I summarizes a lot of their talking points, CW: for potentially triggering content, particularly if you’re sexual and/or romantic orientation are somewhere on the spectrum of acearo
Ace exclusion discourse basically cribs notes from TERF discourse heavily (as you can probably see from that link). But they’d always deny that and also say that they hate TERFs, suport trans people, include them in the LGBT community, ect. If they had a “Do not interact” list TERFs would be on it. A lot of these people would at least on the surface level SEEM to be otherwise progressive people and be very good at misappropriating and twisting social justice language to make excluding asexual and aromantic people from queerness sound progressive.
Ahhh, yeah. Now that you mention it, I’ve actually run into that attitude before, with LGBT people saying asexual people should be excluded because “They’re not oppressed.” Shit sucks.
Its luckily “fallen out of style” on tumblr and a lot of the people who were into the exclusionary side of the argument have backtracked with a pithy, disingenuouss little “well we lost that argument so I dont do discourse anymore, asexuals are included now” so while the fact that they just fell back in and blended in (or found new exclusionary causes to champion instead) sucks but the fact that it fell out of style to support those narratives so you’re seen as a crank if you still do it is at least good.
love me some sarah Z. great video! real people cant queer bait and non disclosing means none of your business. also i believe authentic queer art made by queer people always stands out, people just need to have a critical eye when viewing art instead of demanding to know the sexuality of the potentially closeted artist before consuming.
The like five instances of people being forced to out themselves because of criticism like this was really eye opening. Like the potential for that to happen was already an argument of mine but I didnt know there were so many occurrences already.
yeah its really upseting
[he/him] I really liked this video! It gave me a lot to think about and I’d never heard of their channel before. Thanks!
Glad I could introduce you then. She has a lot of really good content.
only queer actors should take queer parts
Still watching the video but this part of your comment really reminded me of something I’ve tried to work through. Maybe you can help. So race is different, for a lot of reasons I don’t want to get into.
spoiler
Blackface just as the beginning.
But I feel like as soon as you hit the inverse-implying a queer actor can’t play straight -theres just a visceral “no”.
Now on the one hand, I am sympathetic to the material reasons we should want queer actors in queer roles (just getting more jobs, full stop). So like when we just think of things like jobs, it feels like if a straight person takes a role from a queer person, that’s bad for the queer actors income. There’s also more lib representational concerns, but I’m less invested in that
However there’s also a more aesthetic/theoretical concern. I can’t exactly articulate it but perhaps it’s because in performance, isn’t part of it sympathetically understanding someone who isn’t you? So to imply a queer actor can’t understand the straight experience or vise versa is a stake in the heart of empathy more generally. Obviously “sincere” queer art has a certain cache, but all art is lies that lead to the truth. (I recognize this is only one school of acting/fiction theory, but it’s the school I buy into so that might be it).
I guess part of what bugs me is there’s this whole thing about making art “real” and that somehow the more “real” it is the better it is. Here’s the fucked up example that I think brings this out. The animated Disney films from the 90s are legit art. Meanwhile every “live action” remake has been shit, even if it’s more “realistic”. Good art doesn’t rely on realism as such.
Obviously casting a queer or straight actor isn’t exactly the same as this, but there’s a similar impulse behind it (i.e. a queer or straight actor being cast “cis” to their sexual orientation is somehow “more” real than the alternative, and “real” or “authentic” is the metric of quality).
I’m a bit drunk, so feel free to just ignore these ramblings. But if any comrades want to give some clarity on this thorny issue I’d appreciate it.
Video has been great btw.
I don’t have a good cleanup to this, except to quote some Shakey from A Midsummer Night’s Dream
The poet’s eye, in fine frenzy rolling,
Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven;
And as imagination bodies forth.
The forms of things unknown, the poet’s pen.
Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing.
A local habitation and a name.
I don’t really have much to add here. The “queer roles should be for queer actors” thing is a pretty small part of the video, she just mentions at one point that an actor who played a bi character in a TV show was harassed because of that and then was basically forced to out himself as bi as a result. And for me, the MAIN concern behind the idea that that should be policy is my fear of forced outing. I want to support my closeted and questioning comrades as I was questioning for a long time.
But yeah, idk I know you were more thinking aloud then stating an opinion but I still come around to saying “I agree with what you said here” anyway? Lol sorry. Hoping someone comes around that can help you more.
Oh yeah I finally got to the forced outing and that’s really way bigger a concern than my aesthetic ones. It’s just such a thorny/knotty issue, made worse by art under capitalism.
Also yeah, I’m just pondering here.
but I appreciate your reading and agreeing.
[he/him] I agree with how you talk about making art “real” (well, everything you said, really), and I had the same thought I had while watching the video… I think people might want to use the word relatable instead (like, general society, not you specifically). In the video’s case it was her use of “rep” or representing. I think what people might be really looking for in media/art is to relate to others and for validation, but aren’t finding the right words for it, and the words might then be used in a different way than originally intended. Like how when watching a show I might feel like a person really “represents” the struggles I’ve experienced but later on bad behavior makes me question if that person is a good “representative” for my situation. It’s harder to do that with “relate”.
It also seems really strange to even consider keeping a queer actor from a straight role… They have their entire life before coming out as experience “acting” in that type of role. Maybe that even makes them more qualified than a straight person because they might be much better equipped to define where the line is between themselves and the character.
I dunno if this all makes sense but the video and comments here have lit up a part of my brain that I’m having fun exploring.
