I don't think straight actors playing queer characters is straightwashing. The characters are still queer. The lack of queer actors in Hollywood is a problem, I do acknowledge that, as is straight actors getting so much praise for 'being so brave' and acting in queer roles, but them playing in queer roles isn't really what I'd call straightwashing.
Of course straight actors should be allowed to play gay roles, however the fact that so often gay actors are presumed not to be able to play straight characters believably creates a catch 22 where queer actors aren’t allowed to play straight roles and don’t get cast in queer ones either because their names are too low profile. Casting queer actors for queer roles would be an important start in creating better representation in Hollywood. This is also vital for trans people in particular, if a trans woman isn’t even considered for a trans character, we’re an awfully long way off a trans person being cast as a cis character.
Also the fact still remains that queer stories keep being told through a straight or cisgendered lens. Our stories aren’t being told by us at least not on a large scale, which leaves space for the kind of misinformation and ignorance displayed by Jared Leto in some of his speeches and publicity about Rayon. He doesn’t understand the trans experience, so what should be exposure and representation for trans people turns into exposure for a cis male who doesn’t understand why what he’s saying is offensive.
There’s still this odd sense that the gay characters and queer stories we’re seeing on screen - at least the one’s we’re seeing on a larger scale away from the indie scene - are permissible and financed because the actors aren’t actually queer. Gay characters are a reasonable bet financially, but gay actors are not. So on the one hand you get a queer character on screen but on the other you’re also being told that your identity is only ok if it’s fictional, if you’re a character rather than a person.
WHY IS A CIS MAN GETTING AN AWARD FOR PLAYING A TRANS WOMAN
because that’s what ACTING is you fucking stupid child
No. Because The Academy like to give awards to straight white men whilst paying lip service to wider issues without actually having to confront those issues head on. If they actually wanted to celebrate a film which handles trans issues they’d have recognised something like Gun Hill Road which actually stars a trans woman as a trans woman.
The real question is not why did Jared Leto get an award - The Oscars are pretty inconsequential really, everyone knows they’re arbitrary - it’s why did the role of Rayon go to a cis male in the first place? And really, why did Hollywood decide yet again to make a movie about queer issues focused on a cis straight protagonist? It happened with Philadelphia where the larger story is how Denzel Washington’s heterosexual homophobe renounces his prejudices rather than the story of a gay man dying of Aids. Even Rent’s main character is a straight white male.
Our stories are consistently told through the straight, white cisgendered lens, even when they’re about something as inextricably tied to the queer community as Aids.
So no it’s not “stupid” or childish to point out the problems inherent in Jared Leto’s success in playing a queer role. It’s actually really important. Note that no one is actually saying he didn’t give a good performance, just that his casting and subsequent lauding are indicative of a larger social issue. The disparity between the fact that so many straight, cis actors have been celebrated for being so “brave” in playing queer and trans characters - Hilary Swank in Boys Don’t Cry, Tom Hanks in Philadelphia, Sean Penn in Milk, Philip Seymor Hoffman in Capote, Charlize Theron in Monster, the list goes on - and the almost total lack of queer actors in Hollywood and queer nominees at The Oscars is both glaringly obvious and representative of a huge problem.
Hollywood loves to represent queerness ( interesting to note that the majority of the role are real life people) but only when it’s represented by straight, cis actors. Similar to how Hollywood tends to whitewash people of colour in its movies, we’re getting straight-washed. They’re making us think we’re being represented, when actually our stories are just being appropriated to make Hollywood look less bigoted.
gay students need sex education specific to their lifestyles just as much as straight people, saying that straight sex should be the main focus of sex ed “because they are the majority” is like saying you only care about kids’ safety if they act the way you think…
The thing is sex ed doesn’t even teach you about sex. It teaches you reproduction. Sex ed tells you that reproductive, penetrative heterosexual sex is what sex is. Kids aren’t being taught about sex, they’re being taught how to make babies - and they wonder why so many teens are getting pregnant nowadays.
Not only is this completely ignoring queer kids, it’s also focused solely on male pleasure. I saw several diagrams of penises in sex ed at school both erect and flaccid, but no diagrams of vaginas at all, only uteri and ovaries. Way to tell teenage girls that they’re more than just incubators.
The clitoris was never once mentioned and neither was non-penetrative sex. If you want kids to stop accidentally getting pregnant, teach them about oral sex, stop perpetuating the myth that anything other than full penetration is somehow less. Tell teenagers about fingering and hand jobs and how to stay safe during those acts as well.
And of course, this focus solely on penetration completely ignores female pleasure. Young women are being taught from every direction that they’re not supposed to be enjoying sex and sex ed as it is now is not only reinforcing that in the way it teaches (or doesn’t teach) female anatomy but is also perpetuating it in reality by not teaching young men how to make sex good for women too - or, perhaps even more destructively, that female pleasure is even a priority.
Anyone know if Skype are doing anything to prevent strangers from trying to contact you? Someone random tried to call me today in the middle of a session with my girlfriend - I changed my call settings to “contact only” (i wasn’t aware that they weren’t already) but my IM settings have been “contact only” since I joined and I still get strangers trying to contact me or add me.
Surely Skype should be doing something about this right?
“Racism is not in your intent. Your intent is immaterial in how racist your actions are. This isn’t about you BEING a racist. It’s about you DOING A THING that is racist. Your intent doesn’t change it. Your ignorance of its meaning doesn’t change it. It’s got nothing to do with you as a person and everything to do with the meaning of your action in the context of sociocultural history.”—