#transerasure

The Danish Girl, Lili Elbe herself, is an important historical figure in trans history, being one of the first identifiable recipients of reassignment surgery in the 1930s - it was then they found she was intersex, with evidence of both female and male organs. Lili, who was even mistaken as a woman when she was presenting as a man, started presenting and living as a woman after modelling for her then-wife’s fashion illustrations. As Eddie Redmayne says, there were PhDs written about her, and of course there was a novel written about her, the very novel that Working Title Films is currently attempting to execute. It would usually be something to celebrate except that after their engagement of Tom Hooper as director, he in turn engaged a cis man, Eddie Redmayne, to play the historical trans woman.

The trans community is sadly used to marginalisation, whether in person or in media, but it is astounding the sheer disrespect accorded to a real person so important to trans history. Working Title Films and Tom Hooper should be held responsible for their approach and casting choice to engage a cis man to play a very important historical trans woman, who was intersex in the first place. The big guns involved, in fact, are cis men appropriating a trans woman’s story for profit. Hiring a cis man to play a real woman is like hiring someone to blackface Martin Luther King Jr - and the white guy says OK. In the movie summary for The Danish Girl, you will see them use Lili’s male name and refer to her with male pronouns. So does the media. This blatant disrespect of Lili’s transition and struggle, the emphasis on making it a story of a ‘man’ who becomes a woman as opposed to a woman who finally becomes who she is, is something that no living trans person would stand for. Yet, a historical figure, dead and gone, is exploited and addressed as a fictional character because the media feels that the true story of a woman finding herself is not worth making a movie about.

Eddie Redmayne should also be held responsible for agreeing to appropriate a trans role for several reasons. This is always an unpopular opinion with the fans, but for a man who is in several feminist campaigns, it is jarring that Eddie is actively contributing to trans erasure for his own benefit, and something he shouldn’t be doing as a celebrity that portrays himself as kind, enlightened and for all good causes of equality.

Here is a mild-mannered Change.org petition asking Working Title Films, Tom Hooper and Eddie Redmayne to cast a trans woman as The Danish Girl and withdraw Eddie.  Though it’s obviously too late to change casting, please consider signing it to let all involved parties know that their casting choices are unacceptable, as all signatures and messages go to a valid Working Title email address.

During the time The Danish Girl was announced, there were call-outs of trans erasure (impressively leading Eddie’s tumblr tag to be associated with the phrase) and defenses of Working Title Films, Tom Hooper and Eddie’s decision. Here are answers and analysis to the common defenses of this decision.

“Why the hell would they cast a transwoman to be a transwoman?”

Unfortunately it’s obvious you have not bothered to read the analysis because it has answered every single one of the points in your expletive-laden response. Besides the fact that Lili was intersex and looked like a woman - and for whatever reason, women are cast to play women’s roles these days - here is why they SHOULD cast a transwoman to be a transwoman.

It is a huge issue that Hollywood is not interested in hiring trans actors and actresses, and it is a problem that they’re hiring cis people in their place instead. The problem with not holding actors who take these roles accountable, is that you are assuming two things: 

1. The assumption that actors are not accountable for taking the role. However: Leto and Redmayne did not NEED to take the role as both of them were not struggling entertainers at the point they took them - they CHOSE to. In choosing to do so, they actively participate in trans erasure and take the roles away from the people most qualified to play them. In fact, the ONLY roles that trans actors/actresses are ever even considered to play in the Hollywood world.

2. The assumption that there are no negative consequences consequences when cis people play trans or minority characters. There are - it actively marginalises minority actors who can’t even play people from their own space in popular culture. Lili Elbe was a major historical transwoman. Roles where Hollywood could bring itself to find transwomen acceptable come so far and few between that transactresses have barely any opportunities, and being able to play a transwomen breaks through glass ceilings that these women face in their jobs and in media. 

We would love for trans actors and actresses to play cis people, but that’s not happening because Hollywood still finds it difficult to accept cis women and men who don’t fit the default fit/white/pretty mould, much less trans people. We have to hold everyone involved accountable and drive for minorities to play the roles that were written about them and their pioneers because representation is so scarce. It’s not just about acting or just a movie - media’s influence is so strong that it affects what people think and how they treat others. It affects what people who have never come into contact with minorities expect of them when they finally meet them or engage in some removed way with them. It affects the way that people then think about national and international policies in regards to what they ‘know’ and learn about minorities. There have been plenty of studies about how important diversity is in media and I don’t think it’s a point I have to harp on about in a place like Tumblr, which is essentially driven by media.

Here’s a link to the info tag for some excellent essays and articles as to why this is a problem, and why cis people have to stop playing trans people. I hope this helps you to understand why this is an issue, and that everyone need to actively support the employment of trans-actors/actresses to progress. If they can’t even hire a transperson for a transmovie, then what hope is there that transpeople will ever have space in media? 

And a few more additions: both of you, proud-redmayniac and heartfullofloveforeddie just told me to act like a mature adult and not "attack on a personal level" by calling everyone who is concerned about this marginalised segment of people, who are actively ignored, eroticised and abused on a daily basis, "pathetic", "spoiled children" and that "I don’t see you out there making movies. I don’t see you doing anything with your time."

Besides the irony, this is what anti-feminists say to people who feel that there should be more female representation in movies, games and male-dominated industries. This is discrimination, plain and simple, and public protest is time-honoured method of reform of systematic discrimination, and is part and parcel of reforming the entire system. It is part of why you can vote, and are no longer considered the property of your male relatives. Yes, we need women, minorities and transpeople making movies and hiring their own, but in this current media environment where we all accept that the majority should play minority roles just because they can, it contributes to the status quo that denies transpeople access from mainstream media. Are you sure that this is the type of person you want to be, just because you love Eddie Redmayne so much that you cannot disapprove of ONE ROLE that he is playing?

What do you think of people who say "I don't know why you're protesting for women's rights, go out there and get a job like a man and earn as much as a man to prove your point - and besides, what have you done?" Do you really feel like you should then have to roll out your resume for someone whose argument is clearly wrong?

Do you really want to actively endorse that you care more about Eddie Redmayne, an A-list celebrity and Oscar winner, and ONE edgy role on his resume, more than you do about what representation means to a whole marginalised group of people who need transpeople in public media to explain their troubles and to help them be seen like people, instead of the freaks that are to be assaulted, abused and murdered? Do you remember that Eddie said in an article, that there were many good reasons for transpeople to play transpeople? Are you disagreeing with Eddie himself that despite him playing the role, “there is an incredibly valid discussion for why a trans actress isn’t playing the part?”

If you are really OK with that, then you have to admit it. You can't say you care about minorities and support Eddie in THIS role. You're right - this has been repeated over and over but you haven't understood it because you don't care to.

This is completely irrelevant and should have no bearing on the accuracy of this argument, but perhaps speaking passionately as a person instead of rationally as a considered argument may help you understand this stand too: before you can continue to target anyone else who is concerned about this - a lot of the people who reblogged this, and myself included, are people who generally liked Eddie and are/were even fans. When casting was announced, we were vastly disappointed especially because we liked him. If you’d read the post you would have been able to tell, there is so much bizarre detail and knowledge of his previous and at that point, upcoming/rumoured roles that it was obviously written by someone who knew quite a lot about him. By all means, love your child ceaselessly, but please, discipline him when he does something wrong.