I spent
my weekend at a conference for transgender people, and it was a
little frustrating. If there's one place in the world you might hope
to escape clueless questions, utter ignorance, and the necessity of
patiently holding people's hands through Trans* 101, it's at a
conference by, for, and largely attended by trans* people.
Alas, no
such luck.
It's well
past time popular culture assumed the burden of basic education.
Pop-culture overthinkers like myself enjoy citing articles that
indicate the profound influence of the mass media on public
attitudes. The
Cosby Show changed the
televisual landscape for African-American-centered shows. Will
& Grace taught America about
The Gays (FACT; Joe
Biden says so). Isn't it time Middle America learned, from its
favorite babysitter / best friend / water-cooler-conversation
facilitator, that transgender people are human too?
![]() |
| Stupid TV! Be more trans-friendly! |
Certainly it's much, much more likely for pop culture to get it wrong
than right. I've read queer theory textbooks assigned for class that
left much to be desired on the trans* front, and I hardly expect
better from the mass media.
Of course, there are some lovely, sensitive, non-rage-inducing
portrayals of trans* people to be found in books,
film,
and TV, but
these tend to be fairly obscure. In the mainstream, things are still
pretty
terrible.
For example.
Apparently there are no actual trans* actors in Hollywood. Apparently
a
trans woman needs to be portrayed by a cis woman, and a
trans man needs to be portrayed by a cis woman, and the films
need to focus obsessively on these characters as explicitly trans
bodies. We have to see all of the little things a trans person does
in order to pass. We have to see crotch shots and/or invest all
meaning in bottom surgery. We have to cast an ugly, voyeuristic eye
over these bodies – bodies which, lest we forget, in real life
belong to cis women: there's a weird doubling of voyeuristic focus
here, on the characters as trans and on the actresses as women, and
while on one level we are being invited to leer over these bodies as
trans bodies, we are certainly also being invited to leer over these
bodies as women's bodies.
For example.
I
rage-quit Glee long
before the introduction of its trans* character, and so did fully
half the Americans who used to tune in on a weekly basis when the
show was in what I (for want of a better term) will call its prime.
People just aren't talking about this show the way they used to. From
what I can make out, the portrayal of the trans* character has been
reasonably well-received; but, as always with Glee,
things could spiral horrendously out of control at any moment. An
unholy chimera of offensively over-the-top jokes and earnest After
School Specials, and never remotely consistent with its tone or
characterization, Glee would
not have been the ideal venue for a realistic depiction of a trans*
person even at the zenith of its cultural impact.
(And now I have wasted an hour of my life reading up on recent
developments in this stupid show, and I have the TV equivalent of a
caffeine headache.)
![]() |
| Help me. Friends don't let friends relapse. |
For example.
A friend recommended the show Hit
& Miss, starring Chloe
Sevigny as a trans woman who is an assassin. But I'd already seen
this
interview, and I knew there was no way I could watch this show
without spontaneously combusting from rage. I mean, really:
Whenever Mia is shown changing or in the shower, there are quick
glimpses to remind viewers that a crucial part of her is still male.
Hence the prosthetic, which took two hours to attach.
“It was horrifying,” says Sevigny. “I cried every time they put
it on me. I’ve always been very comfortable being a girl, so it was
hard to wrap my head around the fact that someone could feel so
uncomfortable in their own skin.”
Everything about that just makes me
so incredibly furious. The fact that the show's producers thought it
was necessary to include those “quick glimpses.” The journalist's
phallocentrism and essentialism. Just the whole fact that Chloe
Sevigny is appropriating and trivializing the experience of gender
dysphoria for the sake of some TV show. I'm so happy that all those
times I sobbed in the shower because I hate my body, all those hours
spent wishing myself away into some non-physical realm, the
absolutely inescapable feeling of discomfort and discontent in my own
skin – I'm so happy that
all of that was able to be comprehended by comfortably cisgender
Chloe Sevigny when she donned her prosthetic penis to play a
transsexual assassin in a TV show.
![]() |
| Things that are retroactively ruined because I can't see Chloe Sevigny without ragesploding: American Psycho, Boys Don't Cry, that one episode of Louie |
Some things are getting better. Lana Wachowski is pretty high-profile
at the moment; I could personally take or leave her films, but as a
human being she
is perfection, and Hollywood's first mainstream trans director is
a BFD. And maybe Glee is going to do a really excellent job
with its trans* character, and the six million suckers who still
watch it will be vindicated.
But I don't think I'm going to run out of things to be angry about
any time soon.
Max
Thornton blogs at Gay
Christian Geek, and is slowly learning to twitter at
@RainicornMax.



3 comments:
Great article, thanks!
Parabéns seu artigo é muito bom
I think the bigger criticism of "HIt and Miss" is that the producers decided that they couldn't actually find an actual trans* person to play the part. I refuse to believe that there are no trans* people who could do it.
Rather, I suspect it was that either they didn't look hard enough, or that trans* actresses were uncomfortable with certain aspects of the thing — quite possibly that desire for cheap thrills by frequently showing genitalia?
I didn't personally find Sevigny's statements all that offensive; as an actress, it's her job to try and comprehend the experience of someone who has a life quite different than hers. To some degree, acting is all about appropriation, within a controlled and limited sphere, and any fictionalization is always going to trivialize to a degree.
I don't see her claiming to completely comprehend the trans* experience, nor trying to speak for trans* people or act as if she knows better. Just admitting to finding someone else's pain rather painful herself when she thought about it enough, which is kinda the point about empathy, surely?
Perhaps she shouldn't have taken the part, but I don't find that an unforgivable character flaw.
No, the fault here is with the TV networks, the directors and producers -- the people with the actual power, the people making the decisions about how to treat subjects. Not so much with their employees. I think we blame the people with the actual power a bit too little in these things, by comparison.
Post a Comment