Ranting For Redmayne (not Rowling)

Today I am feeling pissed off about the whole Eddie Redmayne / J K Rowling controversy.

Backstory: J K Rowling has been saying stuff and written a book perceived as transphobic which I have commented on before. Personally I see this as slightly problematic on two grounds
(i) personally I think she is less transphobic and more feminist: women are being erased from the women's rights they fought to gain by a movement to avoid trans exclusion
(ii) people are failing to differentiate between trans people and bog-standard liars who are using gender identity as a screen for their wrongdoing (and as this blog is largely about acting just Google the number of films this is an element of - eg Mulan, Mrs Doubtfire, LotR). Yes, it is an unfortunate stereotype but everyone who writes of predatory males and / or nurturing females is perpetuating gender stereotypes but when we try to dictate what stories can or should be told we're on very shaky ground.
Eddie Redmayne played Lili Elbe in the 2015 film The Danish Girl - a role he was vilified for as Lili was a trans or intersex woman at the time of her death. He is now playing Newt Scarmander in the J K Rowling spin-off Fantastic Beasts series. Redmayne has also been criticised as abelist for playing Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything (2014) which has been brought up repeatedly in this latest controversy.

Disclaimer: I am agender (biological female) and, in amongst everything else, I am pissed off that there is a new binary here - trans or cis. There is NOTHING in the narrative for agender, non-binary, genderfluid, non-conforming segment of society. These are my opinions from my point of view and I mean no disrespect to others who disagree.

First off...
The interview that's got everyone's knickers in a twist has been grossly misrepresented as Redmayne defending Rowling, as if he were supporting her comments. No, he said categorically that her comments were absolutely out of line; what he also said was that death and rape threats are totally unacceptable, whatever 'provocation' people may perceive. People might try reading the story, not just the deliberately provocative headlines.
I have seen comments not only saying that Rowling deserves death and rape threats because she's a 'public figure' but that she's a valid target because she's rich and white. I am with Redmayne on this: no matter how awful a person may be threatening violence is VILE. Just because a person is 'privileged' doesn't protect them from fear, being able to afford security doesn't guarantee protection from violence. The fact that trans people are frequently victims of violence does not make this okay either.

The criticisms against Redmayne for The Danish Girl...
CASTING
Once upon a time I went for a job as a sales assistant. I had no experience. My mental arithmetic is shaky. I have social anxiety. Did I turn down the job offer saying 'there's probably a better candidate out there'? Of course I didn't! I took the job and by the time I left (to care for my mum) 9 months later I was acting deputy manager!
Sure, actors get paid A LOT more than a sales assistant earns but if they're offered a job expecting them to refuse if kinda loopy. As it is director Tom Hooper claims he ONLY considered Redmayne for the part. Presumably he was chosen for his acting skill and resemblance (although I don't see it); presumably he accepted because he wanted to take on the challenge. 
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/real-reason-eddie-redmayne-was-cast-trans-woman-danish-girl-10480658.html
In a weird parallel I suppose Alan Rickman 'should have' rejected the role of Severus Snape in Harry Potter as he was way too old - but J K wanted Rickman. So they made an entire generation of characters older to match and created a bunch of timeline issues instead. Over the years I have seen some very odd casting decisions but film makers quite often know what they're doing. I am still amused that English actor Colin Firth revealed with some awe that Australian actor Guy Pearce (who I remember best from his days on Neighbours) did a better English accent than him in The King's Speech (2010).
Endlessly bitching about actors 'stealing' a role from another actor is ludicrous. Maybe some people ought to have thought twice before auditioning but a director / producer / casting agent made the most important call.

ACTING
I am really baffled by this attitude that only a trans person should play a trans character. This logic doesn't follow to other criteria. Childless people play parents, vegans play omnivores (see the fake Twinkies poor Woody Harrelson had to eat for Zombieland), innocent people play serial killers... unless Keanu reeves really is a vampire there's a serious lack of creature-of-the-night representation. Sorry, I know that's being stupid but acting is all about pretending to be someone you're not, right?! There shouldn't really be any expectation that an actor is (in any way, shape or form) the character they're playing. Probably because of being agender myself I don't read a character's gender as a defining characteristic unless it is written / played that way.
The only time I see an actor's reality being significant is when it's regarding race as whitewashing / black-face / yellow-face etc need to be things of the past. However, racial ambiguity is also a thing and if someone looks right for the part (especially in biopics) surely that is 'enough'? Colourism and racism within ethnic groups are equally problematic as the more commonly thought-of form.

DANGER OF HARM TO ACTORS
A big cause of a trans-gender person's dysphoria is the expectation that they play a certain role society has assigned to them and this can be the root of deep and lasting trauma.
I saw several comments querying what danger it would pose to a trans-woman actor to be obliged to present as male, to relive their transition process. Certainly there are actors who'd be up to the task but even so it shouldn't be taken lightly. One douchebag person on set could make it horrific; and for that actor to have their former gender onscreen, online, made into GIFs and memes... that's a helluva Pandora's Box to open.
OBVIOUSLY that should be a trans-actor's choice but I feel that the public 'demanding' a trans-actor put themselves through that is a bit much. Different if the vocal opponents are themselves trans-actors who feel they should have been cast. Meanwhile, critics are saying a cis actor (who is at near zero risk from harm in the role) is unable to understand or explore gender identity? That's pretty insulting - do you really expect an actor who plays a rocket scientist, a politician, a doctor or a lawyer to understand those roles? Probably not. Can an actor understand those roles? Quite possibly, actually. People can have a great capacity for empathy and comprehension.

ASSUMPTION OF GENDER IDENTITY
I can't find anything where Redmayne confirms his gender identity as cis/male...or cis/het for that matter. This bothers me because the Twitterati are out baying for his blood because 'as a cis/het male' he should never have 'stolen the role' from a trans-actor to play a trans-woman. He never 'stole' anything - he was given it, and assuming his gender (and sexuality) seems off to me. He could easily be non-binary or genderfluid. Why do the general public feel so comfortable in assuming who he is?!
Eddie Redmayne is 38 years old... I was about that age when I realised I was agender, which tbh I didn't know was a thing until people started on about being cis-gendered. Lots of people 'come out' far later in life, or never. Just because someone is famous doesn't mean we're entitled to know how they identify. Using a masculine name and pronouns doesn't actually mean anything about how a person FEELS. Please stop assuming someone is cis/het 'just because' they're not out 'out' as anything else. they don't have to be. And NEVER 'out' anyone - maybe they haven't figured themselves out yet.

TRANS vs CIS
Over and over I've seen the comment that trans actors ONLY should play trans characters, while cis actors should stick to cis characters.
First up, why should any actor be limited to roles conforming to their gender identity, and once a person has transitioned why should they be pigeon-holed and type-cast as a trans-actor? They should just be an actor, as any other - right?! 
Secondly, if an actor such as Redmayne were genderfluid / non-binary / whatever where would that fit in?! Not to say a non-binary person could do it any better than a cis person.
Thirdly, if gender is not binary (male / female) then it follows that gender identity is not binary either (cis / trans). So who can non-binary actors play??? Who can play a non-binary character?! If I were an actor it'd be nice to think I could 'do' a cis woman. Maybe I'm deluded (I'm certainly no actor) but it *should* be possible.
In my humble opinion the depictions that should be condemned are the humiliating, derogatory ones where a trans or ambiguously gendered character has been used and often abused 'for a laugh'. How the role is portrayed ought, imho, be more important than who played it.

As for criticisms of ableism against Redmayne...
The Theory of Everything covers Hawking's early development of Motor Neurone Disease. Exactly how are you going to find an actor with the right type and level of disability to portray a character before and at the onset of their symptoms?
I should like to see greater representation for disabled actors but I can't deny that there are logistical problems here, especially for a progressive and incurable condition. There are also psychological considerations - how does such an actor cope mentally with 'acting' their real-world traumas?
In a story like Hawking's where he was well known there is also an importance of having an actor play him who can 'pass' as him. Assuming you find a disabled actor who is physically and mentally able to take the role what are the chances of them looking like a particular celebrity?!

Unequal Equality

Over the last few days I've been getting a fair bit of hassle over a tweet. Specifically:

Somewhat vexed that the disappearance of Libby Squire (21, Hull Uni)

seems to be getting more coverage than that of

Daniel Williams (19, Reading Uni). Everyday sexism?

- @HeggieTBK; 10:24pm 4th February 2019

I have been called disgusting, despicable, bloody awful etc for it...why? Because I dared to suggest a man might be disadvantaged based on gender. Equality, it seems, is only attractive if it applies to our preconceived ideas of the underdog.

First of all lets just go over the facts. Both disappearances involved young white British university students. Daniel disappeared first - he was last seen alive around 1am on Thursday January 31st 2019. Sadly his body was found in a lake on campus five days later but he was still missing at the time of the tweet. Libby vanished less than 24 hours later - last seen at 11:40pm. At the time of blogging she remains unfound. 

Let me go through a few key points for a moment here...

• Neither student has been flagged in the media for being an especially at-risk individual (eg. medical issues or disability) which would be an acceptable contributing factor to the discrepancy in coverage. In short, both cases are strikingly similar and noteworthy for being the same day - making an assessment of the coverage that bit easier. However, I certainly acknowledge that what I personally have seen is just a partial sample. I deliberately wrote that it 'seems' to be a difference in coverage, not an absolute statement that this was the case.
• Contrary to what people inferred I never stated that the reason for any discrepancy was sexism. The question mark after 'everyday sexism' is significant here; I was SUGGESTING it as a cause or at least a contributing factor.
• A few people claimed that Libby's case got more coverage because she had gone missing more recently. At the time, Daniel had been missing 22 hours longer, not that a matter of hours should matter - if one had been already missing weeks or months it would be different. Indeed, at least one person claimed Daniel had been missing since New Year's Eve, confusing his case with another. A genuine mistake or perhaps another sign that Daniel's case really was less reported?
• Several people asserted that Daniel's family wanted privacy and that was the reason his case got less media attention. This may be so - but is it acceptable that a missing young person should get more or less attention based on their family's interaction with the press? I certainly understand that some families actively drive media campaigns, especially after the first flush of interest dies down but just because a distressed family aren't keen to talk to journalists or make TV appearances doesn't mean their loved-one shouldn't still be front page news. The missing person should take precidence over their family's actions / inactions.

One of the weirdest accusations leveled against me was that I was "trying to score points" off these people's disappearances. What the hell is that even supposed to MEAN? It's not a game. I was commenting on my perception of current affairs. I could comment until the cows come home on how historically the disappearances of various young people have been handled in the press - girls and young women getting far more attention than boys, men and older women; whites getting more attention than other ethnicities; well-off getting more attention than the poor. I have nothing to gain from my speculation, it merely bothered me that the lad at a university geographically close to me seemed to be getting mentioned as a footnote to a girl's disappearance. I would not be happy if my child's disappearance only seemed to be mentioned as an afterthought in the coverage of another person's case.

For many the problem seems to be applying the word 'sexism' to a scenario where the male is disadvantaged on grounds of gender. Men ARE disadvantaged in many ways in our society; they are inherently distrusted, a woman's word is valued more highly; men are disadvantaged in many careers and in custody hearings. But people seem to find acknowledging this distasteful.

Now, those of you who have read my blogs will know that I am agender. I am biologically (and presenting) female but I don't identify as such - my sex has nothing to do with who I am as a human being. I don't expect to be treated better or worse for being biologically female; the only reason that should matter is in terms of sex-differentiated medical conditions. I am also the parent of two biologically female offspring - one is at uni, the other has graduated. I don't expect them to be treated any differently based on their biological sex or gender identities either! I am not beyond imagining myself to be the parent of male offspring who I also would not want treated any differently based on gender. This is what equality means to me.

The only reasons to treat people differently in this scenario is if one was at more risk than another - one is an insulin-dependent diabetic, for example, or if there are specific indications of foul play. It makes me mad to think that a young woman is considered to be at greater risk than a young man purely because she is female. Like men cannot be victims of sexual assault or violence. It makes me mad that people think their fathers / brothers / husbands / sons deserve anything different than their mothers / sisters / wives / daughters.

I have commented a number of times that I dislike 'feminism' and prefer the term 'egalitarian'. Strictly speaking the one is a branch of the other but to me, feminism implies firstly the necessity of a female identity (and there are self-identified feminists who disregard non-cis females - there are also groups of feminists who disregard the problems specific to women of colour - feminism is not especially inclusive) and also a strong suggestion that women are inherently disadvantaged and victimised. On this second point I disagree. I know that my own experiences of being female aren't an absolute but I cannot relate to issues such as cat-calling or being disrespected on ground of gender. I am not saying these things are not common but at 40 years old I can only say that I have not experienced them - I can be indignant that others have suffered but so many interpretations of feminism start from a position of victimhood that I cannot identify with...and even if I could, I do not find strength in victimhood. I prefer to assume I have power; that I am equal to anyone else.

Now obviously, that is all about me and why I look at things the way I do. I understand that others are different, of course I do. But I find it confusing how my tweet calling for actual meaningful equality resulted in personal attacks on me. That their are women who think wanting males to be treated equally is unacceptable is both weird and disturbing but the fact that men responded angrily to my tweet I find utterly baffling. Is that toxic masculinity - men who are offended that any man could be considered as vulnerable as a female? Or is it toxic feminism - convincing men that their needs are less than those of women?

Maybe Daniel and Libby's disappearances were treated equally in the press...but why are people (of a non journalist persuasion) so offended by the suggestion that they weren't? In my humble opinion this is why true equality is a long way off for our society - because we still can't acknowledge that certain forms of inequality even exist. I for one only want equality if it really is the same set of rights and privileges for everyone.

UPDATE
Libby Squire's body was found in the Humber 7 weeks after her disappearance and is being treated as a potential homicide.
Daniel Williams' death was considered misadventure - drowning under the influence of alcohol.
I'm not saying Daniel didn't die in a tragic accident or that Libby wasn't murdered but it still seems odd from my outside perspective that the cases STILL strikingly similar seem to be considered so differently - that the male caused his own death but that the girl must've been hurt by someone else? Presumably there is some evidence but what evidence would there be if a drunk lad was pushed into a freezing lake? I also wonder what evidence of foul play they might have in Libby's case as nearly 2 months in the water isn't good for preserving traces...

Cop Out

Yesterday I was packing some things away in the attic which is how there came to be a pile of old newspapers in my bedroom.  They were acquired newspapers so when a headline caught my eye as I was getting ready for work this morning I stopped to have a read.
The newspaper in question was The Daily Telegraph of Monday, September 9, 2013.  The headline read: Your test favours fat men over fit women, police told.
What it came down to was this; "ninety three per cent of men passed the test, despite half of all male candidates being overweight.  Just 60 per cent of women finished within the time limit, though only a third were overweight."
Well, first allow me to address the absurd assumption that fitness and weight are synonymous.  That.  Is.  Absurd.
I was first told I was overweight at the age of 11:

Yeah, cos I look so fat there...goodness, I'd kill to be anywhere near that skinny again!  Anyway, eventually I did get very heavy indeed hitting my all time worst in April this year and yet I'm fitter than you'd expect.
Five years ago I found myself, a morbidly obese asthmatic, comfortably able to out-swim a 'healthy weight' friend; two years ago my GP recommended I get less exercise as my 25,000 steps per day work pattern was ruining my feet; a year and a half ago I busted my right knee trying to beat my then thirteen year old daughter at limbo...  Muscle weighs more than fat and weight does not equal fitness.
But what really gets me about this article is the sexism.
Not from the allegations that "male officers gather around while the female recruits bounce and jiggle and run around, and they're wolf whistling and clapping" (if a police candidate of either gender can't hack a bit of harassment they have no business being in the job) but from the assumption that women deserve special treatment.
And I quote:

• It is "clearly" biased to expect women to finish within the same time as men
• The gates were not wide enough [for women], so men with slinky snake hips could weave through quite easily
• Women also made almost twice as many errors on the "body drag" task, which relies on upper body strength

What the fuck?!  Not so long ago women were fighting to prove themselves equal to men, to be allowed to do a 'man's job' and now some dumb-ass behavioural scientist (yes, I mean YOU Professor Craig Jackson) thinks women deserve extra time and modifications to tasks which are based on the job successful applicants will be required to do.  Excuse me?!  Is the real world going to give a female police officer more time to chase a suspect or provide more space between obstacles for her hips???  Of course not!
It's unfashionable to say so but men and women are NOT equal.  Women are not, on average, as strong or as fast as male counterparts...just look at the Olympic and world records for things such as 100m and weightlifting.  It's not the police fitness test that is inherently unfair but biology.
The test itself is called the Gender-Neutral Timed Obstacle Course (GeNTOC) and the clue is in the name...gender is not a factor in this test.  Gender should not be a factor in your ability to do your job either - the 60% of women who pass the test are equal to the 93% of men who pass as both can do the job they're training to do.

Eliminate Inequality!

There is a lot of discussion in Britain about banning the Burka at the present, following bans in Belgium and France. I am fully in favour of a ban on the Burka - not because I am racist or feminist but because it is FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR.

I have heard a Burka ban described as prejudiced, un-British or infringing on personal freedom of choice - this is not true for one very simple reason: every other person in this country HAS to show their face.

A ban on Burkas would simply close a loophole in British law. Why should a Muslim woman be exempted from breaking existing laws? Anyone else walking around a public place with their face concealed could be challenged and possibly arrested! The police have the power to seize masks and garments used for concealment. Yet, on the grounds of religion, these women are given a freedom denied to every other citizen. If that is not racist, and indeed sexist as this exemption only applies to women, I don't know what is!

No other member of our society can conceal their face and that is inequality. I do not approve of the Burka - I think it is inappropriate and a potential factor in supressing women. However, if I lived in a country where wearing one was required by law I would abide by that. The law of this land is that no one should have their face hidden from sight without ample cause. Islam is not ample cause, because wearing the Burka is not a requirement of the faith but a matter of personal choice.

A British Airways employee was sacked not so long ago for wearing a non-regulation Christian cross to work. She appealed and lost. She did not have the right to express her faith in the manner she chose because it was a matter of personal choice.

I am irritated that in all the discussions I have heard on the news no one has brought up this simple point. I have heard anti-Burka ban politicians spouting about how there should never be a law saying what we can or can't wear but the point is THERE ALREADY ARE! I cannot walk about in public naked (as if I'd want to!) or disguised or concealed.

If I wear a mask I would be challenged. If I wear a hooded top into a shop I can be kicked out as such garments conceal a face from security cameras - I heard of a toddler being banned from a shopping centre because he was in a hoodie! I cannot choose to hide my face...so why should anyone else regardless of race, religion or gender?

If the Burka is not banned the law ought to be changed to allow everyone the choice to conceal their face in a public place - but can you imagine if anyone and everyone could wear a Burka-like garment?! Security cameras would be rendered obsolete and crime would soar!

Police Officer: Can you describe the person who mugged you?

Victim: Not really...

Police Officer: Height?

Victim: Medium-ish...

Police Officer: Male or female?

Victim: No idea...

Police Officer: Ethnicity?

Victim: No idea...

Police Officer: Well, what were they wearing?!

Victim: Ah, you see officer - they were dressed as Mickey Mouse...

I used to be terrified of people in costumes like that when I was a kid. There was actually an acid attack case some years ago, loads of people saw the perpetrator but I don't think he was ever identified...he was dressed as a clown at the time.

People are supposed to be identifiable for a reason and no one should be exempted. One law for all please!

[Edit: This is badly phrased and I apologise. I have always understood the importance of cultural exemptions but the burka is a choice not a cultural marker - some Islamic women choose to wear them, others do not. There is no consensus. This is not anything like the Sikh Kirpan (knife) which is on obligatory article of faith although many Sikhs use a symbolic Kirpan rather than a 'real' (functional) blade or choose to forgo it in order to avoid frightening the ignorant. Fairly sure that if a Sikh used a Kirpan to threaten or harm someone the cultural exemption would be negated.]