Regarding "Hey Now" Jeffrey Tambor

JackTaylorFan

Old, ugly, cis guy playing a prominent role as a trans character "quits" over allegations of sexual assault, and also has a history of mocking transwomen in other shows he has done.

So, yeah. Good.

Now, maybe give an actual woman the lead role in the show.

I still won't watch it... but, you know, at least the series won't be perpetuating that image anymore

One eyed Jack

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Old, ugly, cis guy playing a prominent role as a trans character "quits" over allegations of sexual assault, and also has a history of mocking transwomen in other shows he has done.

So, yeah. Good.

Now, maybe give an actual woman the lead role in the show.

I still won't watch it... but, you know, at least the series won't be perpetuating that image anymore

It was never portraying that image in the first place, and surely you must see the irony in your suggestion that the part be played by, in your words, an 'actual' woman?

A woman is only a woman then according to your qualifying criteria? I think you missed the whole point of the show in that it forced people to confront their own perceptions of people who are transgender, that they could be anyone you know, that they aren't a stereotype.

Goodshape

Perpetuating... you know... what image, exactly?

The first season of Transparent was very good, and is about the coming-out and transitioning of an old, ugly, cis-identifying, "guy". Jeffrey Tambor is pretty great in the role, too.

Second season didn't feel anywhere near as necessary though.


Damn shame about these allegations.

JackTaylorFan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It was never portraying that image in the first place, and surely you must see the irony in your suggestion that the part be played by, in your words, an 'actual' woman?

A woman is only a woman then according to your qualifying criteria? I think you missed the whole point of the show in that it forced people to confront their own perceptions of people who are transgender, that they could be anyone you know, that they aren't a stereotype.

No, I do not see the irony.. But I do see the transphobia in your comment.


Regards...x

JackTaylorFan

Goodshape wrote: »

Perpetuating... you know... what image, exactly?

transitioning of an old, ugly , cis-identifying, "guy". Jeffrey Tambor is pretty...

I believe you'll find all the answers you seek in your own statement

Hugs

JackTaylorFan

Goodshape wrote: »

Damn shame about these allegations.

Also, not really...

Out this **** behaviour.

One eyed Jack

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

No, I do not see the irony.. But I do see the transphobia in your comment.


Regards...x

There was no transphobia in my comment. It was you suggested that the part could now be played by an 'actual' woman. The irony was in the fact that the show is all about a person who is transgender, where they once presented as a man, were now a woman.

You'd probably have better understood that point though if you actually watched the show as opposed to commenting on a show you've never even taken the time to actually watch in order to understand what it's about.

JackTaylorFan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There was no transphobia in my comment. It was you suggested that the part could now be played by an 'actual' woman. The irony was in the fact that the show is all about a person who is transgender, where they once presented as a man, were now a woman.

You'd probably have better understood that point though if you actually watched the show as opposed to commenting on a show you've never even taken the time to actually watch in order to understand what it's about.

Hey now!

I am an actual woman - whether you want to accept that or not. You'd probably have better understood that point if you weren't as transphobic as you claim not to be.

A white cis guy playing a transwoman is a problem. And just cause you can't understand or process that as, I assume, a straight, white, cis man does not mean it is any less of a problem. The fact Tambor has previous when it comes to taking the piss out of people like me only rubs salt in wounds.

One eyed Jack

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Hey now!

I am an actual woman - whether you want to accept that or not. You'd probably have better understood that point if you weren't as transphobic as you claim not to be.

I don't have a choice in whether I accept it or not. The reality is that you are a woman, so that's a matter of fact, not just opinion. Now, when you said an actual woman, then of course I'm going to wonder "as opposed to what, a fake woman?". If anyone were to be accused of being transphobic here, it's rather unfortunate that you didn't see the irony in what you wrote yourself in the context of what the show is actually about.

A white cis guy playing a transwoman is a problem. And just cause you can't understand or process that as, I assume, a straight, white, cis man does not mean it is any less of a problem.

You've just made the point of the show - your assumptions are based upon your perceptions of other people, how they present to you, so while you assume them to be an old, ugly cis-white guy, that's all about their external appearance, but is that who they are as a person? Is that the sum total of who you are as a person? Is that all you want people to think when they meet you?

I'm not transgender, so I have no understanding of what it is like to experience that, but from my interactions with my friends who are transgender, we really aren't all that different. We share the same interests in many things and have more in common than we don't have in common, including our distaste for identity politics.

The fact Tambor has previous when it comes to taking the piss out of people like me only rubs salt in wounds.

Understandably, but I made no comment on that. I was commenting on the show and his role in the show and the whole idea that an actor playing a role has to be an authentic representation of their character, misses the whole point that the show is making. To put it rather simply in a way I hope you can relate to - don't judge a book by it's cover.

JackTaylorFan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't have a choice in whether I accept it or not. The reality is that you are a woman, so that's a matter of fact, not just opinion. Now, when you said an actual woman, then of course I'm going to wonder "as opposed to what, a fake woman?". If anyone were to be accused of being transphobic here, it's rather unfortunate that you didn't see the irony in what you wrote yourself in the context of what the show is actually about.

I refer to anyone who identifies as a woman a woman. End of.

Jeffrey does not. Period.

And please, don't condescend to me. I don't need to watch a show about transpeople. I live the life, every single day.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You've just made the point of the show - your assumptions are based upon your perceptions of other people, how they present to you, so while you assume them to be an old, ugly cis-white guy, that's all about their external appearance, but is that who they are as a person? Is that the sum total of who you are as a person? Is that all you want people to think when they meet you?

Sorry, no. You are wrong. And it's not just about the fact he is old and ugly - even though I led with that. It is inappropriate for any straight man to take on the role of a transwoman. Like it or not it perpetuates a commonly held misconception of us. It's dangerous. And yes, I had the same issue with Eddie Redmayne and Jared Leto taking prominent trans roles. And the latter, Leto, being an extremely attractive man, was still not appropriate. So no, it's not all about physical appearance.

Also, as I have said already, Tambor has participated in transphobic humour in the past. I don't want him as a spokesperson.

(As an aside: a cis woman playing a transwoman? I would have less of an issue with, but only slightly less. Until trans women are cast as cis women this will also be an issue - and that is never likely to happen. So, yeah...)

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not transgender, so I have no understanding of what it is like to experience that, but from my interactions with my friends who are transgender, we really aren't all that different. We share the same interests in many things and have more in common than we don't have in common, including our distaste for identity politics.

Oh, honey...

Did you really just use the equivalent of "some of my friends are black" argument on me?

Seriously...

No...

Stop.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Understandably, but I made no comment on that. I was commenting on the show and his role in the show and the whole idea that an actor playing a role has to be an authentic representation of their character, misses the whole point that the show is making. To put it rather simply in a way I hope you can relate to - don't judge a book by it's cover.

In summary: I think you mean well, but you just don't get it. And I don't expect you ever will. But at least you try.

Take care

nozzferrahhtoo

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

It is inappropriate for any straight man to take on the role of a transwoman.

I am not seeing why. Are we talking acting here? Like in fiction in stage and screen? Or what is it exactly you have an issue with?

Because if you merely mean acting on stage or on film, then I genuinely see no reason why anyone should not be taking on ANY role. Be it a straight man as a gay man, or a straight woman as a transgender man, or a white man as a black man, or an atheist as the prophet mohammad.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

In summary: I think you mean well, but you just don't get it. And I don't expect you ever will. But at least you try.

I would not be too sure on that. You are talking to someone who suffers extreme discomfort if two gay men in the same restaurant merely hold hands. To the degree he thinks the staff of said restaurant should be expected to step in and either admonish the gay men in question or have him and them entirely removed from each others presence.

One eyed Jack

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

I refer to anyone who identifies as a woman a woman. End of.

Jeffrey does not. Period.

That still doesn't offer any clarification for your use of the qualifying term 'actual' which preceded the word 'woman' in your post. That's what I found unusual, that you would need to qualify what you consider to be an actual woman, because I can't see why you would need to make the distinction.

And please, don't condescend to me. I don't need to watch a show about transpeople. I live the life, every single day.

I'm not being condescending to you in pointing out that you live the life of a trans person, singular, as opposed to trans people, plural, and that needs to be pointed out because your experiences as a trans person aren't necessarily representative of anyone else's experiences as a trans person. You simply can't know, based solely upon a persons external appearance. You're assuming.

Sorry, no. You are wrong. And it's not just about the fact he is old and ugly - even though I led with that. It is inappropriate for any straight man to take on the role of a transwoman. Like it or not it perpetuates a commonly held misconception of us. It's dangerous. And yes, I had the same issue with Eddie Redmayne and Jared Leto taking prominent trans roles. And the latter, Leto, being an extremely attractive man, was still not appropriate. So no, it's not all about physical appearance.

Lot of assumptions about other people there, perpetuating the commonly held misconception that you are the arbiter of what is and isn't appropriate for other people. You're hardly in a position then to criticise other people for making assumptions when you're perpetuating the very same behaviours and attitudes yourself.

Also, as I have said already, Tambor has participated in transphobic humour in the past. I don't want him as a spokesperson.


(As an aside: a cis woman playing a transwoman? I would have less of an issue with, but only slightly less. Until trans women are cast as cis women this will also be an issue - and that is never likely to happen. So, yeah...)

I can understand that, which is why I admire you for speaking up for yourself and pointing out that he doesn't represent you. That's as far as my admiration goes however, as I find your attitude quite jarring. Suffice to say I don't imagine we would ever be friends offline.

Oh, honey...

Did you really just use the equivalent of "some of my friends are black" argument on me?

Seriously...

No...

Stop.

That you would accuse me of being condescending and then come out with that nonsense suggests that self-awareness clearly isn't your forté.

In summary: I think you mean well, but you just don't get it. And I don't expect you ever will. But at least you try.

Take care

I get it, I just don't agree with you.

Take care.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That still doesn't offer any clarification for your use of the qualifying term 'actual' which preceded the word 'woman' in your post. That's what I found unusual, that you would need to qualify what you consider to be an actual woman, because I can't see why you would need to make the distinction.

Which brings up an area of concern I have long wanted to address in my own life. Which is that I have simply not sat down with anyone from that community and talked to them about what terms we SHOULD be using, when and why. I am simply wholly ignorant of the lexicon such people would like of us.

I know the MODS of this forum are pretty vocal around the whole site on LGBT issues and I was hoping at some point to sit in conversation with them about this to work on my own ignorance in this matter. Maybe they will read this post and make first contact, or even start a thread on it. I would certainly appreciate their time.

But it is an ignorance I think just about everyone shares. Mainly and almost entirely because this is relatively NEW to all of us. So we find ourselves questioning the language of others, and their intention, and even their motivation when bringing it up.

To take yourself as an example, only this week you uttered the following and to be honest I do not know A) what your point or agenda of doing so was and why it was even relevant enough to type in the first place:

"I agree with you that the wishes of the woman who is pregnant are important (I have to specify 'woman' in that context because some people are of the belief that human males can get pregnant. Odd, I know!)"

Just like what you wrote to the user above, it instantly makes the reader wonder what distinction and qualification you are making and more importantly WHY you suddenly seemed to feel the need to make it at all.

But it is a welcome change to be on the same side of a conversation as you for a change and pretty much everything you are saying to the OP (though, as I did above I do still hold your motivations in some suspicion given your attitude to homosexuals for example) so far seems on the money.

The most baffling position the OP has for me is, to generalize his point rather than the specific one he made..... the idea that no person X should take on role Y. I can not think of a many (any?) roles on stage or film that should be precluded ANY person. It is the arts. A totally limbless human can play the role of the many armed Indian God for all I care. NO ONE should be precluded a role in art.

JackTaylorFan

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The most baffling position the OP has for me is, to generalize his point rather than the specific one he made..... the idea that no person X should take on role Y. I can not think of a many (any?) roles on stage or film that should be precluded ANY person. It is the arts. A totally limbless human can play the role of the many armed Indian God for all I care. NO ONE should be precluded a role in art.

Lol... your agenda is transparent as **** - to make a bad, but relevant pun


I won't engage any further with an out and out bigot

nozzferrahhtoo

A shame you will not engage then because I would more than love to be made aware of what my agenda is. Given I am currently not A) aware of what it is or even aware of having one in the first place. And I struggle to find one word of the post you quoted that is bigotry. You could have enlightened me there too.

Nope, the only things I am aware of saying are:

A) The use of language has become very sensitive in the area of gender identity and I admit my own ignorance in this regard and would love to engage with members of that community to address my own ignorance and

When speaking of acting in the arts, I see no good argument why any individual should be precluded any role.

I am genuinely baffled as to what is bigoted about those two points or what my agenda behind them seems to be. But since you have decided in advance to abandon discourse in favor of mere name calling.... I am not likely to learn from you at all.

JackTaylorFan

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A shame you will not engage then because I would more than love to be made aware of what my agenda is. Given I am currently not A) aware of what it is or even aware of having one in the first place. And I struggle to find one word of the post you quoted that is bigotry. You could have enlightened me there too.

Nope, the only things I am aware of saying are:

A) The use of language has become very sensitive in the area of gender identity and I admit my own ignorance in this regard and would love to engage with members of that community to address my own ignorance and

When speaking of acting in the arts, I see no good argument why any individual should be precluded any role.

I am genuinely baffled as to what is bigoted about those two points or what my agenda behind them seems to be. But since you have decided in advance to abandon discourse in favor of mere name calling.... I am not likely to learn from you at all.

Okay, let me clarify.

It is clear from your use of the English language that you are literate; and therefore, also clear that you understand how language works - i.e. you possess the ability to comprehend and follow narrative. I have categorically identified that I am a woman, and yet you still think it appropriate to misgender me - as you did in the quote I have emboldened above.

Which leads to one conclusion: you are a well-read bigot. 'Cause you are certainly not near as dense as you are pretending to be.

Regards

Brian201888

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Hey now!

I am an actual woman - whether you want to accept that or not. You'd probably have better understood that point if you weren't as transphobic as you claim not to be.

A white cis guy playing a transwoman is a problem. And just cause you can't understand or process that as, I assume, a straight, white, cis man does not mean it is any less of a problem. The fact Tambor has previous when it comes to taking the piss out of people like me only rubs salt in wounds.

Why is a white guy playing a trans woman a problem, do you have the same issue with a straight man playing a gay man or vice versa?

nozzferrahhtoo

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

OI have categorically identified that I am a woman, and yet you still think it appropriate to misgender me

That is one narrative you could run with indeed. And I can see clearly how you got there.

Another narrative might be that I merely did so entirely without thinking and entirely without realizing your identification.

It could be that given the population of a forum like this is almost entirely male, that I merely default to those pronouns in pretty much every post I make.

It could be, therefore, that it is not all about you and that I merely did what I generally always do, and thoughtlessly went to my defaults when I had no conscious reason in that moment to do otherwise.

I have MANY times in the past used "he" and "him" for someone who later turned out to be female, through biology, identification, or both.

So what has happened here, what so often happens in our world alas, is a tiny moment of misunderstanding is exploded into much more than it ever was. Inventing irate and loud agendas and bias and bigotry for me rather than simply calmly stop me and say "hang on, did you notice what you did there?".

So I think if you stop, take a deep breath, you might realize we could BOTH learn from and benefit from this encounter already.... rather than you running out the door and slamming it behind you?

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which brings up an area of concern I have long wanted to address in my own life. Which is that I have simply not sat down with anyone from that community and talked to them about what terms we SHOULD be using, when and why. I am simply wholly ignorant of the lexicon such people would like of us.

Start with the basics -

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

I am an actual woman

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To take yourself as an example, only this week you uttered the following and to be honest I do not know A) what your point or agenda of doing so was and why it was even relevant enough to type in the first place:

"I agree with you that the wishes of the woman who is pregnant are important (I have to specify 'woman' in that context because some people are of the belief that human males can get pregnant. Odd, I know!)"

Just like what you wrote to the user above, it instantly makes the reader wonder what distinction and qualification you are making and more importantly WHY you suddenly seemed to feel the need to make it at all.

Because the terms male and female relate to sex, and the terms man and woman relate to gender.

But it is a welcome change to be on the same side of a conversation as you for a change and pretty much everything you are saying to the OP (though, as I did above I do still hold your motivations in some suspicion given your attitude to homosexuals for example) so far seems on the money.

What attitude might you be alluding to there that you haven't completely invented and tried to pass off on me? You are of course attempting to poison the well with that nonsense, let's not pretend otherwise.

The most baffling position the OP has for me is, to generalize his point rather than the specific one he made....

You should probably have read the OP's posts in this thread too instead of being so focused on just mine, might have saved you the embarrassment.

JackTaylorFan

Eoghan_2 wrote: »

Why is a white guy playing a trans woman a problem, do you have the same issue with a straight man playing a gay man or vice versa?

It's a problem, because it reinforces the wrongly held idea that transwomen are really just men in dress-up.

Do you think it's okay for a white man to play a black woman? Same difference.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Start with the basics - Because the terms male and female relate to sex, and the terms man and woman relate to gender.

That does seem basic but alas many examples I have personally experienced do not fit with it. So there are complexities there that I am not yet aware of. I have seen the use of BOTH pairs of terms being used outside what I am used to, not just in the format that you present above.

Perhaps the OP can step in here and help too. OP do you identify as Male / Female? Man / Woman? You have already said one, but what about the other?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What attitude might you be alluding to there that you haven't completely invented and tried to pass off on me?

Well, for example, the attitude that two homosexual men holding hands in a restaurant in a table near to you is some how a problem for one. No invention there on my part, I can link to the conversation in question should anyone require me to.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You should probably have read the OP's posts in this thread too instead of being so focused on just mine, might have saved you the embarrassment.

Or perhaps I did, despite your pretense, and typing those pronouns is something I sometimes do, even in cases where I KNOW the person in question to be female. I have done it to a few users in the past, and I am well aware it is a failing I have when I am typing quickly and focusing on my point more than who the point is about.

JackTaylorFan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can understand that, which is why I admire you for speaking up for yourself and pointing out that he doesn't represent you. That's as far as my admiration goes however, as I find your attitude quite jarring. Suffice to say I don't imagine we would ever be friends offline.

Well, good thing I'm not here to make friends then...

Lol..

What?

nozzferrahhtoo

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Do you think it's okay for a white man to play a black woman? Same difference.

Well yes. I absolutely 100% do! And in fact..... was it not Patrick Stewart.... or someone like him........ who recently played a white Othello while all the other members of the cast were black? I think that was a WONDERFUL juxtaposition of roles. I think there has also been a version of Othello with the genders reversed too.

JackTaylorFan

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is one narrative you could run with indeed. And I can see clearly how you got there.

Another narrative might be that I merely did so entirely without thinking and entirely without realizing your identification.

It could be that given the population of a forum like this is almost entirely male, that I merely default to those pronouns in pretty much every post I make.

It could be, therefore, that it is not all about you and that I merely did what I generally always do, and thoughtlessly went to my defaults when I had no conscious reason in that moment to do otherwise.

I have MANY times in the past used "he" and "him" for someone who later turned out to be female, through biology, identification, or both.

So what has happened here, what so often happens in our world alas, is a tiny moment of misunderstanding is exploded into much more than it ever was. Inventing irate and loud agendas and bias and bigotry for me rather than simply calmly stop me and say "hang on, did you notice what you did there?".

So I think if you stop, take a deep breath, you might realize we could BOTH learn from and benefit from this encounter already.... rather than you running out the door and slamming it behind you?

Fine, actually read the thread then; learn. Don't expect it to be handed to you.

Have a blessed day.

JackTaylorFan

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well yes. I absolutely 100% do! And in fact..... was it not Patrick Stewart.... or someone like him........ who recently played a white Othello while all the other members of the cast were black? I think that was a WONDERFUL juxtaposition of roles. I think there has also been a version of Othello with the genders reversed too.

What? I'm not following. That wasn't the preposition I laid out.

Have you ever heard of cultural term "Black Face" or "Blacking up"? This is what you are defending now?

nozzferrahhtoo

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Fine, actually read the thread then; learn. Don't expect it to be handed to you. Have a blessed day.

I think the greatest source of learning and mutual understanding in this world is human discourse. There are others, books experience and so forth, but I think human discourse is the one tool available to us that is above all others.

Throw away comments designed to end conversation like your first, and now most recent, post to me are the opposite of that. They shut down discourse. And the last thing you and your community should be doing is that. Not just with the ACTUAL bigots, but certainly not with the people like myself who openly came into the thread saying "YES I am ignorant here.... work with me".

The problem here is NOT me. And as I said I did read the thread, but thoughtless misuse of pronouns is something I know is periodically an issue for me. It is just unfortunate one of those RARE incidents had to happen on exactly the wrong thread.

And I certainly am willing to acknowledge that error and failing, if not the spin you put on it. But an olive branch offered only has value if it is taken. You speak of not wanting (things like actors) to reinforce stereotypes? What of the stereotype of a community quick to anger and offence? Might you be perpetuating that one? Or could we work together to destroy both?

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Have you ever heard of cultural term "Black Face" or "Blacking up"? This is what you are defending now?

I can defend the action without defending individual instances of it. INTENTION and CONTEXT are everything. I can imagine situations where such things are indeed offensive and unethical, and I can imagine situations where the opposite is true.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well, for example, the attitude that two homosexual men holding hands in a restaurant in a table near to you is some how a problem for one. No invention there on my part, I can link to the conversation in question should anyone require me to.

My issue was not with anyone's sexuality, it is with the fact that I abhor public displays of affection regardless of the identities of the participants involved. Now you know.

Or perhaps I did, despite your pretense, and typing those pronouns is something I sometimes do, even in cases where I KNOW the person in question to be female. I have done it to a few users in the past, and I am well aware it is a failing I have when I am typing quickly and focusing on my point more than who the point is about.

Well as long as you're admitting that your greater concern is for making yourself heard than having even the slightest modicum of respect for anyone else, that doesn't tell me anything about you that I didn't know already.

nozzferrahhtoo

That is certainly not the position that came across in the thread in question, but if that is your issue then I can only hope you get over it, and yourself, at some point. Because in a world full of hatred and violence and divides across all kinds of arbitrary groupings (including gender and sexuality) I cherish and welcome displays of love and affection.

As for the "admission" you are pretending I just made, when I did not, I can see who is actually "poisoning the well" here and of the two of us it has not yet been me. The admission I DID make however is that I occasionally make single word errors in larger posts. Your own posts are far from perfect in that regard, but I do not make an issue of it especially given your past admissions of issues there. In fact one of the rules on after hours I respect most, is the one about grammar nazis.... in the light of people with learning difficulties and dyslexia and so forth..... I take simple errors in language at face value and look at the persons greater message.

Those with the agenda of dodging a persons post by focusing on one SINGLE instance of a poor use of word or turn of phrase however.... are a different level of person.

JackTaylorFan

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think the greatest source of learning and mutual understanding in this world is human discourse. There are others, books experience and so forth, but I think human discourse is the one tool available to us that is above all others.

Throw away comments designed to end conversation like your first, and now most recent, post to me are the opposite of that. They shut down discourse. And the last thing you and your community should be doing is that. Not just with the ACTUAL bigots, but certainly not with the people like myself who openly came into the thread saying "YES I am ignorant here.... work with me".

The problem here is NOT me. And as I said I did read the thread, but thoughtless misuse of pronouns is something I know is periodically an issue for me. It is just unfortunate one of those RARE incidents had to happen on exactly the wrong thread.

And I certainly am willing to acknowledge that error and failing, if not the spin you put on it. But an olive branch offered only has value if it is taken. You speak of not wanting (things like actors) to reinforce stereotypes? What of the stereotype of a community quick to anger and offence? Might you be perpetuating that one? Or could we work together to destroy both?

Problem is, it was all there for you to read. Which left me with few possible scenarios: a) you read and fully comprehended everything and still chose to misgender me - which will only ever be seen as hostile by anyone in my position (Lesson 1 in understanding of a transperson, right here); b) you have an inability to comprehend text and thus further discourse with you would prove fruitless; or c) you're just too lazy to do your homework

nozzferrahhtoo

or D) I type incredibly fast and sometimes I genuinely make simple mistakes.

That you would use that to shut down what could otherwise me a useful and fruitful conversation is..... well tragic really. Can you imagine that on a wider scale, if that was what EVERYONE did? It would do nothing but widen the gulf that may already exist between the different communities that make up our wonderful and ever more diversifying pluralist society.

Or can you imagine the opposite? A world where people in each community step up and say "Yes, I am ignorant of many things about you, help me" and when errors are made..... as they always eventually are..... rather than being beaten with them one side says "Ok yes sorry I see what I did wrong there..... lets improve that together".

Which world do YOU want to live in? I know my answer.

JackTaylorFan

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can defend the action without defending individual instances of it. INTENTION and CONTEXT are everything. I can imagine situations where such things are indeed offensive and unethical, and I can imagine situations where the opposite is true.

Here is a general rule of thumb: if you genuinely mean well, and someone from a minority tells you something is offensive or inappropriate - and you are not a member of that minority - you should probably take their word on it.

nozzferrahhtoo

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Here is a general rule of thumb: if you genuinely mean well, and someone from a minority tells you something is offensive or inappropriate - and you are not a member of that minority - you should probably take their word on it.

Nah never. I never ever take someones word for anything. I am interested not just in their position but the reasoning behind their position too. If the latter is not on offer, then the former is of no value to me.

I want to be educated, not dictated to.

The school my daugther goes to is all white. Not intentionally. There are just no black people in the area to go there. There are many school plays. If one of those plays had a character who is black.... and the student playing that role used make up to make themselves look black........... then I am VERY open to hearing the reasoning as to why that might be offensive.

Someone merely screaming at me THAT it is offensive and that we are bigots and then running out the door without a word of reasoning behind their position is just a loud mouth to me of no utility or intellectual value.

JackTaylorFan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My issue was not with anyone's sexuality, it is with the fact that I abhor public displays of affection regardless of the identities of the participants involved. Now you know.





Well as long as you're admitting that your greater concern is for making yourself heard than having even the slightest modicum of respect for anyone else, that doesn't tell me anything about you that I didn't know already.

I have no point of reference for this personal exchange of rat-a-tats.. but please, by all means continue to take this thread completely off-topic...

nozzferrahhtoo

Might it be more effective is rather than complaining about it being off topic, that you enter into the discussions you are avoiding and bring it back on topic.

I will bring it back on topic....

1) What specifically is your issue with any given actor having such a role? Is it SOLELY that you think it perpetuates the idea you think many have that it is all just fantasy? That an actor playing such a role gives off the idea that all REAL examples of such people are also "just playing a role"?

2) Was this an issue in the homosexual community too? Many straight people have played homosexual roles. Was it an issue at any point for homosexuals, thinking that having a straight person ACT as a homosexual might perpetuate the notion that homosexuals were actually heterosexual but pretending (to themselves or others) otherwise?

3) What of people who are merely dressing up as the opposite sex but do not identify as it? The comedian Eddie Izzard for example dresses as a women but identifies entirely as a heterosexual male (or at least did last time I heard him speak, it may have changed). Are such people also an issue to you for the same reason, given they might perpetuate the idea that the people who genuinely IDENTIFY as a given gender might just be dressing up as that gender?

4) In general why do you feel it is an issue that any person X should play any role Y if they themselves are not representative of that role?

JackTaylorFan

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nah never. I never ever take someones word for anything. I am interested not just in their position but the reasoning behind their position too. If the latter is not on offer, then the former is of no value to me.

I want to be educated...

You have already proven you don't absorb what is written right in front of you - and now you display that you don't listen to any viewpoint that does not fit neatly into your own internal wheel of reference and understanding.

nozzferrahhtoo

Well I tried. I tried to open an honest two way discourse and you have contrived to shut it down at every post, usually while inventing some way to blame ME for your lack of engagement with your own discussion.

JackTaylorFan

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Might it be more effective is rather than complaining about it being off topic...

I have no interest in you two and your little pissing match - bar the enterainment factor.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I will bring it back on topic....

1) What specifically is your issue with any given actor having such a role? Is it SOLELY that you think it perpetuates the idea you think many have that it is all just fantasy? That an actor playing such a role gives off the idea that all REAL examples of such people are also "just playing a role"?

Asked and answered.

I will bring it up again: read the thread.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

2) Was this an issue in the homosexual community too? Many straight people have played homosexual roles. Was it an issue at any point for homosexuals, thinking that having a straight person ACT as a homosexual might perpetuate the notion that homosexuals were actually heterosexual but pretending (to themselves or others) otherwise?

I am not homosexual - ask a homosexual how they feel about it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

3) In general why do you feel it is an issue that any person X should play any role Y if they themselves are not representative of that role?

That was basically your first question reworded. Again, asked and answered.

JackTaylorFan

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well I tried. I tried to open an honest two way discourse and you have contrived to shut it down at every post, usually while inventing some way to blame ME for your lack of engagement with your own discussion.

In the first unedited post I read from you - you asked somebody to explain everything to you - that's not how life works. Get a clue.

nozzferrahhtoo

Well yes it is how life works. From the moment I entered school at age 4, a large part of life has been built around the concept of people explaining things to other people. But if you are unwilling to work with me and answer the questions I have asked in a two way conversation of mutual respect, then I am happy to leave it there until such time as you are.

But if you can not even have such a conversation with someone openly ADMITTING their own ignorance and appealing for help to learn..... then I can but wish you luck with the "You have a dick..... then you are a a male" crowd that haunt areas of this website who have literally NO interest in conversation or learning on the matter AT ALL.

JackTaylorFan

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well yes it is how life works. From the moment I entered school at age 4, a large part of life has been built around the concept of people explaining things to other people. But if you are unwilling to work with me and answer the questions I have asked in a two way conversation of mutual respect, then I am happy to leave it there until such time as you are.

I answered the question - you didn't accept that as a good enough reason. That is all.

nozzferrahhtoo

If you refer to the "take their word for it" answer then yes, I admit that is not good reason enough at all for me. Nor do I see any reason why it should be.

Goodshape

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Also, not really...

Out this **** behaviour.

Sorry, you're right enough. Damn shame about his behavior, I should have said. The allegations are hardly the problem.

Annasopra

There appears to be no point at all to this thread. It has gone wildly off topic, with a lot of personal clashes. I am closing and will review further.