LGBTQ+ Rights Worldwide

Meritocracy though, surely. I don't think that an actor playing a different orientation is the same as, say, blacking up. The actors might not be attracted to each other anyway, but they're just playing the part, with the gender being largely irrelevant. Blacking up contributes to racial subjugation by keeping black actors out of the media ("We don't need racial equality, we'll just put makeup on our white guys", but that's not necessarily the case with sexual orientation.

If a gay actor would be better for the role, then hire them. If a straight actor would be better and is willing to do it, I don't see why they shouldn't be hired. I'm all in favour of increased participation by other orientations, and initiatives to reduce stigma and increase involvement. I don't think the issue needs to be forced by targetting gay actors for gay characters.

I don't understand your reasoning here. Could you please clarify? Are you saying that hiring straight actors to play gay characters doesn't have the effect of keeping gay actors out of the media? If so, how is that not the case? Because I don't see it.

I think we can both agree that increased representation of minority characters in media is a good thing. But to turn around and say "if characters from this minority are played by actors who aren't from that group, it's okay" kind of sends a mixed message.

That is a terrible, terrible analogy. Given the health risks involved in smoking and the fact that even herbal cigarettes can cause irritation, at least in the short term you're effectively equating kissing someone of the same gender as being dangerous for your health.

Better.

My answer to the question is that if you're not willing to do it, I'd lose respect for them as an actor. Effectively portraying feelings and thoughts (and actions they may lead to) that you don't feel yourself if more or less the definition of the job. And if that's the only thing that can overcome your acting ability that doesn't say good things about you.

edited 26th Jan '15 5:32:27 PM by KnightofLsama

Acting and real life aren't as separate as would be most convenient. It's one thing to play a villain, because ultimately all the bad stuff is simulated (and even that can still go into deeply uncomfortable territory — see Heath Ledger). But if you're filming a sex scene, you're filming a sex scene. If you have a significant other, one or both of you may not be comfortable with you snogging and/or fucking someone else. If you happen to be an observant adherent of a religion that really doesn't like homosexuality, kissing another dude is still kissing another dude.

Actors will draw lines, and as long as they're not going Kirk Cameron on anyone in the process, their reasons are their own and I'm willing to respect them.

And look at what can happen to actors and especially actresses who do nudity or sex scenes: it can kill their career.

Never mind that some people just don't want their body on display for the whole world and I don't blame them.

If I wouldn't do it, it would be pretty dickish of me to expect it of others just because they're a professional pretender.

Body doubles, fake genitalia, there are ways.

We seem to be really drifting from the topic. I hope this doesn't lead to a seperate LGBT Rights and the Entertainment Industry thread.

I'll add another question: how do you even know the sexual orientation or trans status of an actor or actress, apart from someone (possibly the person in question) telling it? And why should you care?

Because they're competing for the same jobs. Gay actors portray strait characters a plenty, assuming a reasonable level of meritocracy (or at least discrimination being based on something other than sexual orientation).

If anything I'd say that focusing on getting gay actors to play gay roles might hurt gay actors, as then there would likely be a (not entirely unreasonable) push to favour strait actors for strait roles. Then you've got separate but equal, and we all know how well that tends to go.

I can't help but feel this is a symptom of society's tendency to treat sexuality as a not all that important part of a person's identity as opposed to race or physical sex. Because sexuality can be hidden, non-heterosexuals are basically told to hide theirs, since it's not important. And if a straight actor plays a gay character, you can't tell the difference by looking at them. So who cares right? It's not that important, right?

Would you at least be willing to consider a preference for gay actors in gay roles?

How would I (as a spectator) know an actor's or actress' sexuality (let's not limit ourselves to gay and straight)? For all I know, there are plenty of gay actors and actresses who just haven't announced their sexuality to the world (or are pretending to be straight because there's still a stigma attached to homosexuality). Should casting agencies ask actors about that?

Neil Patrick Harris, such a brilliant actor that people still wonder if he is seriously gay even though he is married with children because he is that believable as a womanizer.

Honestly, sexuality is none of our business and the only way to get more gay people to fill gay roles is to have more people announce their sexuality. That may not be an appetizing idea for some people.

I have a better idea. Let's just write more diverse roles. I would love to reach a point where they're not a "gay actor" but just an actor. I would love to reach a point where they don't need a "gay guy" for that. They just write natural people who happen to also be something. Make it normal in the media and culture will follow.

You say it much better than I do, Gabrael. Couldn't agree with you more.

By the same token, one could argue that straight actors should be the only ones playing straight roles. If it's all about realism and performance, after all. Unfortunately, that argument goes both ways.

I think what you're arguing for though is straight up affirmative action, which really isn't going to be helpful if it means prejudicing better actors who could do the role better who happen to be straight. It also has the potential to undermine the achievements in getting the biggest roles of non-het actors, because it can be said of them that they only got it because of their sexuality. That's not helping anyone.

No, as Gabrael says, the focus needs to be on more gay characters, not gay actors. It's similar to what Disney are, slowly, trying to do on a racial level by increasing the diversity of their princesses. Feature more gay characters without drawing attention to it, let them appear and do so normally.

That is what will move towards normalising gay characters. Some media have already done this; Buffy The Vampire Slayer had the gay couple actually be the most normal character on the show, since they were two humans who were genuinely in love, and, magic aside, had a normal relationship with the ups and downs that would show in any other show between a man and a woman.

That's what we need to see more of.

You all make sense. Maybe I'm just seeing a problem where it doesn't exist. I don't know.

I'm not sure you should particularly care. If they sign up for the role, it doesn't really matter.

Please. Just about every time a gay character shows up, they're treated as a bug in a jar. It doesn't really help to normalize it societally.

A League of Legends esports league in the Philippines has made a ruling for its all-women tournament that restricts LGBTQ women from participating in it. They cite the possibility that they may have some "unfair advantage" as the reason for doing so.

Riot Games responded to this ruling with this tweet, saying that they welcome LGBTQ players in all their official tourneys and all that.

As expected, this has caused quite a bit of controversy.

How are they supposed to tell? A transgender person isn't always (or even usually) obvious, and a gay person is nearly impossible to identify on sight unless they're really stereotypical. Although I have no idea what the lesbian stereotype is for the Philippines.

Neither do I, and I lived there for 6 years. Albeit for high school, but still. What I do know is that "tomboy" is used as the all-inclusive standin word for "lesbian" in the Tagalog productions I've seen, which still confuses me to this day.

...Wait, why is there gendered LoL tournaments? Why shouldn't they, you know, fight in one tournament?

And what "unfair advantage" LGBT woman could possible have? Seriously.

Gabrael: This is very late, but a reason to tell a prospective dater that your kid is transgender is to see if they are transphobic or not. Cut the assholes out right away.

I too am curious what kind of unfair advantage a lesbian might have at League of Legends. I mean, what the actual fuck?

This got covered on the co-optional podcast to, beyond them laughing at the madness of it and TB's very passionate defence of trans rights they pretty much wondered if it came down to them thinking that more 'masculine' players (which includes lesbians just because) would have some kind of biological advantage. Obviously that's a load of shit but that seems to be the best reasoning they could find.

That or they were afraid of a guy pretending to be a women so he could play in a lower skill tournament, which as Jesse Cox pointed out is the plot of a '90s movie.

Also Jesse Cox concluded that underneath it all they're saying LGBT people are better at Lo L and that all those times people in Lo L matches called him gay they were complimenting his skills.

The one thing they didn't cover is that apparently this has come up due to complaints from some of the (female) players, which is an interesting point.

X4 Female only tournaments are a thing due to the fact that men tend to dominate the field in several e-sports (largely due to the social factors that push people away from e-sports being even greater for women). As men tend to make up pretty much all of the world class players in these games, female only tournaments act as a way to try and build female interest and a female skill base. There are no male only tournaments though, it's not that tournaments are gendered, it's that there are additional female only tournaments.

edited 4th Feb '15 12:52:14 AM by Silasw

Mr AHR,

You can learn if someone is transphobic without exposing your child. That's not that hard.

As a single mom myself I understand trying to be careful of who you let around your kid and how two faced people can be. But I also don't know if that person may come after my kid or start running their mouth about my child. So it just seems like a well intentioned, but boneheaded move. Especially if the child is significantly older as was in the original conversation.

Some people also can't get over the whole "transgendered" part even if they never knew that person previous to their transition. I wouldn't want people to see my child as "once a boy, now girl". I would want them to see them just as them. I also don't see why a date would need to know anything. Even after marriage, should you even be married, that doesn't assure that the step parent can make medical decisions for the child without permission from the birth mother.

Just seems like that should be a personal issue you have to earn the right to be a part of and your child deserves the right to discern who is safe in that bubble, not the parent.