#Plus i have a history of mental illness and when i talk about trans stuff it's always in english so fucking odds are they'll say i don't

[imhaunting]

:(

#anxious as fuck cause my doctor answered like - idk what that is idk what u want can u clear that up #When i straight up sent him what prescription i needed so i can start the process of getting 'official dysphoria' #And like sure he's old i would love to send him more info #BUT THERE IS NONE #THERE'S FUCK ALL EXPLAINING ONLINE #reached out to a website and hopefully they'll be able to help #But I'm so fucking anxious #Cause apparently it'll cost almost a grand JUST to be diagnosed w dysphoria #And like don't come @ me i know i have it easy cause we have public healthcare but like.... I cannot afford that #Plus i have a history of mental illness and when i talk about trans stuff it's always in english so fucking odds are they'll say i don't #Have enough dysphoria or some bullshit like that #And I'm doing all this behind my parents back which is 100% gonna blow up in my face #And I'm so fucking overwhelmed #Why is it this fucking hard #Fucking why #I'm so.. Lost #I can't fucking afford this shit my parents are gonna definitely pull something if/when they find out #I just... Feel sick

[lokismusings]

Russell T Davies on straight actors and gay characters.

I decided to put this here because I post a lot of Hilson stuff. As an actor, this article hit a nerve. However, as a defender of free speech, Davies is allowed to have his opinion without me thinking of him as insensitive. Just like I am allowed to have my own opinion and argument, and ask questions without being labeled “homophobic, intolerant” etc. (that would just make me laugh because have you SEEN my blog? Anyway, I’ve seen a few other websites covering this article. I am also very skeptical of everything I read, including the sources, and I try not to blindly believe everything. That being said, I felt like posting this to get other opinions and ask honest question to help my understanding. If this has already been covered on Tumblr, please feel free to send me the conversations! Some background on me: I graduated with a BA in Theatre and have worked both on and off the stage since I was twelve years old. I have directed plays and an audio play. Given my experience and dedication to my craft, I think my opinion is worth something.

Also, for the sake of this argument, I am leaving trans-actors out because that’s a whole different post. Here is the article:

https://news.sky.com/story/russell-t-davies-straight-actors-should-not-play-gay-characters-12185652

Okay, so first things first, let’s talk about this: “Speaking to the Radio Times, Davies compared a straight actor playing a gay character to black face.” Something that irks me is when one person tries to speak for a whole community and doesn’t reference people from said community who might disagree: whether it’s the LGBTQ+ community, a religious community, medical community, etc. The list goes on. Here, Davies is speaking on behalf of, or speaking for, both the LGBTQ+ community and the black community, is he not? I am genuinely asking because I would like to be more educated on this kind of speech. 

Then Davies says, "I'm not being woke about this... but I feel strongly that if I cast someone in a story, I am casting them to act as a lover, or an enemy, or someone on drugs or a criminal or a saint... they are NOT there to 'act gay' because 'acting gay' is a bunch of codes for a performance.” Does that not discredit his whole statement? If any actor does a caricature version of anything and doesn’t take it seriously or really works to get into the role and the mindset of a character, they’re not a good actor. At least, they’re not an actor that I’d want to hire. Second, by the logic that a straight person shouldn’t play a gay character, should someone without a criminal record not be able to play a criminal character? Before you go off and say “it’s about identity and sexuality, and playing a criminal is about the choice to break the law” or other arguments, I hear you. I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the experience. How can an actor who has never committed a crime play a criminal character authentically? They do their research: reading, interviewing, etc. I’m not saying that an actor with a few minor marks on his record shouldn’t be considered for the same role. I’m saying that in an audition setting, if both of these actors were auditing for the role and the non-criminal-record actor just happened to do a better job and fit what the director and/or writer wanted, is that a mark against the criminal-record-actor? Maybe personally because we don’t know what the director is thinking. But chances are, it’s not a mark against the other actor. The other one just happened to have a better audition. Or, a major factor when considering casting, said actor was easy to work with--I’ve seen a lot of talented actors lose a lot of roles because of their inability to take criticism or notes. 

Plus, the whole “Breaking Bad” series?? I highly doubt the main actors were meth-making drug-lords. Or, a better example, “The Wire?” In that show, we see the constant battle and deals between drug-lords and cops. 

Another point I’d like to make:  “...is a bunch of codes for a performance.” That’s exactly right. The audience doesn’t want to know an actor is “performing.” We know that going in, with what is called “suspension of disbelief.” We know the whole show is a performance, but we also expect the actors to be truthful (unless it’s a comedy/farce, but again, that’s a different argument). 

Was it bad that, before 2020, some main characters in TV shows were portrayed as straight but the writers ended up “queer-baiting?” I am referring, of course, to House, M.D. (If you follow this blog, you’ll understand.) But I am also referring to the BBC Sherlock Holmes series. Yes, both pairs of characters (House and Wilson; Holmes and Watson) are assumed to be straight. However, some episodes allude that there could also be something more there. Even the actors have said in various interviews that they aren’t sure if it’s a true romance that the characters are afraid to face, or just a strong bond between best friends that blurs the line between platonic and romantic. I’m paraphrasing, but you get the picture. Therefore, should these characters have only been played by straight actors who are questioning their sexuality or feelings for a best friend? Would it have been disrespectful to gay people if these characters ended up becoming romantically involved? (If we ask the Hilson and Johnlock community, I’m guessing that’s a resounding “NO WAY! IT WOULD BE A DREAM COME TRUE!” xD <3) 

“It's about authenticity, the taste of 2020.” *Cinema Sins sigh*

"You wouldn't cast someone able-bodied and put them in a wheelchair...” Again I say, directors and casting directors need to ALWAYS search for someone who is in a wheelchair, or deaf, or HOH, etc. before looking for an able-bodied actor to play a character with that disability (I’m iffy on the whole term “disability because of its negative connotations, but I’m using that word in order to keep this post as long as possible). But I give you the example of Rainman with Dustin Hoffman. Or A Beautiful Mind with Russell Crowe. Or the play and movie Proof, where the father had a mental illness?  Anthony Hopkins was diagnosed late in life with Asperger’s Syndrome, but the father in Proof was written to allude more to schizophrenia. And yet, Anthony Hopkins did a tremendous job in that role. Or Even Forrest Gump with Tom Hanks. Many people today love Tom Hanks and laud him as a “woke” celebrity. But if he were to portray the role of Forrest Gump today, how many people would try to “cancel” him or at least have very strong words for the director not casting an actor with autism, due to the character’s autistic tendencies? A whole lot of people on the internet and Twitter, I’ll bet. As someone who struggles with anxiety and panic disorder, would I be upset if someone without that mental illness got cast in a role of a character struggling with that? Sure I would. But if they did an authentic job and approached the role respectfully, it would be hard to stay irritated. Besides, there are always more roles created practically everyday. 

To continue on with Davies’ quote: “...you wouldn't black someone up.” Yikes. I’m sure he didn’t mean this in a cast-off kind of way, but that’s how it comes across. I can see now why he said he wasn’t “being woke about this,” because a more “woke” way of putting that would be...what, exactly? “You wouldn’t cast a non-black person in a black role.” That sounds better and less harsh. Or even “a white person in a minority role.” Which should be common sense, and I agree with both statements. 

And then “Authenticity is leading us to joyous places." Oh! Look at that! There’s that word that I’ve been using and emphasizing throughout this whole post! Authenticity is one major brick in the foundation of good, credible acting. 

“High-profile examples of straight performers playing LGBTQ+ characters include Rami Malek's Oscar-winning portrayal of Freddie Mercury in Bohemian Rhapsody, and Taron Egerton's Golden Globe-winning turn as Sir Elton John in Rocketman.”

I haven’t seen Rocketman, but I saw Bohemian Rhapsody and it was great! Why am I high-lighting this movie? Because it’s the perfect example of a straight actor playing a gay character and playing it authentically, while also looking a lot like the real person they’re portraying. If a look-a-like had been cast who also happened to be gay, but couldn’t act to save their life or couldn’t bring as much as Rami brought to the role, wouldn’t that kind of put a damper on the film? And yet, Rami Maleck both looked the part and brought an authenticity to the role that many Queen fans loved and appreciated. Even the remaining Queen band members said that he did an incredible job and Freddy would be proud. I wonder if Freddy would care that Rami wasn’t gay? I doubt it, but no one can know for certain. 

Then there’s the whole term “gay face.” I personally don’t think this is the right term to use because it could possibly diminish the whole meaning and importance of “black face.” Even if Corden appeared to be mocking gay people (I never watched The Prom so I have no idea what his performance was like), calling it “gay face” takes away from and inadvertently belittles the whole dark history of “black face.” Black face’s whole history comes out of an even darker history of racist times filled with hatred and ignorance. I’m not saying that gay people haven’t had their own experiences with hate and intolerance, but isn’t kind of “un-woke” and “insensitive” to compare the hundreds of years of blatant, public racism against an entire race of people to the intolerance of homosexuals? (Again, I’m asking this genuinely because I want to learn and get other people’s opinions. I’m not trying to speak for any community, and I recognize that my personal opinion on this matter is just that: my opinion. And I could be better informed.)

Along the lines of the above paragraph, is it wrong to say or think that casting a non-minority actor in a minority role is a lot different from casting a straight actor in a gay role? Sexuality comes in all shapes, sizes, and colors; that is to say, every race has people with different sexualities. But I think it would be pretty cringe if a Caucasian actress was cast in a role meant for an Asian or African-American woman. 

Director Joe Mantello told Sky News the casting was not intentional, but rather a "very fortunate series of events".

He continued: "That being said, I think having an out gay cast really did inform the work and it took on a particular kind of tone because of that, which is not to say that's the only way to approach this material. But for this particular group, it did something that I think is very, very special. There's a chemistry that they have."

And this man summed up my entire argument! He also put into simpler terms what I have been trying to express about the beauty of theatre: there will always be special casts, especially when there’s a great chemistry from a shared experience. A "very fortunate series of events,” indeed. “The casting was not intentional...” leads me to believe that the director didn’t set out to have an all out-gay-cast, but rather, each actor brought great performances to their auditions and were considered by the director to be perfect for the roles. These actors also just happened to be gay.

If you’re still here after all of that, let me take a moment to sincerely thank you for reading the whole thing! I know it’s a lot, but I’m very passionate about acting and giving each and every actor a fair chance. Let me know what you think, and please be respectful!

#russell t davies #straight actors and gay characters #opinion #article #actor #theatre #film #television #hilson #johnlock #bbc series sherlock holmes #the prom #bohemian rhapsody #forrest gump #tom hanks #rocketman #this took way longer than i expected and i'm not even going to submit this anywhere #i feel like i'm back in college writing an argumentative essay #woke #woke culture #wokeness

[vampireqrow-moved]

hey so I agree with a lot of the stuff in your post about the transphobia involved in the origin of the pansexual label, but I just have one question: what are the actual impacts of people with good intentions calling themselves pan? If you don't hate pansexuals and consider them bi, why type up a paragraphs long manifesto on the harms of the origin of the label if it means the same thing in the way that most non transphobic people (your audience) use it? a lot of identities can be used in transphobic ways (like bi and lesbian and anything really) and plenty of valid identities from problematic roots and evolve over time as people use them differently (queer, transsexual). so how is a person with good intentions using a not-perfect label in a way you don't like a threat to the community? if someone is using the label pan transphobically, wouldn't their bigotry exist independently? if pan people do not act in transphobic ways besides using the label pansexual, realistically what is changing if they call themselves bi beyond holier-than-thou aesthetic activism? plus, a blog on the internet isn't going to get everyone to stop identifying as pansexual, especially considering multiple prominent celebrities ID as pan. so why spend all that energy quibbling on semantics because some bi people use a slightly different word when you could be worrying about Literally anything else? just feels like you want to find something to argue about lol. extremely disappointed that I had to break a mutual

im going to respond to each thing you bring up chronologically- im not trying to nitpick or prioritize certain things you say ill just forget things if i go out of order and i dont want to miss something important. ALSO! i will be typing less formally (like keysmashes and shortening words n stuff) in this response than my og post bc its 1am as im starting to type this so im tired but i want to be clear that i am like. taking this seriously and im not like. mocking u in anyway if it could read that way?? i hope not but just in case anyways here it goes!

in terms of actual impact people with good intentions identifying as pan: honestly im not  sure the full scope of the impact this has, so ill only be speaking to what ive personally seen which might not be all. but like... id argue my younger self has good intentionals iding as pan. i wanted to support trans people, even if i didnt understand a lot of the nuance involved. as a result of this, i developed a sense of superiority over other bisexuals and a mentality that bisexuality was a primitive and lesser sexuality. that mentality is harmful, and although im not sure if it affected bisexuals around me (of which there are many most of my friends are bi ajfjfjf) its still a harmful mentality and can easily hurt people even if i specifically didnt. also using it even with good intentions, which i know many people have, still spreads and further normalizes a label that imo can not be separated from its transphobic origins. this effect is not as extreme as other forms of transphobia and biphobia by A LONG SHOT. the bi community faces a lot of other issues but that doesnt mean this one isnt worth addressing if that makes sense?

if i dont hate pansexuals: ik this is part of a larger point which i will adress but i specified this in my post bc i see a lot of other posts that are negative towards pansexuality have "i hate pan ppl" somewhere in it or a close equivalent. i do not shame these ppl for their anger, i just wanted to be clear i think a lot of pan ppl are bi ppl with good intentions choosing a label they dont fully understand based on a misunderstanding of bisexuality.

why write a paragraphs long manifesto on the harms of pansexuals origin: ok 😭😭 the real reason here is that im literally just bad at summarizing. like thats literally it. i also like talking, its a bad combination. plus ive been thinking abt this for like. over a year im not even kidding and just like i have a lot of thoughts and figured if i was going to bother making my own post instead of rbing someone elses that i might as well get everything i wanted to say off my chest. ALSO BTW i literally got an ask like a week ago that was several paragraphs long asking me to explain my thoughts on why pan was harmful and some other stuff so like. this is partially responding to that and partially just me wanting to air my grievances ? idk if thats the right expression 😔😔

why write the post if my audience of people who identify as pan arent doing it in a transphobic way ? again sorry i didnt really understand the phrasing so i hope this is a vaguely correct summary!! um but like... again imo i think pan cant be separated from its transphobia and like. again imo iding as pan is like. a transphobic action/choice? obviously one transphobic thing does mean someone necessarily is like officially a Transphobe (it CAN be depending on the action but i dont think that applies here) but that doesnt mean there arent problems with what they did. this is like very complicated, but like. someone doing something harmful without the knowlege that its harmful doesnt make that person a bigot by any means it just means they didnt know. and i feel thats the case here? a lot of ppl (myself included until recently) know next to nothing abt pansexualitys origins so a trans inclusve sexuality might seem like a safe and good bet just because they dont know too much abt it, and like? i cant hate those people cause that was me for 5+ years and djgjfjdj you just dont know what you dont know!

basically i think iding with a transphobic label is inherently a singular transphobic action that doesnt make the person transphobic by itself, but is still a transphobic instance.

a lot of identities can be used in transphobic ways like bi, lesbian, etc.: this is true and a point i attempted to make on my original post, but i might not have clear enough. my issue with pan is specifically that it is a transphobic response to a preexisting identity. lesbian isnt an attempted trans inclusive indentity that replaced an identity that already existed (which have many trans ppl identifying with the og label). transphobes can use whatever labels they want, but transphobes using a label vs a label having a transphobic origin is very different. bigots use inclusive and supporting language for their bigotry all the time but language that originated with that bigotry is worse.

many valid identities stem from problemstic origins (like transsexual and queer) but the words evolve: ok my paraphrasing is a little weird there. anyways. the thing here is that. those are slurs. reclaimed slurs that can be empowering to many people, yes, but slurs nonetheless. reclaiming a slur is taking a harmful word and wearing it as a badge of pride. first off, pansexual is not a slur (ur not implying that in anyway just. saying) and it isnt being reclaimed when people dont treat it as having harmful origins. transsexual is the way some people identify but ppl acknowlege its a slur and originates from transphobia. ppl love to act like queer isnt a slur, which is an issue in and of itself, but just. factually it has historically and is currently being used against ppl with the intent to hurt them. pansexual isnt on the same level as these and other words like the f slur, d slur, etc. pansexual originates from trans and biphobia WITHIN the community and not outside of it, and most pansexuals dont see themselves as reclaiming the title because they dont think anythings wrong with it in the first place. and reclaiming it just seems unnecessary considering its history? theres no empowerment from using pan as a label as opposed to queer or transsexual, and it just divides the bisexual community for no reason.

how is a person using a not-perfect label a threat to the community? ok i dont think its a threat but still an issue if that difference makes sense? id like to reiterate a few things ive said before, but for me personally, it made me look down on bisexuals and see them as lesser, and it made people around me see pan as the "trans inclusive" sexuality as opposed to bisexuality, and basically its usage just leads to further biphobia. is this the worst of biphobia? no!!! but its still biphobia and why not attempt to target and minimize that? i have no way to singlehandedly stop biphobia, but my post might get through to my friends who id as pan and that small thing is better than nothing.

if someone used the pan label in a transphobic way, wouldnt that bigotry be different from people using it not transphobically?: someone claiming all bi ppl are transphobic and only pan is the acceptable label is obviously a lot worse than someone iding as pan and saying bi/pan solidarity but again, the second isnt not an issue because the first one is a bigger issue, its just a smaller issue in comparison. i wouldnt say the bigotry is different, one is just worse than the other, but it still has the same problems.

if pan people dont do anything transphobic other than id as pan then what changes with iding as bi over pan other holier-than-thou activism: its just one less person using a transphobic label? which isnt that big but it might lead to their friends stopping iding as pan and cause fewer people around them to see bi as a transphobic identity. which is small scale stuff, i wont try to blow it out of proportion, but thats still a step in the right direction and hopefully more people follow with it. its not terribly huge or lifechanging but something small that may only affect the people close to you is still something rather than nothing.

a blog the internet isnt going to get people to stop iding as pan: oh absolutely not. honestly i expected to get unfollowed/blocked more than change peoples minds regarding the pan label (im surprised i only lost two followers so far honestly) but again, someone literally asked me to do this and i wanted to be clear on my stance on the label, since in the past ive been supportive of it. im not expecting the post to get more than five likes, its more directed to my followers rather than the internet as a whole. im not expecting a large impact, im hoping to change the minds of my followers and friends who id as and support the pan label. thats it. if something bigger comes from it- great! but thats not what im aiming to do.

prev point + many prominent celebrities id as pan: the first name that comes to mind is someone im not a fan of for separate reasons but thats irrelevant. i mean im repeating myself a bit but some celebrities in the past validated and made me feel excited abt my identity as a pan person when they came out, and it justified the label to me, even when i had doubts. i have never interacted with a celebrity and do not plan to change their minds abt their identity. again, my post was for my friends and followers and maybe who ever was scrolling through the biphobia tag and decided to read my post.

why spend that much energy worrying abt the pan label instead of something else: ive spent waaaaay more energy thinking abt a singular meme i didnt like regarding my favourite rwby character so like. maybe i just overreact to things lol. maybe i have a lot of energy and since i cant talk my friends ears off abt my favourite fruits or the different voting methods i learned in my math class or what would dreams taste like, then i gotta put my energy into something. idk. i have a lot of energy and honestly? this didnt take that much. but i felt it weighing on me as my friends talked positively abt the pan label, when i felt guilty for the superiority i felt over my bi friends INCLUDING my best friend and favourite person in the world so like. i spent enough energy worrying abt it, and like. in hindsight since its been over 12 hours since posting it, im thinking abt it less. i was more worried abt feeling dishonest with my friends than actually worrying abt pansexuality, but i figured i owed them an explanation for why my feelings around it had changed.

just feels like you want to find something to argue about: okay i DO love arguing but im not pulling this out of my ass for fun. its in response to posts ive seen on my dash, asks i recieved abt pansexuality, and my way of letting people know my views have changed and why since i know at least some people are curious.

i am sorry to lose a mutual as well, and i genuinely hope things go well for you, but uh yeah thats that.

again, if people have further questions im willing to answer them i just might take a while bc i have school and other stuff 2 do but uhhh yea sorry if im clogging ur dash sjfjfkkf

#asks #long post #anonymous #pansexuality #biphobia #transphobia #my post

[sontagfag]

my experience trying to get testosterone

okay im bored so ill do this because idk, maybe it will help someone who is thinking of transitioning.

for context, i came out to my parents in june of 2018, and began starting to pursue hormone therapy in september, after my parents agreed (since i’m a minor). i went to see dr. salas-humara at the NYU Langone Center on October 1st. during the first appt we mostly talked about what i was hoping to gain from hormone therapy, reviewing all the effects of it, and them fielding any questions my parents or i had, plus the normal types of check up stuff, like height + weight.

then i had a meeting with another doctor who is a child psychologist to have a psychological evaluation on october 23rd. i had the choice of doing it with my therapist but my parents decided that doing it with NYU Langone’s was better. it was 3 hours long and essentially consisted of the doctor reviewing my history of dysphoria with me and my parents, in addition to talking at length about my history of mental illness. i also had to fill out a lot of forms/tests and things. it was really uncomfortable for me because they ask you things like “what specifically about going through puberty made you uncomfortable” and “what precisely are you hoping to get out of hormone therapy”

on november 16th i had a meeting with the same doctor for us to review her findings/reccomendations. essentially she handed me and my parents a piece of paper with everything we had said, including things i said without my parents there about my mental illness, history of self harm, and specifics about my dysphoria. it also evaluated my diagnoses (she confirmed i have anxiety, as well as qualified for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. also said i didn’t fit a diagnosis of depression now but i should be watched for signs of it. lol.) and the reccomended steps forward. it was highly uncomfortable, to say the least. she discussed the paper with us to make sure it was all accurate, and told me that she thought i hadn’t talked enough about my gender dysphoria/my experience of being trans, but if i did, she would sign off on a letter saying i had gender dysphoria that i needed to get the hormones.

my doctor for hormones, dr.salas-humara, was not available for an appointment until march of 2019, so i am seeing her then. she was on maternity leave, but i’m not sure if that’s why she is so booked up. i am also not sure if it will be when i get hormones, it may just be doing blood tests and etc (after which i may have to wait another 4 months to get the hormones LOL). since then, this past monday, jan 7th, i met with a woman who runs a support group for queer teens with anxiety, which runs for ten weeks. the meeting was just to establish what i wanted to get out of the group, meet me, etc. it took 45 minutes at most.

and that’s the whole thing, so far. it has been such a nightmare for me to try to get this to happen, and i am curious what other people’s experiences have been, if yall are willing to share. in march it will be six months since this whole process started.