Golden Globe reactions

For the films of 2013
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by rolotomasi99 »

The Original BJ wrote:I will continue to use the word cisgender IN REAL LIFE when referring to people who have the privilege of being born with a gender identity that matches their biology, because as far as I can tell, me using that word hurts absolutely no one, and is more respectful to the transgendered community than a word like "normal."
I apologize for further pulling this thread off topic, but I really need someone to explain this to me. I understand transgender people do not identify with the genitalia they were born with, but what about those of us who just see our genitalia as a part of our body? If we do not specifically have a gender identity, are we still cisgender? Unlike my sexual orientation (homosexual), there is nothing in my brain that identifies my gender. It is the same with my ethnicity and race. My pale complexion identifies I am of European descent, but nothing inside of me identifies as European. I identify as Italian, German, and Jewish because my parents tell me that is what they are (German/Jewish dad, Italian mother), but nothing inside of me identifies as Italian, German, or Jewish. They are definitely a part of me and define my body, but they do not influence my thoughts or feelings the way my sexual orientation does.

The same goes for my gender. I may have male genitalia and other male physical features (flat chest, narrow hips, broad shoulders, etc.), but nothing in my brain tells me I am male. Society may treat me differently, and I may respond to that with certain male privilege (just like my whiteness influences how society treats me); however, that is not the same as having a gender identity (or race identity) hardwired in me the way I believe sexual orientation is (which I know some folks disagree with). There are definitely people who are a certain race or ethnicity who do not strongly identify with their ancestry, and in extreme cases like Michael Jackson will surgically alter themselves to change their racial appearance. What is the word to describe those people? Transracial?

So basically my most pertinent question is, does every cisgendered person on this board have a gender identity? Am I the only person who has no gender identity beyond what my body says (again, the same as my race/ethnicity). I am really interested in this topic and love discussing it, but I am never around the type of people who even know what cisgendered means.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by Sabin »

Your point is so strange.
"How's the despair?"
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by ITALIANO »

Sabin wrote:Have you heard of Godwin's Law? It states that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." .

Now I will make you happy. The word "aryan" was basically invented to describe "pure" Europeans - as opposed, for example, to Jews. It was a new world, created by intellectuals of the time. Still by even just implying that difference - and one might say that it was a real difference, so creating a name could have been understandable - it soon became the excuse racists used to justify their ideas - and, soon, their persecutions.

No, words arent the answer. Never.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by Sabin »

Like.
"How's the despair?"
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by The Original BJ »

ITALIANO wrote:The point is that transgendered shouldn't be persecuted, and creating the world "cisgendered" is only a hypocrite way of facing this issue - it's like looking elsewhere.
Please let me know how I should correct any transgendered friends next time they unironically use the word "cisgendered" so as best to display my respect for them. I definitely don't want them to be engaging in hypocrisy.
FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by FilmFan720 »

OscarGuy wrote:I'm actually thinking back to the Marisa Tomei "debacle." If you think about that performance: a young actress adopting an outrageous accent adding a level of comedy to a film well beyond what the film itself was capable of and triumphing over more longtime actresses with more critical acclaim, and you have a near identical corollary to this year. The one distinct difference is that Tomei was a relative newcomer at the time she won and didn't have a previous Oscar. Lawrence does.
This is an interesting comparison, but misses one big thing. The reason there was so much trepidation about Marisa Tomei was that she was a complete newcomer (like Lupita Nyong'o this year, no one knew if this was an aberration or a promise of talent to come) in a fairly middlebrow comedy that hadn't received much attention. My Cousin Vinny is certainly a fun film, but even its detractors have to acknowledge that American Hustle is at least trying for something a little deeper than a summer Hollywood comedy, and certainly is perceived as a much stronger film. I don't think Lawrence could win if her film wasn't as beloved as it was (and if she wasn't perhaps the best shot at honoring the film).

ITALIANO, I like what you point out about having more chances down the line, whereas Swank didn't. I think that is certainly true.

The fact remains that we can't really find a comparison because Jennifer Lawrence is such an aberration. She is the first female movie star to headline the #1 movie of the year at the box office in almost 50 years, she is extremely well-liked and scandal free, she has mixed big blockbusters with interesting character study, she is the youngest two-time actress nominee in history garnering her third this year, she has 3 Best Picture nominees under her belt and it seems like she is here to stay. She keeps breaking records, and I think the question isn't if she can break another one but at what point things are going to start levelling off for her.

Maybe the person we should be looking at is the last actress to headline the #1 film at the U.S. Box Office: Julie Andrew won Best Actress for her film debut (although was a much regaled stage actress) in a Best Picture nominee, was nominated the following year for the eventual Best Picture winner but couldn't quite pull off that second Oscar...despite being America's sweetheart.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by ITALIANO »

Sabin wrote:
Italiano wrote
The point is that transgendered shouldn't be persecuted, and creating the world "cisgendered" is only a hypocrite way of facing this issue - it's like looking elsewhere.
THIS is where I should have written "…yes, sir?"

And I repeat: yes. Words arent that important - sadly. And for example racism has never been effectively fought with new polite words.
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by ITALIANO »

Sabin wrote:Have you heard of Godwin's Law? It states that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." This is increasingly true of someone posting "Ron Paul 2012". For you, it's saying something analogous to "Well, perhaps in America, but here…"

You can take this baton and run with it, but if you're saying that my defense involves an assertion that everybody in America uses the term "cisgender" is not true and nobody is saying that that's true. I'm just saying (me) that "cisgender" is a great word and your reasons for why it is not are not convincing.
Well, I dont know, I like natural words. Dirty, even, but true, real. But I know I won't convince you. Just please don't use it in one of your novels - trust Italiano...
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by Sabin »

Italiano wrote
The point is that transgendered shouldn't be persecuted, and creating the world "cisgendered" is only a hypocrite way of facing this issue - it's like looking elsewhere.
THIS is where I should have written "…yes, sir?"
"How's the despair?"
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by ITALIANO »

The Original BJ wrote:I will continue to use the word cisgender IN REAL LIFE when referring to people who have the privilege of being born with a gender identity that matches their biology, because as far as I can tell, me using that word hurts absolutely no one, and is more respectful to the transgendered community than a word like "normal."
But Original BJ... Respect isn't about WORDS. Actually words can be a very polite, very fornal way of hiding hatred and even persecution. The moment we focus on words, we are obsessed with them, we forget that the real issues must be solve on other levels. And that yes, you may use it in real life, but it's still a word created in a laboratory, with no connection with real people and their lives. Good to make our conscience clean, maybe, but I'm always against easy solutions.

The point is that transgendered shouldn't be persecuted, and creating the world "cisgendered" is only a hypocrite way of facing this issue - it's like looking elsewhere.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by Sabin »

Have you heard of Godwin's Law? It states that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." This is increasingly true of someone posting "Ron Paul 2012". For you, it's saying something analogous to "Well, perhaps in America, but here…"

You can take this baton and run with it, but if you're saying that my defense involves an assertion that everybody in America uses the term "cisgender" is not true and nobody is saying that that's true. I'm just saying (me) that "cisgender" is a great word and your reasons for why it is not are not convincing.
"How's the despair?"
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by ITALIANO »

Sabin wrote: I just hadn't considered somebody would ever think,.
But that's because in America - maybe - nobody is supposed to think in a different way.

We are probably a bit more free here. And we know that giving new words to things doesnt necessarily solve problems. It often avoids them.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by Sabin »

OscarGuy wrote
I guess the question would be: what's the alternative? The opposite of gay is straight. The opposite of man is woman. What is the opposite of transgender? You can't say straight because I know people who identify as transgender who are straight. I may think the word sounds stupid, but what other alternative is there?
No, that's not the question. The question is what purpose does the word serve. Several. One of them is that its very existence potentially provides comfort and direction to trans kids who have an incredible rate of suicide that birth gender does not dictate the course their lives must take, that birth gender is not a life sentence.

It's actually quite interesting that you put the word "debacle" in quotations marks because the mindsets behind this ongoing conversation re: "cisgender" is an actual debacle.
"How's the despair?"
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by The Original BJ »

I will continue to use the word cisgender IN REAL LIFE when referring to people who have the privilege of being born with a gender identity that matches their biology, because as far as I can tell, me using that word hurts absolutely no one, and is more respectful to the transgendered community than a word like "normal."
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by OscarGuy »

I guess the question would be: what's the alternative? The opposite of gay is straight. The opposite of man is woman. What is the opposite of transgender? You can't say straight because I know people who identify as transgender who are straight. I may think the word sounds stupid, but what other alternative is there?

As to the Lawrence double-win thing. I wonder if it's not entirely possible that the sudden influx of new members, the diversifying of membership might cause unexpected consequences. Such as a second Oscar for Christoph Waltz? I still think this is Nyong'o's to lose, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Lawrence pulls off a win.

I'm actually thinking back to the Marisa Tomei "debacle." If you think about that performance: a young actress adopting an outrageous accent adding a level of comedy to a film well beyond what the film itself was capable of and triumphing over more longtime actresses with more critical acclaim, and you have a near identical corollary to this year. The one distinct difference is that Tomei was a relative newcomer at the time she won and didn't have a previous Oscar. Lawrence does.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Post Reply

Return to “86th Predictions and Precursors”