While I understand this arguement independently, I'm actually surprised someone who is pro transgender feels that artists should be at least partially defined by their physical attributes. How do you separate these two views in your mind?
So, I wanted to wait until I was free to reply to this one. First, I'm not merely "pro transgender". I am transgender. Parsing in the term you chose is a little odd and I thought I'd clear that up.
To the question: I can separate these things because the latter half of your statement isn't really the point of my argument. My thesis isn't "Any and all of X group must be portrayed or written exclusively by members of said group." My thesis is "Minority characters in art provide an opportunity to allow marginalized voices equity in an economy that has largely denied them access."
When I use Krem as an example, I am not saying that Krem is an invalid character or even an unwanted representational icon. Krem's cool! What I am saying is that there were multiple opportunities to involve trans people in his creation/presentation and that this opportunities were not taken. As such, marginalized people remained marginalized. Which is Not Cool™.
My honest question is this: Do you have evidence that trans people had equal merit but were discarded in favor of a more "comfortable" choice for the VA, animators, writers, etc, for this character? Are you just assuming that they were, because otherwise they'd have gotten the jobs? Or are you saying that their gender identity should have given them an advantage such that not hiring them is evidence of bigotry? I'm really trying hard to find where you're actually drawing the line in the sand. I'm about as SJW as it comes, but i'm finding it hard to call your argument anything other than demanding favoritism.
With all due respect to the author and GB's editorial autonomy, as a long-time paying user, I'd like to see featured articles that argue the conservative position, for actual diversity of discussion. We get a lot of articles (from many publications) about the supposed need for diversity or equality of gender/race/etc. in the industry, but, as far as I've seen, possibly zero arguing the contrary. There is not a diversity of voices when only one side is getting the spotlight.
I'd imagine a lot of the conservative position to this sort of thing is that there is no problem, and i'd imagine writing an article about there not being a problem would be kind of difficult, unless you were criticizing other folks who said there was a problem. That was a super run on sentence, but I'm guessing that's probably part of the reason.
I would definitely like some point-counterpoint type of content though.
Heather, your last article was good, and the guest program as been great. However, I find this article pretty backward thinking. I don't think we progress society by alleging bigotry when there is no real evidence of it. The assumptions you make in this piece are pretty extreme, and I don't think sets a good example for other trans activists. I'm honestly flummoxed that Austin would decide to go ahead with such a piece.
For the better part of this episode, there is WAY too much thinking going on. For everyone who complained about the editing in the first episode: reap what you sow.
Avaren's comments