While I see the play review as tangential, I'm willing to discuss it in detail, if you like.
And what you can see sets the limits of awareness for others, that the idea? Eric, are you honestly trying to claim that no homosexual ever gives overt signs of his/her sexual orientation?
I claim that, outside of actual intimate contact with men, there are not signs that are "honest, objectively observable and verifiable", the standard you presented. Are you interested in defending your own standard?
You're totally confusin the issue. A black man might well do a poor job of trying to act Japanese. Not the least bit of bigotry in recognizing that.
On the other hand, a man of Japanese descent, raised in America, might also do a poor job of acting Japanese, while a black man rasied in Japan might do an excellent job. The differences would be a matter of knowledge and general ability, not skin color. I would be surprised you disagree. So, why should the standard be different for gay men playing straight roles. Most especially, why should Rock Hudson's acting be changed from being seen as masculine to being seen as effiminate simply because the actor was gay?
Where the hell is the bigotry? If some transvestite plays woman in a movie, and manages to convince some that he is a woman, they will look back on the scenes differently if the true sexual identity of the actor is revealed (later in the movie, or just in public).
You mean, a transvestite man actor plays the role of a woman throught the movie, and the movie needs to be reinterpreted based on that fact about the actor? I don't see why.
Yes. Feel free to find a non-bigoted reason to explain it.
One was about a particular actor in a particular play. He then tried to discuss broader social issues and common perceptions. Don't confuse the two areas.
The author himself related the two issue unnecessarily, which has been my point in the criticism of this article.
I have seen movies (can't name one offhand) where, in the movie, a woman was trying to pass herself off as a man.
I believe "Just One of the Guys" was a movie about a girl who wanted to play soccer on the boys team. It was based on "Twelveth Night".
Anyone who claims that you cannot generally distinguish a woman from a man is blind.
So, now you want to change from the distinction between gay and straight men to that between men and women, as though the biological differences are of similar scope and proportion?
It certainly is not bigotry to claim that there are objective, observable differences.
How is this related to the differences between gay and straight men playing a specific role?
Speak for yourself. Someone else's "tone of voice" does not generally lead me to make whatever subjective evaluation of a situation that I end up making, based on my own perceptions and values.
I agree, but I don't see how this is responsive to what I said.
Then you should quit denying that this is your true intention.
I don't ever recall denying it. Encouraging other people to control themselves is not the same as controlling them.
Yeah, Marcus, that was one where a transvestite was involved. A main goal of the movie seemed to be to shock people into re-interpeting their perceptions of prior scenes. For Eric, that would mean "exposing their bigotry," I spoze.
So, now you are using a male actor playing a male role, where the character in question pretended to be a woman, as an equivalent to a transvestite actor playing a woman, as an equivalent to a gay man playing a straight man?
