News & Politics

Stage Actors' Union Wants Transgender Performers to Play Non-Trans Characters

(Stock image courtesy of Pexels)

It seems that the transgender lobby has set its sights on the entertainment industry as the next frontier in their battle to impose their dangerous ideology on the rest of us. A stage actors’ union called Equity is calling on casting directors to consider hiring transgender performers to play characters that aren’t transgender.

In guidance for entertainment professionals working with LGBT+ performers, published on Monday, the union said some trans actors were better suited to playing characters who were cisgender – meaning their gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth.

“The fact that [a performer] is trans may be completely invisible in the role or production, but it powerfully represents diversity in the industry,” it said. “This ‘invisible’ diversity is just as important as more physically recognisable forms of diversity.”

It added: “It is hard for trans actors to build a career out of the very small amount of trans-specific roles if these are the only roles for which they are actively sought.”

I’m a bit confused as to what the goal here is. Do they want biological males that identify as females to play women’s roles, men’s roles, or both? I’m not sure, but either option, in my opinion, is wrong. If a biological male who identifies as a transgender female wants to play the role of a male character, they’re basically conceding they aren’t the gender they claim themselves to be, otherwise performing such a role wouldn’t be possible. If a biological male who identifies as a transgender female wants to play the role of a female character, they are suggesting that transgender women are actually women—which they are not.

Harrison Knights, a trans actor and activist, said he sometimes struggled to get parts playing transgender characters. “I’ve got a beard and a low voice, which they’re not expecting,” he said. Playing cis roles was “the holy grail” for him, he said, because there were more of them and they were more diverse.

Knights said cis roles were “the assumed default”. “An unnamed drug addict on Casualty, we assume he’s cis. A trainee barrister on Silk, we assume she’s cis. In fact, we assume everyone is cis unless told otherwise.”

He added: “It is not until [trans actors] are being cast in major cis roles because we are the best actors for the role, rather than because we tick a box, that we will have truly arrived.”

My head hurts just thinking about this nonsense. How long before this insanity spreads to Hollywood? Can you imagine the negative impact it would have on the film industry? Does anyone really think a straight male actor would want to take the role of the lead in a romantic movie opposite a man who identifies as a woman? Guess again.

The union’s guidance also calls on people in the industry to announce their pronouns when they introduce themselves as a standard practice.