The comics only had enough material for two seasons, from what I understand. There's always recasting....
Paige is remaining a female character, at least that’s what was said last. Who cares what other people might think, when we know those people are fucking retards. It’s called “acting” and it’s when you pretend to be somebody/something you’re not. People should stop worrying about those tools and just start declaring them as a lower class of society until It sticks.
I’m sure that recasting is the right move for Netflix, especially right now while they deal with the fallout from the new Dave Chapelle release.
Im not up on the show but outside of Page boycotting and not playing the role, how would this be a bad thing for Netflix? Have the character transition, make it all about trans empowerment of a trans character played by a trans actor. Score positive points with that community for giving a platform for an aggrieved minority persons and virtue signal as the day is long... Win Win? Maybe Im missing something?
Roger Ebert had a perfect quote to describe this topic, on Linda Hunt winning an Oscar for “Year Of Living Dangerously” when she played a half-Chinese man: “This is what great acting truly is: the magical transformation of one thing into another.” That’s all it is. It isn’t culture appropriation, it isn’t racial ribbing. It’s just acting. Sit still, shut up, and watch the fucking show. “Soul Man” came out over three decades ago and we STILL make fun of it.
That was actually a good movie, excluding the fact she was so goddamn hot her playing a teen boy was hilarious.
I know its a bad look, but fuck the outrage. What the hell are they supposed to do? If Elliot won't present as female for a role... It wouldn't be the first time gender prevented someone from doing their job, and I assume it works like the rest of us: you get fired. If you are a trans man who works at Hooters and you won't wear the shorts, you'd get canned, right? Surely there's been a trans person breastaraunt lawsuit already, no? I can get behind this notion that too many female characters are one-dimensional portrayals of only their sexuality, and Page has had some truly awesome roles that don't hinge on sex appeal. Keeping that going as a trans man seems reasonable, I suppose. I always laugh at outrage over comic book characters...they can annihilate planets and destroy buildings, but if they kiss a dude or show some titty (the controversial spider woman cover), it's too much? Fuck outta here. If they make the character trans to accommodate an actor, meh. It seems silly to me, and diva-esque. I watched the first season, and going from Vanya to Van wouldn't alter the story much, especially since they ran out of source material. I could see it going both ways (rimshot). And again, what is the threat here? All less than 1% of trans Netflix subscribers boycott them? This outrage is over what? Jokes? Not denying them rights, or discriminating against them, or writing abhorrent laws that cause them to suffer or denying them medical care....jokes. That's why it reeks of attention-seeking to me. Of all the things these people have a good reason to be pissed about, they pick a pointless fight with a comedian. Specifically, one who ended his show by telling a story about a trans lady that killed herself after being trashed online, for defending her idol.
Has there been any indication that it's even an issue yet? I've heard nothing from Page nor Netflix about there being a problem.
Twitter’s primary function is to cater to journalists and celebrities who are too impatient to wait for their usual media apparatus to share their stupid opinions through. I don’t use it whatsoever, so the woke mob doesn’t exist in my universe other than as some abstract thing people talk about. It’s just so strange to me that a certain segment of the population can’t just ignore things they don’t like or approve of. The idea that it’s not allowed to exist at all seems to be more driven by insecurity than anything else.
So now that the "trans bathroom policy leads to rape of teenager which school board tried to cover up" has become the central plank in Youngkin's gubernatorial bid in Virginia, the actual criminal case has concluded and we learned the following: The perpetrator wasn't trans. He was just a dude who wears a skirt. There was no trans bathroom policy in place at the time of the assault. He did not go into the bathroom to commit a random assault; the bathroom was the location he and the victim used to hook up, and when she said no this time, he assaulted her anyway. The police were notified by the school immediately after the allegation came to their attention. The father was arrested at a school board meeting not to "cover up" the assault, but because he was threatening another parent. School officials didn't comment because they were bound by state and federal privacy laws, not because they were covering it up. The perpetrator wasn't "allowed" to transfer schools as part of a coverup, state law prohibits holding a minor longer than 21 days without a hearing, and prosecutors needed more time than that to process DNA results. So awesome that our statewide elections get decided by a bad-faith game of telephone.
All you need to do is drive in Virginia to understand that their politics will never make sense....and they will absolutely get in an uproar about something wrongly reported, purely hypothetical and having nothing to do with actual laws, policy, governance, etc. Also, kind of remarkable that the facts of a situation handled by professionals are a lot less outrageous than what the internet makes them out to be.
I want to know if the assault victim also wore a skirt. Because if she did, then they were dressing specifically for quick-draw bathroom bone-a-thons, and that’s some smart work. Horny high school kids are where true innovation resides.
What privacy laws prevent them from confirming that an assault occurred? The Superintendent of the school system got caught lying about it to parents. If he wasn’t trying to cover it up, it was pretty terrible judgment.
The laws refer to the status of the accused student. Ironically likely due to the new Title IX guidelines issued under Betsy Devos, which explicitly sought to increase protections for students accused of sexual assault. As for the "no" answer, the Superintendent said it was because he interpreted the question to be asking if he was aware of any sexual assaults by transgender students in a bathroom, as that was the topic of discussion immediately preceding the question. Whether you buy that answer is up to you, but I don't find it any more unbelievable than a coverup that included informing the police and prosecuting the perpetrator.
He made a comment that a specific predatory transgender doesn’t exist, but he also said he wasn’t aware of a sexual assault occurring at all. Also, I understand the privacy of all immediate parties need to be protected, but I’m skeptical that the law prevents the district from acknowledging an event occurred in in the first place. If that were the case, the public would never know about sexual assaults until after a court proceeding, which is obviously not the case. That being said, I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt that he just made an error in judgment due to immense pressure rather than a “cover up.” I haven’t heard any concrete evidence that the latter occurred, despite a purported email from him a month earlier to the contrary. I haven’t seen the email, so I don’t know. Either way, though, the result is the same and the trust relationship between the school district and the parents has eroded completely, which I would say is a dereliction of one of the primary functions of his role.