There's a lot of strange assumptions here and it's a little difficult to unpack them all. For one, you seem to think that if you have not "invalidated" someone's opinion, they cannot be insulted. I don't think that's true. You also seem to think I've accused you of setting yourself up on some "moral high ground," which I didn't say (and don't think is necessarily a problem!), but which also seems intrinsic to the act of criticizing anyone on an issue like this.
That's an assumption of an assumption you are making out there.
I don't seem to think anything. I just don't think it's fair to hold that kind of argument from either of our positions. Because maybe I'm wrong here and I'd apologize if that's the case but none of us two are trans? We can't speculate on stuff like this. I can only speak about intent here.
I noted that some trans people would be insulted by you making a distinction between women and trans women. That's it. I didn't say you "invalidated" their opinion or personally attack you for this, I noted it to make it clear that this wasn't a standard "advocate vs. non-advocate" disagreement, but actually a lot more nuanced and complicated than most of these kinds of disputes.
That twists my argument to an almost absurd degree. A distinction between women and trans women? Holy crap, I'm saying that trans actors and actresses don't get as many roles as cis actors and actresses. It's statistics. And it's a special kind of twist to talk about me making a distinction when the core of the argument is claiming that the film industry makes a distinction.
I'm sorry, I don't know if I'm not explaining myself well or something but... damn.
Your answer reads as: "You are making a distinction between black and white people", or "You are making a distinction between men and women". Worse, actually, because you mention it as "women and trans women". Like, are you trying to tell me that I said that trans women are not women?
Sorry for dragging on this point so much but this is bad. And I mean, your intention is great and we quite agree on the core idea, but...
Sure, that's not what you're talking about. But it's what I'm asking about, and it seems like a pretty fair thing to ask; Johansson playing a trans woman is not like blackface because her portray may or may not be thoughtful, but blackface never is. That's what I'm saying. If you feel the comparison to blackface is valid, it would seem to logically necessitate that you think Johansson is doing something equally irredeemable, which also has no potential way to be thoughtful.
But I don't think Johannson is doing something irredeemable or even bad. Like I don't think Henry Brandon was doing something bad. What's bad here if anything is that they get these roles when trans people and people of other ethnicities in each case don't ever have the same chances to work on films, let alone at roles that defy their gender identity or ethnicity like Johannson and Brandon do instead. Of course, one could argue about whether the specific portrayal is offensive or not, but the overall issue is more structural. It's not the actors' fault, maybe it's not even the director's fault.
Revised from what to what? Any examples would be helpful.
Would take a while to find reliable information on a field that is not my own. But a very clear consequence is the very recent WHO resolution to no longer consider transgender a mental illness. Transgender as a term is also kind of a new paradigm because it no longer reflects a desire or need of transition (changing anatomy), and is defined in terms of personal identity (that's Wikipedia, so yeah, I need to find more solid stuff).
What aspects, though? That's the actual question. Obviously if I ask how this aspect of identity is defined, it's circular to say it's based on "aspects of...identity." Saying "social, cultural and personal" is just listing categories the answer might come from.
I don't have an answer? Gender is something that each lives and sees in a different way. Social and cultural: how your gender defines the way you behave and interact. Personal: how do you feel yourself. I don't have the same idea of masculinity others have.
You were mentioning about gender roles as well... I think gender roles can be both embraced positively -as long as they are not plain discriminatory- while not reducing gender to them. It's a valid form of identity and expression that nobody should be forced to, but nobody should be forced out of.
You're suggesting the definition can be totally different from person to person? Isn't that the same thing as saying there is no definition?
Not really. I think the definition is just broad. How one lives and perceives gender and every related element in it is personal.
My apologies for the delay and if I sounded a bit worked up at some points.