I would like to foreground this post by highlighting my awareness that I write with privilege; "I am white, straight, and cisgender: I [have] never had to deal with the abuse and marginalization that faces people of colour and the LGBTQIA+ community" (David Greenwald). Nonetheless - as an intersectional feminist - I would like to talk about the recent release of The Danish Girl and the responsibility which comes with it.

Tom Hooper has been widely criticised for casting cisgender male, Eddie Redmayne, as the protagonist in The Danish Girl. This casting is an action which undeniably supports Hollywood's aversion to the trans community but Hooper justifies his decision by accentuating Redmayne primarily as an aesthetic choice, focusing on his physical androgyny and the delicacy with which he approaches his roles. Indeed, Redmayne is renowned for his acting accreditation but this casting selection only reminds audiences of the distinct deficiency of representation for the transgender community in the film industry. Despite his shortfalls, however, Hooper is successful in portraying one poignant thing: the film does not climax with the operation Lili Elbe excitedly undergoes in order to become "a real woman" (a quote from the film) - in fact, the surgery is presented as a quotidian and logical step, in spite of its pioneering nature. What I mean to say is that Einar's transition to Lili was very much fully formed prior to the operation, and the operation was a formality to concretise Lili's female identity. In fact, the film does not dwell on the procedure at all, with the only information given being that there would have to be two operations: the first would remove the male genitalia, and the second would construct a vagina - with a dubious prognosis. It is in this way that I believe Hooper fulfilled his responsibility to the biopic and to Lili Elbe herself.

What I really wanted to raise here, however, was inspired by a tweet sharing a recent news story. The story claimed that Redmayne intended to meet with Caitlyn Jenner to discuss "trans issues," and the tweet rightly pointed out that Redmayne is a cis male actor whilst labelling Jenner as a homophobic trans woman. The author of the tweet concluded the tweet by adding a sardonic, "wow, the LGBT+ community be thriving." As problematic as this pair may be, I don't think this supposed meeting is necessarily a bad thing - nor is it a representation of the LGBTQIA+ community. Despite my own personal qualms with the casting of Redmayne, I cannot deny the sensitivity and grace with which he played the role of Lili and I respect that he highlighted his responsibility to the character, the biopic, and the trans community as a result of taking the part: "I felt like, I'm being given this extraordinary experience of being able to play this woman, but with that comes this responsibility of not only educating myself but hopefully using that to educate [the audience]" (Redmayne). Arguably then, with Redmayne's acknowledgement of the gravitas of the role, we may finally have a representative who is largely in the public eye. In addition, Redmayne's status as a cisgender male actor (fortunately and unfortunately) makes him more accessible to a vast heteronormative audience because his voice masculine - and therefore rational. If he is willing to use his powerful voice for a good cause, why criticise him?