Some folks have expressed concern in the fact that BIA included influential voices that don’t necessarily support progress in trans community. They feel we have given currency to these ideas which can perpetuate these harmful ideologies.
The precise reason that some people feel its dangerous to show this side of the position is why we thought it was important. We wanted to present, Judith Halberstam, a theorist on gender studies and what her thoughts are for many reasons: How can we argue a point that is only presented theoretically? We felt it gave the argument (that youth should have access) more strength by presenting the views that do not support it rather than just speculating on those ideologies. I do believe in the power of “Show it. Don’t just say it”. We aimed to show: what one’s reasons are for believing youth shouldn’t have access to hormones. Then, ultimately do those reasons stand up to the counter argument? Our goal is for people to walk away with more information and our hope is that this information leads to supporting youth access to hormones.
As a media consumer I feel more respected and educated if I am presented with both sides of an issue. With one angle, I feel manipulated by not being given the chance to come to my own conclusions.
Additionally, a really interesting aspect of this argument hearing other people say they left feeling like we didn’t present enough of the argument or criticism--that we didnt give enough examples of the people thinking youth shouldn't have hormones. People thought they would get more validity in explaining the issues that have to face, and they thought BIA only skimmed the issue. As a media maker it fascinates me to hear such polar opposite reactions to the representation in the film from people who consider themselves to be equally affected by these representations.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Non Trans folks making films on trans issues
This is the one critique we've received since the first screening of BIA: the perpetuation of non-trans folks making films about trans folks.
It's probably the only critique I've heard to date that I don't think applies to this project.
We set out to create a doc that would present a dialog in the community that wasn't happening.
This dialog included us, our community, and that was precisely our concern and drive in making it. It concerned us on many, very intimate and personal levels.
It was not an example of an outsider looking in and telling someone else's story. We were not striving to tell a FTM story. We included the lives of 3 transmen in order to have a human element---to see how these issues effect real people and the portrayal of their lives wasn't an isolated story having nothing to do with our lives and our concerns. Their lives, their thoughts, and their questions were directed towards the theory we presented and, the struggles we were personally having, this doc. was part of our story. I am open to discussing this more because I do believe people have to tell their own stories. And, if we have crossed the line in BIA we need to see that and be accountable for that.
It's probably the only critique I've heard to date that I don't think applies to this project.
We set out to create a doc that would present a dialog in the community that wasn't happening.
This dialog included us, our community, and that was precisely our concern and drive in making it. It concerned us on many, very intimate and personal levels.
It was not an example of an outsider looking in and telling someone else's story. We were not striving to tell a FTM story. We included the lives of 3 transmen in order to have a human element---to see how these issues effect real people and the portrayal of their lives wasn't an isolated story having nothing to do with our lives and our concerns. Their lives, their thoughts, and their questions were directed towards the theory we presented and, the struggles we were personally having, this doc. was part of our story. I am open to discussing this more because I do believe people have to tell their own stories. And, if we have crossed the line in BIA we need to see that and be accountable for that.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Monday, March 12, 2007
Boy I Am, reactions? questions?
People are too polite these days... so, I wanted to create a space where folks may feel safe to express their thoughts/opinions/ideas in a constructive way.
( note: constructive, there is no need to say you hated it unless, you can tell us why)
This documentary and the issues it brings up don't need to be static in time. It was done as a conversation starter...and while it might seem antiquated in the not so far future I hope it continues to spark dialogue.
Whatever your thoughts are: good/bad/unsure, I bet there are people out there who will agree. Maybe I even do.
And, maybe I can shed light on why certain choices were made and not others.
As I continue to make work by and for the queer community, I hope the community can continue to be part of the process every step of the way.
I've been talking to a few folks about various reactions which I will post soon...but, first I'd like to hear yours.
Ok...that's it for now.
-Sam
( note: constructive, there is no need to say you hated it unless, you can tell us why)
This documentary and the issues it brings up don't need to be static in time. It was done as a conversation starter...and while it might seem antiquated in the not so far future I hope it continues to spark dialogue.
Whatever your thoughts are: good/bad/unsure, I bet there are people out there who will agree. Maybe I even do.
And, maybe I can shed light on why certain choices were made and not others.
As I continue to make work by and for the queer community, I hope the community can continue to be part of the process every step of the way.
I've been talking to a few folks about various reactions which I will post soon...but, first I'd like to hear yours.
Ok...that's it for now.
-Sam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I loved the film, but I really think that it should have included trans men who choose not to have surgery or take hormones. Why was there no visibility for those trans folks?? I think they are a vital part of the story.
March 16, 2007 11:12 AM
Thank you so much for your post.
I absolutely agree. The easy answer is one film can’t include everything. The more complicated answer is we chose some of the trans men based on the knowledge that they were not going to go on hormones or have surgery. But, that changed. When it changed (years into production) we needed to decide if we should continue with this person’s story or not.
We weren’t ok with not having a representation of someone without hormones or surgery and we wondered, should we start looking for someone else to represent that person?
We realized that adding someone could have added years onto production and delaying the production had even more consequences: 1.the info may not be relevant anymore, 2. the crew may not be in the same place to finish the documentary 3. if we made the decision to add another person at this stage in production, what would stop us from wanted to do that again if something else changed.4 and so on…
As a filmmaker, this is a important issue for me. It’s a good lesson in looking at the context of any work within the static realm of media. Once it is done and put out there it doesn’t grow or change with the times…(unless you make a 2nd or 3rd addition and even so it seems that what is stated first is what sticks.)
So, do media makers take that risk? At this point in my career, I think we should; especially if we are willing to continue the dialogue and admit where the product fell short in hopes to keep the dialogue and representation growing. Thanks again for writing. I’d love to hear your thoughts on the above.
-Sam