Trans Culture Meets the Modern Soap Opera

Posted by Anna Papachristos on

Despite General Hospital’s enduring spirit — the longest-running American soap opera celebrated its 55th anniversary on April 1 — the genre continues to receive pushback from critics and viewers who believe daytime dramas are passé and out of touch. But, much like its prime time counterparts, GH frequently pulls its material from popular headlines, striking a balance between the ludicrous and the legitimate to appease both traditional and modern audiences.

In recent weeks, for instance, the writers introduced Dr. Terry Randolph (Cassandra James), the show’s first transgender character and actress. As the childhood best friend of longtime Port Charles resident Elizabeth Webber (Rebecca Herbst), Terry drops by to congratulate Elizabeth on her impending marriage after reconnecting on social media. However, when Elizabeth answers the door, the boy she’d shared her first kiss with is nowhere to be seen. It isn’t until Terry introduces herself that Elizabeth realizes time can truly change a person.

While Elizabeth was obviously confused at first, and rightfully so, she welcomes Terry with open arms, stopping only to regret that she hadn’t been there to support Terry during her transition. Franco Baldwin (Roger Howarth), Elizabeth’s fiancé, soon returns home to find the women reminiscing. While he, too, expected to be greeted by a man, Franco accepts Terry without question. The three characters spend time getting acquainted before we, the audience, learn that Terry will be transferring to General Hospital for work in the fall. Terry leaves Elizabeth’s house, but we can rest assured that the door hasn’t closed on this character.

Although James isn’t the first transgender person to grace daytime TV, her role marks a turning point for General Hospital. Overall, the soap opera remains confined to the straight, white, cisgender relationships that typically dominate mainstream media. After all, the show’s primary gay couple (which also happens to be one of its few interracial partnerships) appears rather infrequently, only emerging from the shadows when they can enhance the central storylines. In James’ case, however, writers have the opportunity to learn from past mistakes by building beyond the “token trans character” trope into which Terry could devolve if they’re not careful and consistent.

Society remains at a crossroads, you see. The transgender community continues to gain visibility, but these individuals must still fight against the discrimination that comes with being deemed “different” by those who can’t see beyond their own reflection. Thus, while General Hospital cast James, the actress, she’s adopted the role of Terry and trailblazer in one fell swoop. James has been chosen to tell Terry’s story and, by extension, the story of countless other trans individuals near and far.

Coincidentally, James’ GH debut coincided with the news that Scarlett Johansson was cast as Dante “Tex” Gill, a trans man, in the upcoming film Rub & Tug, further highlighting how pivotal and necessary trans visibility has become. (Note: After much backlash, Johansson has since declined the role.)

In response, James tweeted: “I’ve never spoken about this before but since it’s back in the news I’ll say this: while I feel cis actors have a certain social responsibility in this amazing time of #TransVisibility in the industry my real issue is with the decision makers behind the scenes.”

“It’s the directors, casting agents, writers, producers who have to do better when it comes to allowing cis actors to play trans roles. We are talented, we are here and we are ready to tell our own stories,” she added. “But as a trans actress I can tell you positive change is happening. I’m so thankful to @valentinifrank and everyone at @GeneralHospital who were committed to having a trans woman portray Terry.”

Unlike those who cast Johansson, General Hospital’s show runners specifically strived to find a trans woman to play Terry, which demonstrates an underlying understanding that has yet to permeate the entire entertainment industry. They recognized that, in order to tell Terry’s story with candor and dignity, they needed to honor the trans community by involving the trans community. After all, it’s hard to feel “represented” when someone completely removed from the experience tries to tell your story. A talented cis actress might be able to evoke emotion, but she’d never truly connect with the audience, that’s for sure.

James, on the other hand, has breathed new life into the show — and no, it’s not solely because she’s transgender. She has a presence, a confidence, that only those who genuinely know who they are exude. She doesn’t hesitate and she doesn’t hide. Honestly, she carries herself in a way that can inspire anyone to embrace who they are deep down.

Of course, for the foreseeable future, most will probably refer to Terry as “the trans character” and, at this moment in time, that’s okay. People who don’t know much about the trans community need to see said actors and actresses on their screens, out and proud. But, one day, society will hopefully reach the point where trans individuals are hired based on their gender identity, not their history. Being a voice for the voiceless, as James has become, carries great responsibility, but she will help blaze trails for others so, in the (near) future, other trans people will be treated as just that — people.

America Owes Monica Lewinsky an Apology

Posted by Anna Papachristos on
Source: Mark Seliger/Vanity Fair

When the Monica Lewinsky Scandal first came to light, I’d just turned ten. Aside from the traditional “birds and the bees” overview and Judy Blume’s “Are You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret,” my health education was relatively limited. (It’d be nearly two years before I fully grasped what those “relations” entailed.)

Since 1998, however, Ms. Lewinsky’s name has yet to escape the nation’s collective consciousness. As she wrote in her recent essay for Vanity Fair, “there has been at least one significant reference to that unfortunate spell in our history every day for the past 20 years.” Beyond the media’s fascination, Ms. Lewinsky’s image has also become ingrained in popular culture. One cannot watch 2008’s “Made of Honor” without being bombarded by countless beret-clad doppelgängers, after all, and the final season of “The Nanny” remains chock full of timely jabs that have retained their wit and relevance decades later.

But after 20 years of ridicule—in the midst of the #MeToo moment, no less—we must ask ourselves one seemingly simple question: Should Ms. Lewinsky still “own” the scandal?

Although Ms. Lewinsky might be the most notable, she was by no means former president Bill Clinton’s only alleged extramarital affair. Yet, because she was 27 years his junior at the time of the given sexual encounters, she was the most salacious, and therefore, the prime target during the subsequent inquiries into Mr. Clinton’s lies and infidelities. Thus, we watched as Ms. Lewinsky was dragged through the proverbial mud, her life upended indefinitely in an effort to uncover the sordid truth about the most powerful man in America.

In an earlier essay for Vanity Fair, Ms. Lewinsky emphasized that, although the relationship wasn’t abusive in the sexual sense, there was an abuse of power at play in the years following the affair.

“Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship,” Ms. Lewinsky wrote. “Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position.”

While Ms. Lewinsky explicitly addressed her detractors in her latest essay, noting that none of her recent realizations absolve her of her responsibility for what happened—“I meet Regret every day,” she wrote—#MeToo and Time’s Up helped her understand that there was much more at play, and that the subsequent bullying and slut-shaming she’s endured was unwarranted and unjust. She was forced to bear the brunt of the blame, forever changed, while Mr. Clinton emerged relatively unscathed as a result of the latent misogyny that’s only recently received widespread exposure and condemnation in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein reckoning.

Source: Associated Press

Women are all too accustomed to being held accountable for men’s actions. Ms. Lewinsky, for instance, isn’t the only one who’s had to pay for Mr. Clinton’s sins. His wife, former secretary of state and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton, has fallen victim to this tendency repeatedly throughout her career. Most notably, shortly before the 2016 presidential election, Mrs. Clinton’s Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, invited numerous women who’ve accused Mr. Clinton of sexual misconduct in the past to speak out against Mrs. Clinton in an effort to discredit her leadership potential. Despite being accused of sexual harassment and assault by more than a dozen women himself, Mr. Trump thought it smart strategy to dredge up Mr. Clinton’s past to damage Mrs. Clinton’s future.

Although many might think society has matured, when husbands stray, critics still reflexively chastise the wife for failing to fulfill her “duties.” Instead of portraying the husband as the cheater he is, outsiders attack the wife—a victim in her own right—by blaming her alleged “prudish” nature for his adulterous ways.

But women aren’t merely “stiffs” or “temptresses.”

We are more than vessels for pleasure and progeny.

We are individuals who exist separate from our relation to men.

Honestly, the dynamic between men and women over time seems inherently contradictory and hypocritical. While many lawmakers believe our gender cannot make informed decisions about medical and reproductive care, they’re the first to deem us responsible for the illicit “reproductive” activities of the men in our lives.

In her essay, Ms. Lewinsky also mentions her post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis. Yes, even now, the activist—who’s made it her mission to address and prevent the very sort of bullying she experienced—still struggles with the anguish of being publicly outed and ostracized all these years later. As she wrote, Ms. Lewinsky often jokes that her tombstone will read MUTATIS MUTANDIS: “With Changes Being Made.”

Yet, if Ms. Lewinsky’s writing her own narrative now, chapter-by-chapter, then America must pen an apologetic preface. We botched the editing process the first time around, but we have the opportunity to make corrections moving forward. We can’t erase the pain caused in the past, but we can convey our remorse by making sure that no woman has to suffer such prolonged scrutiny. Let’s put an end to the #MeToo movement once and for all by ensuring no woman ever has to say “me, too” again.

Donald Trump ‘Hears’ Shooting Survivors’ Pleas—But Was He Really Listening?

Posted by Anna Papachristos on

Source: Carolyn Kaster/AP

Donald Trump’s cue cards were accurate: he hears you, mass shooting survivors—but his actions prove he wasn’t listening one bit. In the midst of impassioned pleas to implement stricter gun control laws from the survivors and families of mass school shootings, Trump interjected by emphasizing his desire to boost security by training and arming the teachers and administrators responsible for educating America’s youth.

“A gun-free zone to a maniac—because they are all cowards—a gun-free zone is ‘let’s go in and let’s attack because bullets aren’t coming back at us,'” Trump told the crowd gathered for the White House’s 90-minute listening session about gun control on Wednesday. “If you had a teacher who was adept at firearms, they could very well end the attack very quickly.”

“I really believe that, if these cowards knew the school was well guarded by professionals with great training, I don’t think they’d go into the school to start off with,” he added.

However, Mark Barden, whose 7-year-old son Daniel was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary, rebuffed Trump’s suggestion, arguing that his wife, Jackie, who’s a teacher, “will tell you that school teachers have more than enough responsibility than to have the awesome responsibility of lethal force to take a life.”

“Nobody wants to see a shootout in a school,” Barden said, adding that, if a “deranged sociopath” wants to commit an attack, after which many attackers then commit suicide anyway, “he’s not going to care if there’s somebody there with a gun.”

Despite the fact that the U.S. pays teachers very little to educate generation after generation, leaders now want these under-appreciated professionals to risk their lives each day. While it’s likely in their nature to do so without thought, asking them to wield the very weapon which threatens their students puts an undue burden on those who already carry more than their weight in responsibility. The government has the capacity to regulate the dissemination of deadly weapons, except leaders continue to pass the task onto others to absolve themselves of any guilt as they quietly cash those checks the NRA keeps sending.

Require more people to own or operate guns, while pretending such measures are designed to protect the people? Sounds like a win-win for the cowardly GOP.

Others have also noted that, while access to such weapons would come under the guise of safety, in the hands of the wrong teacher, they could represent a clear and present danger to unarmed troublemakers who merely require intervention and discipline. After all, there are likely many instances where a teacher could become unhinged and threaten students’ safety just as easily as a mentally disturbed kid.

https://twitter.com/ashleyn1cole/status/966452714573041665

Countless second amendment supporters have tried to discredit the students who are adamantly fighting for gun reform as they grieve for friends and faculty. With the old youth excuse in mind, detractors claim these kids can’t be taken seriously because they’re too young to understand what they’re saying. But, if they’re old enough to purchase an AR-15—the exact weapon that took the lives of 17 people during the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School—aren’t they old enough to speak out against gun violence, too? It’d seem the only thing they’re too young for is to be treated with respect.

https://twitter.com/_ElizabethMay/status/966283942834921472

Let’s face it—if Trump needs the phrase “I hear you” written on his notecards, he clearly never planned to listen to these distraught individuals in the first place. You see, hearing someone and listening to someone are entirely different, yet both are intricately linked. While you might hear what someone says, their remarks often go in one ear and out the other, as they say. Listening, however, requires active participation. It requires each party to consider one another’s perspective and understand the merits of each view, even if you ultimately disagree.

Trump’s response to this overwhelming call for reform, however, was not only ignorant; it was tone-deaf. He wants to combat the problem by throwing more guns into the mix, which runs counter to everything those directly impacted by gun violence stand for at this moment in history. Halfhearted measures won’t be able to muffle their cries, though.

The Parkland students have spoken, but they won’t go quiet until the U.S. government truly listens to what they have to say, for they are the speakers for the dead and they won’t rest until the victims can rest in peace.