US Weekly interviewed Karla Mosley about the transgender story.

http://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/the-bold-and-the-beautiful-star-spills-on-transgender-character-twist-2015193

What purpose would it serve to bring on someone new to tell this story? People wouldn't care, as I mentioned above people have to be invested and they sure as heck won't give two craps about some newbie in this kind of story

they did that with Zarf on AMC and you are right, no one cared

Yeah It also didn't help how they wrote the story, I know alot were offended that the show had Bianca in love with a man(he hadn't transitioned yet)

I don't agree. I think acting is acting and I'll go with the best performers for the role, whether the character or actor is gay, straight, trans, bi, you name it. But that's me.

And me.

Pragmatism void of reality is idealism.

Not IMO. My reality accounts for lots of different actors playing lots of different people, not earmarking specific roles for specific people only. That's not the way the business works, nor will it ever, for anyone. That's the reality, but it's also the nature of the best of the acting profession - anyone can play anything. I'm not going to say straight actors shouldn't play gay or lesbian roles or gay or lesbian actors shouldn't play straight roles, nor do I think the same holds true for trans actors or trans roles in either direction. I think everyone should play everything and back again and make a big ol' mess. If you feel differently that's your business, but my opinion is simply mine and that's where I leave this. I'm not debating it beyond that.

Edited March 20, 201510 yr by Vee

they did that with Zarf on AMC and you are right, no one cared

That's because the story itself reeked. When your climactic scene is of a man stripping down to his altogether and declaring in front of the entire town that he has a penis, you KNOW you just lost your shot at a Humanitas Prize.

As long as the performer plays a part to the best of their ability, I don't care about their personal business. If they put 110% into their role, that's all I care about.

Edited March 20, 201510 yr by slick jones

Not IMO. My reality accounts for lots of different actors playing lots of different people, not earmarking specific roles for specific people only. That's not the way the business works, nor will it ever, for anyone. That's the reality, but it's also the nature of the best of the acting profession - anyone can play anything. I'm not going to say straight actors shouldn't play gay or lesbian roles or gay or lesbian actors shouldn't play straight roles, nor do I think the same holds true for trans actors or trans roles in either direction. I think everyone should play everything and back again and make a big ol' mess. If you feel differently that's your business, but my opinion is simply mine and that's where I leave this. I'm not debating it beyond that.

Yep.

As long as the performer plays a part to the best of their ability, I don't care about their personal business. If they put 110% into their role, that's all I care about.

This, too.

It doesn't change the fact that trans actors aren't cast in cis roles & are barely allowed to playing trans roles.

Acting like inequities don't exist doesn't make them NOT exist.

Championing discriminatory hiring practices as an "opinion" when you know the facts don't bear out your idealized assertions?

You're better than that Vee.

And me.

Same goes for me

How is this discriminatory?

As long as the performer plays a part to the best of their ability, I don't care about their personal business. If they put 110% into their role, that's all I care about.

That's so true

As long as the performer plays a part to the best of their ability, I don't care about their personal business. If they put 110% into their role, that's all I care about.

PREACH!

How is this discriminatory?

It isn't.

This is not discriminatory. They didn't put out a casting call for a trans woman and then refuse to consider/cast actual trans women. This twist clearly did not exist when Maya was conceived and cast. If B&B does the actual story and portrayal justice (and that's a big if, but I'm choosing to be optimistic here), then it's ultimately a win for trans exposure -- meaning, with any luck, more roles conceived as trans, more opportunities for trans actors to be cast, and, down the line, the possibility of trans actors even being cast in cisgender roles.

I feel similarly about Transparent. Would it have been awesome for a transgender actor, especially one who could use the money/exposure, to take on the lead in a high-profile series? Absolutely. But the role was very clearly written as someone who had not yet transitioned and was just beginning to live as a woman; while it might've helped from a diversity perspective, I'm not sure that taking a trans woman actor and presenting her as a man for 50% of her scenes would've felt any MORE authentic.

I understand and am sympathetic to the need for more opportunities for trans (and all diverse) artists, but it's tough for me to see it as a bad thing that these ultimately positive portrayals are being put out there and thus opening more doors. We are not, unfortunately, yet at a point as a society where this is something people 'just don't think about,' so there's a journey to go on here.

About the kid thing. Maybe Maya (as Myron) fathered a child. And, was looking for that kid.

If the kid was still a baby though....how the hell are they gonna spin that?

Edited March 20, 201510 yr by Golden Duck

It isn't.

I agree, it's just a certain poster wanting to make a mountain out of an ant hill, and nothing more