Has everyone read the article from American Theatre linked above?
Probably, as it was previously posted and discussed in the Tootsie Reviews thread and has been shared on several Facebook threads as well. Here was my response to the article filled with inaccuracies and false comparisons:
"Drag is not inherently transphobic, but the drag in Tootsie absolutely is. The point of drag is to queer gender and prove how socially constructed it is, to show that gender is a performance. Tootsie (mis)appropriates drag in ways that enforce ideas about binary gender by making jokes out of the dichotomy between Michael, the straight cisgender protagonist, and his drag persona, Dorothy. This frequently takes the the form of crude and transphobic bodily humor about genitals or gags about bras, wigs, and heels and how ridiculous it is that Michael would wear them."
The drag element in Tootsie is not that of the character's actions, but the audience's knowledge. Dorothy is neither drag nor trans because drag intentionally informs the participants, either directly or indirectly, that they are performing a different gender (and it's rare that I see a drag performer NOT make crude genital jokes of every kind). Michael is cis-gendered and trying to mask his gender as Dorothy. And the jokes aren't about how ridiculous it is that he "would" wear them, but how strange it is to either see him wearing these or how different it feels to Michael to be wearing them.
"Tootsie is by no means the first musical to play with the possibilities of drag. Kinky Boots, La Cage aux Folles, Priscilla Queen of the Desert, Rent, and this season’s under-appreciated Head Over Heels all use drag, in both serious and comedic ways, to explore queer identity, marginalization, and the power of performance. Unlike the lead in Tootsie, the characters who do drag in those shows don’t constantly make jokes about their genitals, lie about their gender, or use drag to 'get ahead,' steal a job from a woman, and manipulate those around them."
False comparison because the characters mentioned above are drag personas/performers, but Michael/Dorothy is not. The difference is pretty obvious.
"Instead all of those musicals have drag performers fighting to perform, to be listened to, and to be taken seriously on their own terms. Lola, Zaza, the queens of Priscilla, Cleophila, and Angel are marginalized because of their queer identities and their choice to do drag, all of which reflects reality."
Rinse and repeat. Michael/Dorothy is not a queer character fighting to be accepted for their choice to do drag. It's like trying to compare these characters to any of the gender-masquerading characters of Shakespeare. You can't make orange juice out of apples and then admonish it for not being apple juice.
"The notion that Michael would get cast more easily and have more creative power as a woman than as a man isn’t just implausible; it’s also damaging, a further erasure of actual cis and trans women’s experience."
That's reductive and misleading. The director didn't like Dorothy at the audition and tries to dismiss her. It's the female producer who pulls the strings that overrides the director and listens to Dorothy. It's the help from that producer and the female lead of the show that allow Dorothy's voice to be heard and succeed. There is no message that the character's life is easier and better "as a woman".
"Michael is not openly a drag queen but is fully pretending to be a woman and 'getting away with it,' the show subtly reinforces the transphobic claim that trans people are liars, pretenders, or fakers."
The author now undermines all the drag comparisons noted before. The point about reinforcing transphobic stereotypes seems pretty debatable, but I can't speak for the trans community.
"Through all of this, there is never a discussion of Michael’s gender in relationship to his drag, although there certainly could have been."
And here starts the ruminations of changing the plot and characters to something different, not unlike the changing of Romeo & Juliet to "Juliet's Curse", but "they coulda done THIS" doesn't really support an argument. They could have made all the characters African-American trans-bisexuals and none of them in drag, but that's not what the show is, so where's the validity in what-iffing it?
"Head Over Heels ends with a character, who has done drag throughout, saying he wants to keep his drag persona around—that she is part of him now. In a slightly similar vein, Michael says, 'I am Dorothy. Dorothy is me,' but only as a justification for his ruse"
That's not why he says and it's not in a similar vein at all. The reasons those characters make those statements are entirely different. This is a misleading inaccuracy.
"he never entertains the idea that he might continue to do drag (in less problematic ways, ideally) or that maybe this experience has caused him to reconsider his own gender identity. Could Michael be a trans lesbian, or maybe a genderqueer pansexual? Perhaps, but this version of Tootsie makes no effort to explore these possibilities or talk about gender identity at all. Instead, Michael ends the show by bizarrely telling his love interest, 'I was a better man with you, as a woman, than I ever was with a woman, as a man. I just have to learn how to do it all without the dress.' But why without the dress?"
Rinse and repeat. Still what-iffing what isn't as a basis for proving something that may or may not be implied depending on how you choose to interpret (or misinterpret) a story and its characters.
"To make matters worse, the creative team, which is almost entirely male (and is exclusively cis), seems to think they can defuse the show’s (cis)sexism by dropping some self-aware critiques into the show."
Making assumptions on the very specific motives of the creative team doesn't help.
"it comes off as pandering, and can’t erase the transphobic binarism that is the source of most of the musical’s humor. These moments of wokeness are clearly performative; a glance through Robert Horn’s script shows him referring to 'Michael/Dorothy' with inconsistent pronouns."
I'm confused. Do they mean parenthetical stage directions from literally reading a printed script? Because inconsistent pronouns have everything to do with the fact that Michael/Dorothy is not trans and the situation and characters that use them.
"The writers of Tootsie clearly have a very limited, binary understanding of gender, and rather than work to expand it they seem to have gone out of their way not only to avoid addressing it but instead to make fun of it."
Again, this is another assumption based on a desire for Tootsie to be a completely different story.
"The creators aren’t the only ones who seem to think they’ve solved the show’s gender problems."
Another assumption leading to an opinion that muddies the topic.
"This moment feels like a perfect metaphor for the show itself: Tootsie engages with gender only in superficial ways, either to score points for being 'feminist,' or more frequently simply to make another transphobic dick joke."
I only remember maybe two jokes involving a penis. But as for gender and feminism, I left the show feeling that we're viewing these topics through the lens of Michael's journey. A farcical musical comedy in which the protagonist is not considered a hero. The jokes about his being in drag seemed to be specifically either about his discomfort being a cis-male not accustomed to wearing women's attire and digs from his roommate who consistently tells him he's doing the wrong thing.
Gender in 2019 isn’t what gender is in the world of Tootsie, which already makes the show dated.
Actually, it is. Like 99% of the other shows, Tootsie's book does not discuss the spectrum of gender identity. Neither does La Cage aux Folles, Hairspray, Matilda, Kinky Boots or nearly all the shows featuring a cross-dressing performer and/or cross-dressing character utilized in its plot.
(Head Over Heels dealt with the nuance of gender brilliantly.)
A totally different show with a totally different character in a totally different story used for a totally different purpose? Okay.
This is RIDICULOUS. If there was a musical adaptation of Some Like it Hot would there be accusations that it's anti-trans? Would t-shirts with the phrase "Nobody's perfect" cause a social media firestorm?
I also have to wonder how La Cage would be received now. The whole opening (as originally staged) of We Are What We Are winking at the audience about not being able to recognize the male characters from the female and then ending the first act with the gay cis male in drag singing I Am What I Am and pulling off the wig at the end of the number. I've a feeling that because the character is effeminate and gay, there would be little pushback about any possible transphobic suggestion in that. Sure, the message of the show is about queer acceptance (both internal and external) , love and self-confidence, but if we can try and force Tootsie to be about something it's not, surely we can do it with any show that features any actor in drag, right? That's where we are right now in 2019.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
