“I have a guttural, ‘That’s not quite right,’ instinct to [being called an actress],” Ramsey said. “But I just don’t take it too seriously… it doesn’t feel like an attack on my identity.”
this post was submitted on 06 May 2025
150 points (97.5% liked)
[Moved to Piefed] Television
1235 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to Television
This community is for discussion of anything related to television or streaming.
Other Communities
Other Television Communities
A community for discussion of anything related to Television via broadcast or streaming.
Rules:
-
Be respectful and courteous to all members.
-
Avoid offensive or discriminatory remarks.
-
Avoid spamming or promoting unrelated products/services.
-
Avoid personal attacks or engaging in heated arguments.
-
Do not engage in any form of illegal activity or promote illegal content.
-
Please mask any and all spoilers with spoiler tags. ****
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
So, genuine question. If someone is non-binary (which I believe Bella has said they are), does that mean that they are in the run for best actress? Or best actor? It sounds like it's best actress but it seems like a bit of a difficult one. What would happen with someone with pronouns opposite of their birth gender?
Bella addresses this in the article. But it’s just their personal take. It’s an easy read.
Based.
Once again the title of the article says 'gender' but the entire article only mentions sexes. Come on...
A brief explanation:
'Man' and 'woman' are now binary references to the individual's gender if known to be such, or appearance if said individual presents as mostly masculine or feminine in a social setting, as the terms have always been used to refer to a person. In contrast, 'male' and 'female' are references to the individual's sex and genitalia. Gender is not sex.
Additionally:
Gender is the name given to an aspect of personality relating to a few traits that have been defined by current societal ideals as masculine or feminine, quantified with a whole set of labels because people must be quantifiable by tickboxes, apparently. Sex is originally assigned at birth by many hospitals and population censuses once the existence of reproductive organs on the individual has been verified as male or female, and regardless of whether an internal reproductive system transplant takes place, can be changed.
Older folk are confused, because they've been referring to sexes as genders for decades. We need to get this right.
The definition of a word is how people use it.
We need to get this right.
Step one is going to be working out vocabulary among yourselves before you start trying to teach it to us. I used to try to be correct, but the "correct" tends changed from person to person, group to group, and every six months or so.
Once you've figured it out, let us old folks know, and most of us will, I hope, make the adjustment.
You can try to use the new corrections every six months or so? As for who to go for, it's legitimately your choice. In the end the flow of language has to be ridden rather than restricted aha
Why can't you both preserve and add to?
No idea about the context of this, and I refuse to read the article. The title strikes me as implying women wouldn't be able to win awards if the categories were unisex, which I don't agree with.
The "Ensors", awards for the Flemish audiovisual sector introduced gender neutral awards last year.
Surprise, all awards went to men.
There's a huge inequality within the sector already, it's not surprising that that reflects in the awards given. It's the same as being surprised that the CEO of the year awards yet again goes to a rich white guy.
You assume an objective judgement; "if you're good, you'll succeed" (which goes straight into "see? they didn't win, that means they didn't deserve it"). The problem isn't that women aren't able to win, the problem is that the people in charge will just stop nominating women, let alone name them the winner. All of these people, in every field, everywhere, at the top, who do not have women among them, they do not care. There is money in not caring. They were not raised to care, and they raise no one to care. You have to force them.
I understand that, but I would counter:
-
When no women won or were nominated it would reveal the bias and we could then make adjustments to the electors
-
That bias would still exist if categories were segregated. Who is to say the best performers are actually winning? If they're willing to pass over a woman in favor of a man, then they're probably willing to pass over the deserving nominee in favor of another one they're biased towards - across the board.
We already know there's bias, and we already know the winner isn't always the one that deserves it. It's not just men and women categories - foreign films, animated films being the most noticable victims after gender. This is true for any award ceremony, sometimes it's more obvious that it's a PR stunt or a popularity contest more than actual recognition of the value of somebody's work. And no, the bias does not get addressed, even when we know it's there. At some point, a lot of viewers just assume that the ones that didn't win didn't deserve it, and the show moves on, because no one cares enough.
Without spoiling the show, get up to date with the show.
Wait... entertainment awards are gender segregated?
Who fucking cares. Why is this even being posted? Move on.
Do you...not know what community you're in?