Despite all appearances, many parts of my above post were typed in a hurry (cause I had this idea and I just HAD to type it out before leaving for university), so I'm sorry if bad wording made my point sound a little bit wrong.
I have plenty of time now, so
The thing I was trying to get across was actually exactly like what k1dmor said: Were QC a TV show played by real actors, there'd be a whole media storm surrounding this issue and the actress playing Claire would get inundated with questions about "what's it like to play a character who's so ~trans~ and so ~different from us~ that we WANT TO KNOW"
*media beat-up*
The point is of course that trans women shouldn't be seen as any different from cisgendered women. (that word still sounds wrong to me...) In my hypothetical Behind the Scenes I decided to make Claire's actress born a woman because Claire is a lot more than her body parts. She has a whole personality, you know, just like everyone else. And it'd be far more important to look for someone who could properly respect those personality traits than just look for someone who was trans themselves, because at the end of the day, whether you're trans or not probably doesn't have any impact whatsoever on your ability to act.
God, this is getting long-winded... :P
I do get your point about needing to tell her to continue "being a woman" as it were, but here's where I was coming from:
As I said, or heavily implied, Claire being trans has little to no impact on her personality, which is what we see most of in day-to-day QC. Except when it does in other media.
When Willow Rosenberg, and by extension Tara Maclay, were revealed to be lesbians in Buffy: The Vampire Slayer, it was great. They had a relationship which was full of all the good times and the bad times of any other relationship, and it really set the standard for other people wanting to write homosexual relationships (not just teasing it for ratings purposes). Except that since the reveal, Willow seemingly had to keep stating that she was gay when discussing attractive males the particularly egregious example being when Anya discussed the possibility that she might be attracted to Xander, and she simply responded "Well, hello? Gay now." Except that she HAS been attracted to many males during the run of Buffy: In chronological order of attraction, Giles, Xander, Oz (long-term boyfriend, yet), Count Dracula and RJ Brooks. Being a lesbian fundamentally changed the way Alyson Hannigan played the character of Willow. In the latter case, instead of simply accepting her attraction to him, she plots to turn him into a girl just so that they can be together, just because doing so would apparently violate the "lesbian" clause of her character which wasn't at all present for the first three seasons.
The thing I was trying to get across was actually exactly like what k1dmor said: Were QC a TV show played by real actors, there'd be a whole media storm surrounding this issue and the actress playing Claire would get inundated with questions about "what's it like to play a character who's so ~trans~ and so ~different from us~ that we WANT TO KNOW" *media beat-up*
Those questions hardly seem like they'd be asked if she was actually trans. Which, y'know, you decided to not be the case. I also already noted that the comparison K1dmor made doesn't work.
The point is of course that trans women shouldn't be seen as any different from cisgendered women. (that word still sounds wrong to me...) In my hypothetical Behind the Scenes I decided to make Claire's actress born a woman because Claire is a lot more than her body parts. She has a whole personality, you know, just like everyone else. And it'd be far more important to look for someone who could properly respect those personality traits than just look for someone who was trans themselves, because at the end of the day, whether you're trans or not probably doesn't have any impact whatsoever on your ability to act.
Which is what Jeph is already doing, yet somehow you require someone assigned female at birth to be sure that she'll be acceptably passable as a "regular woman" to make that point. How is that not insulting? It also does matter more than you know. Try going back a few generations and telling a black person that blackface is really in their best interest, because they're a minority so it'd be bothersome for them to find a decent black actor for a role. Besides, the personality is all that matters, right? Now, I don't particularly have a problem with the few good portrayals of trans experiences in that fashion, but more often than not.. it ends up mattering.
And QC-Claire was always a woman too. Her parts have nothing to do with it.
I also don't see why you felt the need to point out how "wrong" the literal opposite of trans- sounds to you. Do you also object to "Heterosexual"? See, there's that important distinction again: Gender dysphoria is something you feel, but when they're aligned it feels non-existent to you, unlike ever-present attractions. You clearly demonstrate that it is not an experience you relate to, so why would I think actors in general have experiences to draw upon in that regard?
Being a lesbian fundamentally changed the way Alyson Hannigan played the character of Willow.
Which is infinitely more likely to happen when you cast a cisgender person to play a transgender character. You have a far more ready source of the reality than getting away with things similar to such bisexuality-erasure. Not to mention how often writers/actors will just presume they know what they're doing (presumably because they read a paragraph on it once) without asking anyone trans.
As for Claire - it wouldn't surprise me the least if the character (if this was a TV show - and it isn't, by the way) was played by a non-trans* woman. There's some good reasons for this, actually:
Obviously. I already said as much. In fact, it was specifically my point that most trans characters aren't actually. But it's hardly the perfect person to get the points across if she needs to be reminded to still be a woman.
Also having your own voice is important, no matter how convenient it is to overlook it. There comes a point where external narratives drown out real ones in the media.
I mean, really, how many red-headed trans* women with glasses and freckles who are also actresses are out there, anyways?).
Several of those things are easily changed as a matter of being an actor. Fundamental identity and experience isn't. Both of these persons, trans or cis, are fictitious. It's just deciding to take that aspect of her person away. No pragmatic factors involved. The answer could be "Only one transwoman in the world is an actor.. and she got the part" for all you know.
What is mind-blowing about outing someone in front of many people without their permission, other than how mind-blowingly rude it is? "Come clean about it" is also a terrible choice of words, it's as if you're suggesting they're living a dirty lie.
+1 to all of this.
HANNELORE: "Are you KIDDING? I may play an asexual woman, but I'm very much all woman, thanks."
What the actual fuck, jwhouk..
JIMBO: "I got hooked on testosterone pills when I was in high school. Transitioning was easy, since my boobs weren't very big to begin with. Besides, I loved the idea of playing the drunk redneck at a bar!"
So many problematic things, so little time.. "Getting hooked on"..? "Transitioning was easy"..? Because of "Boob size"..? Sigh.
(http://transgirldiaries.com/comics/2012-10-05-20121005.png)