Tragically, it’s a rhetorical question.
In Sherman, Texas, the local high school declared that senior Max Hightower, who has been a member of the school’s theater group all four years, is ineligible to play the part of Curley, the male lead in Rodgers and Hammerstein’s musical “Oklahoma!” despite the fact that he won the part in auditions fairly and squarely. The part is being taken away from him, or her, or “them,” because, as he was told by the principal (evidently an idiot miscast as an educator) that a new school policy dictates that student “actors and actresses could only play a role that was the same gender they were assigned at birth.” Max is a young trans male, a girl who “identifies” as male, and presumably has taken no steps to acquire male genitalia.
All aspects of this debacle are so stupid it makes my teeth hurt.
1. There is nothing about casting a female in a male role, a male in a female role, a heterosexual in a gay role (or vice-versa), a black actor as a white character…and so on, ad infinitum, that is inherently wrong or right, for that matter. If a school is going to have a drama program, it should be competent enough regarding theater to know, practice and teach that. A production does what its artistic directors believe is necessary to make the show work as drama, comedy, or entertainment.
2. A penis is not necessary equipment for playing the male lead in “Oklahoma!” Curley thinks with his penis, but he never shows it. A policy requiring any actor to actually possess features the character he or she portrays demonstrates abject ignorance of what drama is. Needless to say, except perhaps to the morons who run this school, Curley is also a lot older than a high school senior, lives in the Oklahoma territory, and ideally can sing like Gordon MacRae above. No high school performer is strictly well-cast as Curley by those criteria, or as a character in any classic musical with the exception of shows like “Grease,’ “West Side Story” and “Bye-Bye Birdie.” Without some version of so-called “non-traditional casting,” high school musicals, which have been a rich and beneficial part of the school experience for more than a century, would be impossible.
When the high school theater group in Arlington (Mass.) High School put on “Oliver!” in the early 1970s (my sister played Nancy, the tragic female lead), the part of the Artful Dodger, a male, pre-teen role, was taken by female senior. She was terrific. In Sherman, her casting would have violated policy.
3. There are potential copyright issues when a director actually tries to change the gender of a character as written by the author. That’s not what was being done here. By sheer coincidence, I saw a school production of “Romeo and Juliet” last week in which Romeo was played by a female. The show was not turned into a lesbian romance (though this has been done many times, and that works too): the part was played as male, and it worked just fine. The Rodgers and Hammerstein organization is appropriately flexible with casting variations: in recent Broadway revivals, the villain Judd, written as a white character, was played by a black man, and the comic female part of Ado Annie, the local flirt, was played by a woman in a wheelchair.
4. I could make an argument for a school policy requiring shows to be cast based on artistic considerations only, and not to make political points, but it would not be a good argument. It is impossible to separate art from politics and social commentary. High school actors need to learn that, too. Such a policy would also be impossible to enforce coherently—especially by fools like the Sherman high school principle, who can’t grok this theater thingy.
5. Also needless to say, except to people who run that high school and victims of closed head injuries, theater is not like athletic competitions. Being a female who identifies as a male or the other way around confers no unfair advantage on an actor. Presumably confusion on this rather basic point is what led to the ridiculous policy and the abuse of Max.
Oh, it gets worse. The Stupid is strong with this community. In a statement, the school district said the production is being postponed, writing,
….”It was brought to the District’s attention that the current production contained mature adult themes, profane language, and sexual content. Unfortunately, all aspects of the production need to be reviewed, including content, stage production/props, and casting to ensure that the production is appropriate for the high school stage.”because of “sexual content and profanity.”
Perfect. Some busy-body escapee from a Mennonite compound complained about the script to a bunch of illiterates who never have seen “Oklahoma!” Cultural illiterates should not be involved in educating children. “Oklahoma!” was judged G-rated fair when it premiered in 1943, and has been performed without controversy by high schools, colleges and community theaters ever since. The “sexual content” is called romance, like in “Romeo and Juliet”,” ” (which is a lot more sexually provocative than “Oklahoma!”) and if there’s profanity in the show, it consists of some cowboy saying “dang.” (All right, all right, Ado Annie’s song “I’m just a girl who can’t say no” is suggestive, but of nothing that a normal high school student isn’t very familiar with already.) Today, high schools have to worry about musicals containing words like “shit” and “fuck,” and these Neanderthals are investigating “Oklahoma!”?
Then the district makes things as clear as mud by adding, “There is no policy on how students are assigned to roles. As it relates to this particular production, the sex of the role as identified in the script will be used when casting. Because the nature and subject matter of productions vary, the District is not inclined to apply this criteria to all future productions.”
Oh.
WHAT???
Meanwhile, Max’s parents say they are going to fight to get Max back into the role. Good. But if this fiasco is sufficient to turn off Max and a lot of his fellow students to theater generally, I wouldn’t be surprised.
Ethics Alarms 
I suppose we’ve left behind any recollection that Shakespeare’s plays were originally performed by an all-male cast, and the drunk peasants in the front rows laughed themselves uproariously to watch a man wooing another man in Romeo and Juliet?
I staunchly believe, and feel that biology supports my belief, that no matter how hard you pretend, or how many hormones you take or suppress, or how you mutilate your body, a man is a man, a woman is a woman, and the only “gender-affirming care” that should be available is helping a person reconcile his dysphoria with reality. Creds properly flashed, I now say it is ludicrous to refuse to let a a woman play a man, or a man play a woman, if it works. When my high school performed Fiddler on the Roof, the part of the fiddler was played by my friend’s older sister, who was a virtuoso on the violin (and so we had live fiddle music from the fiddler!). Her face was darkened up to make it look like she had at least a five-o’clock shadow, but she probably could have eschewed even that and it would have been just fine. This is called acting. Now, I could imagine a big disconnect that would ruin the performance if the lead male role was played by a woman who was so well-endowed that one could not really suspend disbelief, but that’s another matter.
However, this is morbidly amusing. At least, I assume it is a conservative mentality that is trying to force boys to play male roles and girls to play female roles. But this dovetails right into the liberal push to have only Blacks play Black characters, Hispanics play Hispanic characters, gays play gay characters, etc. And do I detect a hint of following down the road of censorship?
You do indeed.
“Creds properly flashed, I now say it is ludicrous to refuse to let a a woman play a man, or a man play a woman, if it works.”
The real issue, though, is that we aren’t talking about a WOMAN playing a man or a MAN playing a woman. We’re talking about a CHILD, not an adult, and the adults around her should be looking out for her long-term well-being. That critical difference justifies the district’s decision to override the casting director’s choice. When you’re talking about a school play starring children, there are considerations that outweigh talent.
Childhood social transition is not a neutral, small thing-it’s an active psychosocial intervention that is a major risk factor for persistent gender dysphoria. Without social transition, the VAST majority of kids desist in their gender dysphoria.
When adults (parents, teachers, casting directors) reinforce a child’s belief that they are “assigned” the wrong sex, they are less likely to come to terms with their body and more likely to end up medicalized for life. Why wouldn’t we expect this kind of “inclusive” casting to pose similar risks of iatrogenic harm as other facets of social transition?
But why is that casting choice any different from casting the Artful Dodger with the best talent available? How is tarring a student excited abut playing a role in a musical with being “unqualified” “looking out for her long-term well-being”? The girl was already in trans mode—the show isn’t changing anything. Her parents get to deal with that issue—it’s not the school district’s business to interfere, any more than it is the school’s proper function to encourage gender confusion. Of all places to not be concerned about bad influences, playing roles on stage that differ from an individual’s actual characteristics, the theater has to be near the top of the list. When I was in high school, I played—let’s see—a 60-ish father of 20 young women, a gypsy lover, a Japanese executioner who is a compulsive liar, and H.L. Mencken. And I was no ore qualified to play Curley than Max is.
I disagree that the show isn’t changing anything- being cast in that role is having a school/authority figure (theater teacher) signing off on this girl’s gender confusion. That kind of affirmation makes a kid’s social transition that much harder to walk back.
In answer to your Artful Dodger question, if I were a theater teacher with a somehow-legitimate concern that casting a particular kid as the Artful Dodger would lead him to an actual life of theft and prison, I’d choose another kid to play my pickpocket. I can’t imagine such a concern ever being legitimate, though, so the Dickens comparison is inapt.
We are in the midst of a serious mental health crisis- specifically, a gender identity social contagion that is causing adolescents real psychosocial and medical harm. The casting director here encouraged gender confusion and the district said nope.
Actors are not the roles they play. You’re assuming that the motive of the casting director in making this particular casting decision was to advance some trans agenda. Nothing shown has indicated that to be the case. The trans issue doesn’t have bearing on this case. The issue is whether it’s ethical to force people to play only roles that match their sex. The answer to that question is no. Just as it should not be acceptable to force people to play only roles that match their race, their skin shade, their accent, their upbringing, &c. The casting director’s job is to ensure that the roles are performed by the actors best fit to perform those roles. The district mandating that the sex of the actor and role must match puts an unwarranted restriction on the casting director. Replace sex with race and the issue is the same, with the same answer.
I am a swarthy Italian American from Brooklyn, I was a participant in “Little Theater” Back when I was cast in a number of roles that did not coincide with my ethnicity. Tevya, in ‘Fiddler”, a member of the Sharks in the “Westside Story, a Baptist minister, truck driver, and oak tree in “The Rimers of Eldritch.” The dentist in “Diary of Ann Frank,” In a folk dancing competition i took first place dancing “the Hora’ and an Irish Jig.
That’s Entertainment!
Two side comments:
“…has taken no steps to acquire male genitalia” No such steps exist. Those most they can do is create some surface level mimicry by reshaping existing tissue using surgery or some minor effects from hormones. The same applies to female genitalia.
“gender assigned at birth” is loaded and misleading terminology. The Trans movement needs sex and gender to mean different things to make any sense at all, but treats them as the same thing in some contexts. Stipulating that they are different, Male, Female, or intersex (sex) is identified and recorded at birth. Masculine, Feminine, etc (gender) are deterimened by behavior and appearance.
I’m not sure that I can improve on Jack’s comments here—we’re in complete agreement on this issue (unlike countless others)–but I can add to them.
It is certainly true that casting girls/women in roles originally played by men is commonplace, and I’m not talking only about characters like Antigone or Cleopatra. (Shakespeare even has the latter say she doesn’t want to be played by a boy; the actor saying that in Cleopatra’s voice was, of course, a boy.) There are a lot of roles where gender doesn’t really matter: maybe the stage directions say “he,” but who cares if the cab driver, the nosy neighbor, or the court jester is male or female? If the rights-owners are OK with it, then there’s literally no problem.
Like virtually every other experienced director, I’ve cast a woman in a tenor role in a musical in which the sex/gender of the actor didn’t matter as long as they could hit the notes, as a cop in a play written before that was really a possibility, and manifold other variations on the theme. Casting Curly is a perhaps more of a complex situation, but only marginally so. Yes, the role is specifically male, and that matters. But, as Jack points out, the essence of acting is being something you’re not. What matters is always, to use his phrase, “does it work?”
To me, the question of Max’s identification as a trans male borders on the irrelevant. Would the play be any different if Max identified as female but played the role as male? All that would change would be the hysteria. I saw a brilliant university production of Cabaret this spring. The Emcee—the role associated with Joel Grey and subsequently played by the likes of Alan Cumming, Neil Patrick Harris, and Eddie Redmayne—was played by an actor who, shall we say, lacked male dangly bits. It was as good an individual undergraduate performance as I’ve ever seen (and I’ve seen a lot!); not a single soul in that audience cared in the slightest that the triple-threat performer had female genitalia.
Ultimately, as is always the case, the director is looking to put on the best possible production. That means the leads need to be able to sing their role, act it, dance it, and either look the part or make us forget that they don’t. There seems to be no argument suggesting Max didn’t earn the role. Period. End of discussion.
Plus, of course, there’s the idiocy of objecting to Oklahoma! for its “sexual content and profanity.” Sure, we know what Ado Annie “can’t say no” to, but come on! Oklahoma!?
This is just another case of a high school principal who seeks to exercise censorial power simply because he (she? they?) can. This person would come in third place in a battle of wits with a sack of hair and an anvil.
Were I of cynical disposition (perish the thought!), I’d make two further comments. 1). The policy being enforced is “new.” How new? My guess is ex post facto new: “Quick: make us a new policy so I can claim to be following it!” 2). I’m also willing to bet that this brouhaha (two weeks after casting) can be traced to the parent of some boy who wanted Curly but was assigned to the chorus.
Finally (well, almost) I note that the overwhelming majority of censorial outbursts regarding high school theatre come from what could loosely be defined as the right, whereas university and professional productions are challenged mostly by the left. There are exceptions both ways, but I feel comfortable in saying that there are enough examples out there to suggest this as a general rule. I have no satisfactory explanation for why this phenomenon should exist, but there it is.
What I do know, as I’ve stated repeatedly on my own blog, is that all censors have a good reason (in their own minds). For the left, it’s “representation” or “decolonization” or whatever; for the right it’s “protect the children” or “uphold American values.” What they’re both about: absolute control of the narrative.
I close with an anecdote. The last play I directed before I retired was Jean Genet’s The Maids. It’s written for a cast of three women, but after the original production had opened, Genet opined that he’d really thought of the show being performed by men in drag. I’ve seen it performed professionally only once—it had an all-female cast. But I also have a dear friend who appeared in an all-male production fortysomething years ago.
I used an all-female cast. Shortly after our production closed, one of the actors told me that “she” was now identifying as male. I know there has been a testosterone regimen; whether there’s been surgery contemplated, I don’t know, and it’s really none of my business. I saw him in the last show of his college career last weekend: in a traditionally male role that could conceivably have been played as female, but wasn’t.
La la how the life goes on.
Countless others????
I lived near Sherman and worked in Sherman proper for 20+ years (moved away in 2020). I never thought I’d read about it here.
I do want to preface my comments by saying we are mostly getting one side of the story. We only have the wronged teenager’s word on what the principal said, what the specific rule was, and don’t know any details or history behind it. However, there is an addition to the story:
https://www.kxii.com/video/2023/11/08/more-students-lose-theater-roles-sherman-isd-gender-rule/
The Sherman ISD did seem to be poorly run with frequent scandals and incompetence. I wouldn’t be surprised by an idiotic and arbitrary rule like this one.
Also, Grayson County is deep Trump county (75% voted for him in 2016 and 2020) with a lot of knee-jerk conservatives. Considering I’m a Bible-thumping conservative myself, that says a lot. Again, I wouldn’t be surprised if an arbitrary rule was created with a wrong headed goal of protecting the kids from “them.” Read through the bios of the board and see what they all have in common (I did actually personally know one of the members and don’t think he would have supported this) – https://www.shermanisd.net/Page/1493
What possible other side could there be if the principal told the kid he couldn’t play the part, no matter what the reason was? And that letter from the school board speaks for itself: morons.