Actor Guy Pearce Makes Valid Point About Roles Trans Actors Can Play, Panics, Issues Groveling Apology

Actor Guy Pearce commited the cardinal sin of floating a decent point that highlights the insanity of some of woke Hollywood's rules about who can play what part.

Specifically, Pearce wondered aloud on Twitter if transgender actors should only play transgender roles.

Y'know, since according to the Left, actors are only supposed to play parts that are in line with their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender and age.

According to Variety, the actor best known for Memento and Mare Of Eastown (which was great, by the way) deleted the "offending" tweet.

“A question — if the only people allowed to play trans characters are trans folk, then are we also suggesting the only people trans folk can play are trans characters?" Pearce asked in the tweet. "Surely that will limit your career as an actor? Isn’t the point of an actor to be able (to) play anyone outside your own world?”

That seems to be the words of someone who simply highlighted the absurdity of these unwritten casting "rules" that have infected Hollywood. The ones that people like John Leguizamo come up with when they don't get gigs.

It flies in the face of what acting is and limits the roles of the people they're trying to help. It makes no sense. Although, then again does anything woke make sense?

However, the big issue wasn't the point he raised, but that he used transgender people as an example. That was the catalyst for deleting the tweet and issuing a lengthy, groveling apology.

Pearce Went Into Full-On Groveling Mode

If you want to read the full apology, be my guest. However, in the interest of time and to prevent you from rolling your eyes so hard you have to see an optometrist, I've cherry-picked some greatest hits.

"I understand how my question - asking 'If trans actors are the only ones allowed to play trans roles then are we also suggesting trans actors are therefore only allowed to play trans characters?' is insensitive." Pearve wrote.

“The point I wanted to raise was one about defending the definition of acting and nothing more. Throwing the subject onto one minority group in particular was unnecessary, especially from a man like me, with a ‘Full House’ of privilege.”

First of all, "Full House of privilege" sent a douche-chill up my spine so severe I think I heard my back crack.

Secondly, how are people supposed to express ideas without using examples? We crossed this threshold a while ago, but progressives don't understand language or discourse anymore. They've fallen victim to the way they've muddied it up with buzzwords.

I get that Guy Pearce wants to keep working. Acting is easy and money is cool. But c'mon, Guy, quit bending the knee to this insanity.

Fortunately, he did make the same point he made in the initial tweet again. Only this time he danced around using specific examples. It's like he was playing a game of woke Minesweeper.

"It's clear a great many minority communities are underrepresented on screen and that so too are actors from those communities. But I don't believe artists should have to announce their personal identity, sexual preference, political stance, disability, religious beliefs etc to attain work."

Wow, what a novel idea. It's only the thing rational people have been saying for years.

Follow on Twitter: @Matt_Reigle