The class discussion of Judith Halberstam’s article on Boys Don’t Cry made go rewatch the 1996 British film Different for Girls, another trans love story. Like Boys Don’t Cry, Different for Girls uses an actor of the character’s birth sex rather than their stated gender to play the role (you could write a whole book about who gets to play trans people and what it means) but Different for Girls struck me differently this time after reading Halberstam and discussing the article in class.

As we discussed, Boys Don’t Cry seems to resolve some of its romantic conflict by making Brandon “truly” Teena at the end, all but stating that the solution to the problems is for Brandon and Lana to go off and be happy lesbians together. Different for Girls doesn’t do that. It states really clearly that the male lead is in a heterosexual relationship with the female lead, and that no matter who the lead used to be, she is a woman now.

This is especially clear when comparing the two films’ treatment of nudity. Kim, the trans character, has a full frontal nude scene, which on the one hand seems to be kind of ham-handedly signaling to the audience, “hey, everything’s exactly where it should be!” But it is also played erotically, showing that she’s attractive to the male lead.

Comparing the two films, I wonder if this has to do with ideas of acceptable boundaries of gender expression for men and women. One can be extraordinarily butch and still be a woman, but men’s roles are more structured, and there’s only so far you can go and still be considered a man.

We discussed in class some of Peirce’s motivation in making Boys Don’t Cry seem like a lesbian story by the end and, while I don’t like to speculate on artist intent, I think this is one way to read the film. I don’t think Peirce was consciously trying to invalidate Brandon’s gender identity, but by presenting the romantic relationship as honest only when Brandon’s biological sex is factored into the equation, she achieves the same result.