In a sense, the minority community brings it to itself. If you highlight how you're not different, then you cannot complain that stories will be written about how you're not different - that's the whole point of highlighting it! But once the society completely accepts that you're not different, then the difference will truly not matter and there will be no story (for better or worse).
A good example of this may be the US version of "Queer as Folk", a dramatic series on Showtime from 2000-2005 [1].
Most of the main characters were gay, but only a little under half of the actors that played them were gay. Another actor was bi, and the rest were straight.
But you could not tell from the performances which were which. The straight actors were as convincing as the gay actors, even in scenes involving serious erotic action.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_as_Folk_(U.S._TV_series)
I rarely see minorities arguing that they're literally no different than anybody else. Co-opting the Riddle scale [0], that sort of view is "you're not X, you're a person!". I believe the differences between people should be celebrated, and absolutely not used to discriminate. If a story is written about how a Japanese immigrant went through struggles coming to America, it would be disgraceful to have a white woman play that role.
The reality is that the majority of Americans see trans people as different. It would be wonderful if that weren't the case, but until then, any cis (non-trans) person playing a trans person is going to be a caricature of the trans experience (although a cis man playing a trans man would be slightly better). Trans people continually try to argue that they're in the same overall category of cis people of the same gender, i.e. {trans women} ∪ {cis women} ⊆ {women}. It is a uniquely minority experience to see someone who cannot understand your struggles pretend to have them for a day.
A common thing I see amongst "anti-PC" folks is the confidence in arguing a point in fields that they simply don't understand, and the hypocrisy that comes with that. She states that the norms that prevent using racial epithets or using gender as an insult are perfectly fine. Immediately after, she invalidates the experiences of all trans people in a typical fashion - "trans people are a performance and not their gender". If her mind had existed in 1970, she would've been perfectly fine with racial epithets, and argue that the people trying to tell her that's wrong are needlessly PC.
I find your position laughably ridiculous.
I disagree. For example, recently I was at a play about Jewish holocaust survivor. I don't know if the actor is Jewish, I think he is not, but I don't care. It doesn't retract from the experience in any way.
Now, white woman playing an Asian woman could cause issue with suspension of disbelief. An Asian actor would be ideal, but other than that, it's not going to be a big deal. If it was a really good play (as in writing and acting), I would forgive them the characters didn't look in a realistic way.
"The reality is that the majority of Americans see trans people as different. It would be wonderful if that weren't the case, but until then, any cis (non-trans) person playing a trans person is going to be a caricature of the trans experience"
I disagree again, and I don't follow the logic here. Certainly, the producers of the said movie about TG people didn't considered them to be different enough to worry about whether the role is to be played by cis or trans woman.
And I personally think it would be better for trans people to get the story out rather than point out that it is a caricature. If you argue that we should not think about these people as being different, then it is not a caricature. It's a human playing a human.
I personally don't care if person is LGBT and what letter. It's something that is relevant in the bedroom and I couldn't care less. It makes almost no difference in all other interactions. But you Americans are just weirdly obsessed with sexuality for some reason.
