Kimberly Peirce’s 1999 film Boys Don’t Cry has been much discussed because of its representation of gender identity that is non-typical in a hetero-normative society. The true story of Teena Brandon, a biologically female transgender person, ends with his death at the hands of two friends who raped and murdered him after discovering the truth about his “gender identity crisis.” Under discussion now is not the verisimilitude of Peirce’s film but its reception by critics. Entirely ignored is the differentiation between sex and gender. Within the critical writings, the two are freely interchanged. From here on, sex will mean biological classification and gender will mean socially/psychologically constructed sexual orientation. Brandon, then, is a straight male in the process of matching his given birth sex to his gendered feelings and impulses. However, the reviews coming out saw Brandon as female, and suggested audiences do the same. By referring to Brandon as feminine and emphasizing the non-diegetic filmmaking aspects, the reviews invite viewers to a reading that negates the film’s intent.
Brandon Teena identifies as male and Peirce’s film asks its viewers to do the same. Yet the majority of reviews refer to ‘her’ without distinguishing between sex and gender. The reviews invite us to see Brandon as a she by calling Brandon “s/he” (Hoberman), “his” (Levy), “him/her” (Foreman), and of course, “herself.” (Gillespie) Two reviews do appropriately describe Brandon the way he would like to be addressed. Yet both must validate it first. Roger Ebert writes, “She is a girl who thinks of herself as a boy…we must use the male pronoun in describing him.” And Kenneth Turan writes for the Los Angeles Times, “someone who so succeeded in gender disguise that it’s difficult to talk about her without feeling that “him” is the more appropriate pronoun.” Here, Turan mistakes the “gender disguise” with the actual act of disguising one’s biological sex. Brandon identified as male and did everything but disguise this fact. One review even challenges, as an aside, such a notion. “…as to murder a young woman (or man, depending on how strongly you take the central point of the movie to be, that Teena Brandon was in fact a man for lack of phallus).” (Brundage) In one simple parenthesis Brundage suggests that perhaps we should not see the character as male and promptly refers to Brandon in the feminine for the remainder of the article.
Further, the articles propose that Brandon’s state is a “departure from the norm” (Turan) and should be seen as a purposeful and deceitful act. Ebert states, “She is a lonely girl who would rather be a boy.” While not incorrect, it again fails to differentiate between Brandon’s sex (girl) and gender (male). Many reviews connote the performance aspect, describing a “woman who successfully masqueraded as an attractive young man” (Foreman), or “went on to create a charismatic identity as an attractive young man” (Maslin), or “reinvented herself.” (Gillespie) (Hunter) What this terminology
