I hope you are kidding - it is a historical film, we should not put a transgender soldier in just to appease some snowflake factory workers...fack
I had criticism at a recent history conference about some aspects of my paper, one historian saying that I ignored issues of masculinity, race or gender in my analysis. I said "Ma'am, I am studying how the entire BEF, throughout the entire war, used covert ops to best blow things up and kill people with experimental weapons. I am engaging with tactics, strategy, command, morale, and technology. There is no room in my study for feminist or race studies. There were no women in the trenches fighting, there were few blacks or natives, and as for the latter those have been covered in other works. To investigate issues of race or gender in my study would be both irrelevant and nonsensical." She huffed and puffed, but shut up.
Sometimes history is lopsided in it's representation. That is just reality. How many black soldiers you going to find on the battlefields of WWII? Still very few. Gay ones? Sure, they were there. But their sexual orientation did not dictate their ability to fight or serve their country. The history of the event is what is important, not whether every single race and gender are represented equally.
I once had someone be really upset that Wonder Woman did not have more American soldiers in some scenes. I told him the facts of their service, and why they would not be in those scenes. He said "well, they should just put them in to connect with American audiences." That is like putting an American at the centre of the Samurai 1877 Satsuma Rebellion...oh wait
