Conservative columnist quits after publisher spikes her defence of Scarlett Johansson's trans role

Update: On Friday, after our interview was recorded, Scarlett Johansson announced that she was exiting her role in Rub and Tug. In a written statement, she explained, "Our cultural understanding of transgender people continues to advance, and I've learned a lot from the community since making my first statement about my casting and realize it was insensitive." You can read the full statement here. 

​Daniella Greenbaum is not apologizing for her Business Insider column that defends actor Scarlett Johansson's upcoming role as a transgender man.

The conservative columnist handed in her letter of resignation Thursday after that column, "Scarlett Johansson is being unfairly criticized for doing her job after being cast as a transgender man," was pulled from the Business Insider website. 

• For trans actors, getting cast isn't easy — especially up against Scarlett Johansson
• Should Scarlett Johansson — or any non-trans actor — play trans characters?

In a statement, Business Insider said it pulled the column because it "did not meet" the company's editorial standards. It can now be found at The Weekly Standard. 

The column was written in response to the backlash Johansson received after it was announced she would be playing a transgender man in the upcoming movie Rub & Tug. The actor has been criticized before for her portrayal of the lead character in the 2017 movie Ghost in the Shell — based on a Japanese manga series. 

Greenbaum spoke with As It Happens guest host Rosemary Barton about why she is standing by her column. Here is part of that conversation. 

Greenbaum spoke with As It Happens guest host Rosemary Barton about why she is standing by her column. Here is part of that conversation. 

Daniella Greenbaum, Business Insider says that your column just didn't meet their editorial standards. Do you buy that?

Frankly, I do not. I was a columnist for them until this morning and the column I wrote was one that I find to be pretty commonsensical, and if anything, benign.

I basically just wrote that critics who were accusing Scarlett Johansson of doing something terrible for taking the role of a transgender man should, sort of, calm down and think about what they are really getting so upset about.

You open up the column with this line: "Scarlett Johansson is the latest target of the social-justice warrior mob."

The Business Insider's editor-in-chief sent out a memo saying that social justice warrior is a bit of partisan name calling and it wasn't something they wanted to get into. What would you say to that?

To be frank, I find the term to be sort of a normal one. I know that the other terms he had included in there were "libtard" and "redneck." I mean, those are terms I would never put in writing. 

I think it's become a pretty mainstream term for referring to a group of people who seem to be preoccupied with social justice issues. 

Transparent actress Trace Lysette tweeted ... "Not only do you play us and steal our narrative and our opportunity but you pat yourselves on the back with trophies and accolades for mimicking what we have lived…" Do you understand that point of view from a trans person that they feel, maybe, Scarlett Johansson is somehow appropriating their story?

I mean, intellectually, do I understand the words that are being said? Yes.

But from a sort of intellectual standpoint in terms of meaning, I really don't. Unless we're going to make the case that every time Hollywood has any kind of film about someone who was raped, or an orphan, or was a military vet or is disabled or any other number set of circumstances.

Unless we're saying that only people who have actually really experienced that can play those parts — I think this is a very strange area to draw the line.

But for instance, you talk about where do we draw the line. Would you say the same thing if it was a white actor going into black face to play a black actor?  

I think the black face there is the issue, right? I don't have any problem with a white person playing a black person. They should just do it how they regularly look.

Think about the cast of Hamilton. You have tons of minorities playing historically white characters. No one's up in arms about that.

Is it not important for people who have been marginalized, and continue to be, to be able to represent themselves?

Listen, I think at the end of the day, if a producer's trying to get a film made, the responsibility that they have to themselves, to their investors, to the people who are ultimately going to see the film, is to hire the person that they think is going to do the best acting job.

If that person happens to be transgender, great. And that includes portraying someone who is transgender or someone who isn't transgender.

Was it surprising to you that they went ahead and pulled the column?

It was surprising for me. I think it was surprising to me on a personal level, it wasn't surprising to me on a sort of zoomed out level because I think these kinds of issues seem to be cropping up everywhere.  

Why do you say personally?

I didn't write a column to quote, unquote "own the libs." I don't think I wrote anything so radical. So for me, I thought I would, sort of, be — I guess — inoculated against this kind of response because, yes, I am conservative, but I'm pretty moderate.  

I'm very liberal on immigration. I believe in gay marriage. There are lots of areas in which I depart from the sort of traditional, Republican party line thinking.  

But what I've come to learn and accept is that by sort of allowing this to happen to people who are more fringe, we've normalized this process and we've allowed this spectrum of ideas that are acceptable to be narrowed and to continue to get narrowed.

And that I think is just going to have terrible long-term consequences.   

So because the column was pulled down, you resigned, and you said in your resignation letter... that there is a pattern happening all over the country within institutions that pride themselves on open mindedness and liberalism. Is that the pattern you're talking about?

Yes. I think that unfortunately this happens a lot and sometimes there's no option to challenge it. But I was hired to be a conservative opinion writer and I felt that it would hypocritical of me to not react the way I did.  

I think about viewpoint diversity, and the values of free exchange of ideas, and free speech, and why more speech is always better.

And what are you going to do?

Are you guys hiring?

Written by Sarah Jackson. Produced by Kevin Robertson. Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.