That paragraph took a turn for the ultra-dark.

Brilliant movie! This was also super early in her career, 1943 and her fourth movie after the others listed.

Then Casanova Brown (her first less-acclaimed film), then Best Picture-winner and #1 highest-grossing film of the decade The Best Years of Our Lives.

I've only seen Shadow and Best Years, but both are masterpieces.

Nuanced question requires nuanced answer. (And the article does a pretty good job and breaking down the pros/cons.)

For me, I think it should be a long term goal to eliminate gendered categories. However, doing so recklessly would carry a lot of risks and has to be careful.

First off, there are non-binary actors. I see some other users dismissing this, and while it shouldn't be a conversation-ender it's absolutely ridiculous to just dismiss this aspect of the debate.

Has a non-binary actor ever been in contention for an Oscar before? I mean, probably, the idea of being openly non-binary is relatively new in contemporary society, so any actors who have been non-binary in the past would probably be closeted or not even be familiar with the term and just feel forced into a gender identity that didn't fit. So okay, let's get at the real question --

Has an openly non-binary actor ever been in contention for an Oscar? So far, no, but for the reasons stated above it's completely silly to pretend this isn't a possibility in the future. More and more people are openly identifying as non-binary. Denying them a proper slot at awards shows is essentially barring them from that discourse.

Can a non-binary actor simply select whichever category "best fits" them (as another user suggested)? There are so many completely obvious problems with this. For one, it would further the general belief that non-binary identities aren't "real." For another, I could see it hurting an actor's chances if voters are uncertain which category to nominate someone in. (Stanfield's supporting nod shows it isn't as simple as "choosing" a category for yourself.) In the article, a specific example is used of a Tony performer withdrawing their name from consideration as they didn't want to compromise their identity. That's not a choice we should be forcing on people -- "you want an award? Great, first you need to accept a certain dose of body dysmorphia just to be considered."

Of course, there are obvious pitfalls: the two biggest being the fear that this would limit opportunity for female nominees (because there are usually far more male roles, although the current awards season is a promising exception); and that there would be fewer acting awards altogether which is certainly a sacrifice (one which I would see as a bad thing although this isn't a given).

The latter point is easy to address: make more categories that aren't to do with gender. You can go the way of the Globes and split drama/comedy (ugh), or maybe split split performances based on a real person or previous work vs entirely original performances (interesting), or create more tiers in role-importance (e.g. best lead, best co-lead, best supporting, best brief supporting). Several awards shows also have a breakout performance category.

Can argue endlessly about which of these make sense or provide the best opportunities (I'd prefer not to split on genre lines if the Globes are any indication of how that goes down), but the point is that there are alternatives that create four non-gendered acting categories. We also desperately need a voice-acting category by the way, just saying...

Buuuut the former point, about opportunities for women, is... a real concern. And there's not an easy answer for that, since it's largely an industry problem more than an awards show problem (despite internet discourse always focusing on the awards shows' issues).

So... I'm conflicted. I'd hate to say there should be a rule that at least two genders need to be represented in each category, but that might be the easiest way. Honestly, I don't actually think we'd frequently find ourselves with 5 nominees of all the same gender (although in the 2020 show it may have happened) but the threat of 4 male nominees multiple years in a row, or all-male winners or some such, is definitely a threat and we shouldn't pretend it isn't. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine ever having 5 female nominees or all-female winners. This industry is very male-leaning...

Anyway, that was long, but since all the other comments are just "how stupid," I felt like pointing out that it's not stupid or a simple question. But Reddit likes dismissing things that aren't easy to answer, so y'know, that's to be expected.

And many more will likely spring up. In fact, it's extremely likely that a non-binary actor has already been nominated but wasn't open about it, and we will never know.

Spirit Awards switched this year, and most of the nominees are women. It's likely that Blanchett or Yeoh will win Lead, and probably Quan will win Supporting, so 50/50 winners if that's the case.

Probably The Avengers just for how many tunes I say, "I get that reference."

Pulp Fiction is an anthology so it's kinda cheating. Each segment within it has a clear main character -- Travolta, Willis, and Jackson at various points.

But anyway... ensemble movies.

Godzilla

Trial of the Chicago 7

Parasite

Fargo

Burn After Reading

Them!

Inglorious Basterds

The Avengers (and its sequels)

The actual answer, I think, is that Hollywood tends to cast Eastern European characters in villainous roles. Daniel Bruhl and Christoph Waltz are mostly cast as villains as well. Even when they're not, they tend to play off those tropes (like Bruhl in Rush isn't villainous but is seen that way by others, or Waltz in Django as a direct subversion of the evil German trope).

If you watch Mikkelsen's Danish films, he gets much more complex roles.

True, but try telling that to the other characters in the movie. "Mads Mikkelsen playing a normal guy?? Impossible!"