upworthy

identity

Pop Culture

James Van Der Beek's realization about his identity after cancer has people pondering

"I had to look my own mortality in the eye," said the Dawson's Creek alum. "I had to come nose to nose with death."

Photo credits: SANSIERRASTUDIO (left) Super Festivals from Ft. Lauderdale, USA (right)

James Van Der Beek in 2010 and 2023

There's nothing like a brush with death to make you reflect on your life. It's so easy for all of us to get caught up in the day-to-day details of living and not take the time to ponder the deeper elements of existence, from the nature of the universe to the meaning of life to our own individual role in the big picture.

Existential questions can sometimes feel overwhelming, but actor James Van Der Beek shared a thoughtful 48th birthday message with his own life reflection after facing cancer, and it distills a lot of the angst of those questions into a simple yet profound answer that's hitting home with people.

Van Der Beek, who starred in the millennial favorite Dawson's Creek, announced he'd been diagnosed with stage 3 colorectal cancer in 2024 at age 47. He and his wife, Kimberly, have six children, and in a video shared on social media, Van Der Beek shared the progression from his somewhat unfulfilling identity as an actor to "the ultimate" identity as a husband and father prior to his cancer diagnosis.

"I could define myself as a loving, capable, strong, supportive husband, father, provider, steward of the land that we're so lucky to live on," he said. "And for a long time, that felt like a really good definition of the question, 'Who am I? What am I?'"

"And then this year, I had to look my own mortality in the eye," he continued. "I had to come nose to nose with death. And all of those definitions that I cared so deeply about were stripped from me. I was away for treatment, so I could no longer be a husband who is helpful to my wife. I could no longer be a father who could pick up his kids and put them to bed and be there for them. I could not be a provider because I wasn't working. I couldn't even be a steward of the land because at times I was too weak to prune all the trees during the window that you're supposed to prune them."

He found himself facing the question: "If I am just a too-skinny, weak guy, alone in an apartment, with cancer, what am I?"

So often we define ourselves by our roles in life or by what we do, but what if those things change? Who are we when it's just us, alone, with nothing external to anchor us to a particular identity?

"And I meditated and the answer came through," Van Der Beek shared. "I am worthy of God's love, simply because I exist. And if I'm worthy of God's love, shouldn't I also be worthy of my own? And the same is true for you."

I offer that to you however it sits in your consciousness. However it resonates, run with it," he said. "And if the word God trips you up, I certainly don't know or claim to know what God is or explain God. My efforts to connect to God are an ongoing process that is a constant unfolding mystery to me. But if it's a trigger or if it feels too religious you can take the word 'God' out and your mantra can simply be 'I am worthy of love.' Because you are."


Van Der Beek's sincere, warm delivery and universal message of love and worth hit home for a lot of people. Fellow celebrities and fans alike praised and thanked him for it:

"Happy birthday brother. This was absolutely beautiful 💜🙏🏻💜," wrote singer Chris Daughtry.

"You’re a gift to this earth and I’m grateful to know you even if it’s just through IG. Greatly admire the graceful way you share and happy you made it around the Sun again," wrote New Kids on the Block's Joey McIntyre.

The Sopranos' Jamie-Lynn Sigler wrote, "That is it James. That is it. And you my friend are love. A steward of love. A teacher of love !❤️. We love you !!"

"I watched this with Bodhi with tears in our eyes and Bodhi said 'that was really touching' thanks for being love James and sharing that with everyone, ❤️" added actor Teresa Palmer.

Battlestar Galactica reboot's Katee Sackhoff wrote, "Thank you for your vulnerability and wisdom ❤️ Amen!'

"You are such a special soul. You are pure love my friend," added actor Nikki Reed. "Worthy of it all… hoping to hug all of you soon. Happy birthday❤️❤️❤️"

Some people took issue with Van Der Beek saying people could remove the word "God" from the message if they wanted to, but the reality is that not everyone has positive feelings about God or religion, and some have even been deeply hurt by people weaponizing them. Van Der Beek making a message of love more universal so that everyone can take it in and benefit from it without barriers or hang-ups is part of what makes it so beautiful. He was able to express his own religious/spiritual experience without shying away from the terminology that was true for him, while also making sure that his message was accessible to everyone regardless of faith or belief.

Perhaps we can all take a lesson from Van Der Beek's sincere, open, and balanced approach as well.

Cover of "Catwoman: Nine Lives of a Feline Fatale."

Selina Kyle, aka Catwoman, is a quintessential Batman villain … slash accomplice … slash on-again-off-again love interest. But outside of her relationship status with Bruce Wayne, Catwoman is a fascinating character in her own right.

Agile, clever, dangerous, independent—selfish even—yet still a consistent champion for the disenfranchised. She has no loyalty to the status quo and plays by her own rules. She never really needs a hero, because she acts as her own savior.

the batmanCover of "Catwoman #59" by Adam Hughs upload.wikimedia.org

She has all these fascinating layers, and as a Catwoman fan I find it tragic that often in film adaptations, this character is portrayed in one of two ways: either as a sex object or as a foil to the main (male) hero.

However, two actresses of color—Zoë Kravitz and Eartha Kitt before her—transcend the tropes and embody Catwoman’s essential qualities, each in their own distinctly masterful way. Because of their boldness, Catwoman is not only a more dynamic character, she’s a compelling symbol for Black female empowerment.

To geek out a little further on the subject, I spoke with Jamie Broadnax of Black Girl Nerds, a blog turned multimedia outlet that explores all things at “the intersection of geek culture and Black feminism.” Who better to team up with, right?

black girl nerdsJamie Brodnax.Photo of Jamie Broadnax, used with permission

Together, we explored the social impact both Kitt and Kravitz portrayal had on everyone’s favorite feline fatale.

(For the sake of this article, we’ll just pretend that one "Catwoman" movie never existed. Though I still stand for Halle Berry.)

When Eartha Kitt became the first black Catwoman back in 1967, she knew its importance. Her daughter Kitt Shapira told Closer Weekly:

“I was about nine years old when she played Catwoman on Batman, and that was a really big deal. This was 1967, and there were no women of color at that time wearing skintight bodysuits, playing opposite a white male with sexual tension between them! She was one of the first really beautiful black women — her, Lena Horne, Dorothy Dandridge — who were allowed to be sexy without being stereotyped. It does take a village, but I do think she helped blaze a trail.”

eartha kitt catwomanTv Show Vintage GIFGiphy

And blaze she did. Eartha Kitt purred her way into legend, giving the character an iconic voice, feline mannerisms and downright fierce femininity. Whenever she came on screen, it felt like something between edgy performance art and a civil rights protest.

In one particular Batman episode titled “Catwoman's Dressed to Kill,” the character infiltrates a posh luncheon ceremony filled with white socialites, ready to give Batgirl an award for being the best dressed crime fighter. But Catwoman ain’t having it.

Gesturing to the table of white female socialites, she hisses “You ladies, with your fancy hairdos, what do you know about beauty?” before throwing dust that explodes and turns their hair into afros.” It was a pretty radical way to comment on white-leaning beauty standards, if you ask me.

Before Eartha, the role was played by the famously “statuesque” Julie Newmar. And though Newmar gave a wonderfully wistful, slinky innocence to the role, there is something about Kitt’s portrayal that feels more pivotal. More important.

Like Newmar, Kitt definitely had sex appeal, but in a way that empowered other Black women to see themselves in the same light.

Jamie Broadnax:
“Eartha Kitt molded Catwoman into a sex symbol, which was certainly appealing for the time. She served a purpose of being a beautiful antagonist for Batman, while Batman was conflicted himself with her beauty and was enamored by it. Eartha Kitt also allowed Black women like me to see themselves reflected in TV shows (especially genre TV shows) that allowed us to believe that we, too, can be Catwoman. It's also because of Kitt's Catwoman that many Black women felt comfortable cosplaying as the character.“

Fast forward to 2022, and now Zoë Kravitz is getting acclaim for her equally striking version of Selina Kyle. Everyone from Taylor Swift to OG Catwomans (Catwomen?) Halle Berry, Anne Hathaway and Michelle Pfieffer have sent their heartfelt praises.

This Catwoman is sexually fluid, stealthy AF, resourceful and cunning, with charisma and depth. Like Kitt before her, Kravitz offers an emotional equal to Robert Pattinson’s Batman. It makes for some fantastic viewing, even to those who could care less about The Batman and his conquests.

zoe kravitz catwomanRobert Pattinson Couple GIF by The BatmanGiphy

Broadnax adds:

“She's fully fleshed out and gives proper motive for her actions in a way we haven't seen before. By that I mean, she's not a self-serving anti-hero as depicted in other films, but instead is more of a heroine to those close within her sphere of influence.”

This might seem like a small feat for Kravitz, who is no stranger to producing great work. But keep in mind: Even an A-list, award-winning actress like Kravitz, born into celebrity, still faces obstacles because of the color of her skin.

In an interview with The Guardian, Kravitz revealed that she had previously been refused a chance to audition for a role in "The Dark Knight Rises" for being too “urban.”

Previously, sources thought Kravitz wasn’t allowed to audition for the role of Catwoman (which went to Anne Hathaway). That has since been proven untrue, but even if it were, considering that Catwoman only appeared for a total of 19 minutes in “The Dark Knight Rises,” I’d say it was a blessing in disguise.

Taking the blatant racism aside, as a comic book nerd, this is just mind-boggling. Have you seen Gotham? That’s about as urban as it gets. But I digress. It’s an insidious and ugly word that Hollywood has been allowed to hide behind for far too long. Plain and simple.

Kravitz added, “Being a woman of color and being an actor and being told at that time that I wasn’t able to read because of the color of my skin, and the word urban being thrown around like that, that was what was really hard about that moment.”

For Kravitz to not only play the role, but to shine in it, helps other Black women see that times are changing. Not saying they’re changing fast enough, but still. Once again Catwoman has become a role model for confidence and power. For those who are often lacking positive representation, this can be vital.

What will be next for Catwoman? The future is still unwritten. Broadnax and I both agreed that when it comes to Kravitz, we’re hoping for a standalone series. But either way, because of the courage of trailblazing performers, Catwoman will be forever changed. She may be considered a nemesis to Batman, but when it comes to Black feminism, she’s a hero.

By the way, if you’d like to see Jamie Broadnax's full review on "The Batman," you’re in luck! That can be found here.

The World Health Organization recently announced a big change to its International Classification of Diseases database, and that's good news for trans people.

The ICD is a centuries-old catalog tracking pretty much every medical condition you could possibly think of. With the release of its 11th edition, the WHO moved gender incongruence — the diagnostic term applied to trans people — from the catalog's mental health section to its new home under sexual health conditions.

In a video explaining the decision to reclassify the condition, Dr. Lale Say, the coordinator of the WHO's Department of Reproductive Health and Research, explains that recent discoveries helped inform the action.


GIF from World Health Organization/YouTube.

"It was taken out from mental health disorders because we had [a] better understanding that this wasn't actually a mental health condition, and leaving it there was causing stigma," she said. "So in order to reduce the stigma while also ensuring access to necessary health interventions, this was placed into a different chapter."

The WHO's official press release states that "evidence is now clear that it is not a mental disorder." In other words, there are specific medical needs associated with being transgender, so it didn't make sense to eliminate the diagnosis from the ICD completely. Exclusion from the ICD altogether could have resulted in trans people not being able to access things like hormone therapies and other transition-related care.

WHO's move echoes that of other medical organizations that have come out in support of trans people in recent years.

As WHO's release says, it is clear that being trans is not a mental disorder. Still, there's a strong misconception that persists. In 2014, the American Psychiatric Association updated its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) classification for trans people. What was once called "gender identity disorder" was updated to "gender dysphoria." Why the change? It's actually pretty similar to WHO's rationale:

"DSM-5 aims to avoid stigma and ensure clinical care for individuals who see and feel themselves to be a different gender than their assigned gender. It replaces the diagnostic name 'gender identity disorder' with 'gender dysphoria,' as well as makes other important clarifications in the criteria. It is important to note that gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition."

In 2014, the American Medical Association issued a resolution urging states to allow trans people to update identifying documents like birth certificates. The following year, they stated that there is "no medically valid reason to exclude transgender individuals" from the military (a call they renewed in light of President Trump's trans military ban). In 2016, they called on insurance companies to cover transition-related health care as they would any other medically necessary treatment. In 2017, the AMA came out against the use of so-called bathroom bills meant to prevent trans people from "accessing basic human services and public facilities in line with one’s gender identity, including, but not limited to, the use of restrooms."

Groups like the American Psychological Association, the American Association of Family Physicians, the National Association of Social Workers (whose position is gender dysphoria should be removed from the DSM entirely), the American Public Health Association, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health have all come out in favor providing affirming care for trans people.

The logo of the World Health Organization outside its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. Photo by Fabrice Coffrini/AFP/Getty Images.

The idea that trans people simply have a "mental disorder" is misleading and inaccurate.

Mental health is a fraught topic in the U.S., and the stigma surrounding it leads to some unfortunate misconceptions. Some may see the words "mental health" and conclude that whatever the problem is, it's all in a person's head and doesn't stem from a physical or biological origin. Of course, that's not the case. The same is true of being transgender.

People hold gay pride (forefront) and trans pride (background) flags during a pride parade in Bratislava, Slovakia. Photo by Samuel Kubani/AFP/Getty Images.

The data is there to prove it. In 2014, writer Brynn Tannehill published an article defending the biological origins of gender dysphoria. Tannehill was writing in response to an article published by Fox News in which the author argued that transgender people simply didn't exist. Tannehill's rebuttal was jam-packed with data — citing 15 different studies supporting the idea that there is a biological basis to being transgender.

The science clearly favors one side: the side that believes trans people are who they say they are, the side that believes trans people should have access to medical care and legal protections against discrimination.

You may be asking yourself what this means for your everyday life. The answer: probably nothing, especially if you're not trans.

Being trans means having your existence and your identity constantly put up for debate. As someone who is trans, I know this well. It's exhausting, and too often, people will try to dispute my own existence (or the validity of it, at least) by citing "science." The truth is that it's just recently that "science" is coming to strong conclusions about trans people — and these new findings dispute the anti-trans arguments.

7-year-old transgender boy Jacob Lemay at his house in Melrose, Massachusetts, in 2017. At this age, there is no medical component to his transition, just social. Photo by Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images.

For decades, much of what we knew about gender dysphoria and its origins was based solely on a handful of imperfect studies put out by just a handful of imperfect researchers. Many of their dated, harmful, and highly disputed findings foster stigma that still exists today. The importance of groups like the World Health Organization, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Medical Association taking affirmative stands in support of trans people is that it reflects a better understanding of who trans people are and the evolving science around the issue.

We exist. It's science.

Watch this short video from the WHO explaining this update to the ICD.

On Twitter, New Yorker food writer Helen Rosner shared a secret for making roast chicken — a hair dryer.

Stuck inside on a snow day, Rosner shared a photo of the process she uses to remove moisture from a chicken before roasting it: a bit of time under her hair dryer. It might seem unconventional, but it's actually a well-established method for getting the skin perfectly crispy.

Sadly, the internet didn't seem to know this — or care.


Some of the responses got a bit rude, which led Rosner to write an article titled, "Yes, I use a hair dryer to make roast chicken — here's the recipe" to clarify a few things.

She explained to me what bothered her a bit about the responses, something many writers can relate to, saying, "I took a picture of the process and posted it to Twitter, where people were, in roughly even groups, thrilled or repulsed by the sight of a beauty appliance in the kitchen. There was, in particular, no shortage of men (why is it always men?) sneering at my incompetence."

She continues, "'This is what your oven is for,' a few said, apparently thinking that I was using the dryer not to dry the chicken but to cook it. They lingered on my choice of hair dryer—the Dyson Supersonic, a futuristic-looking device that is, at four hundred dollars, absurdly expensive. (It’s also inarguably better than any other blow-dryer I’ve tried, though whether its uptick in quality is worth the several-hundred-dollar premium is a private matter between a person and her credit card.) And they commented on my sparkly pink manicure—maybe, if I’d wanted the tweet to read as an Alton Brown-calibre kitchen hack, instead of ditzy prop comedy, I should’ve gone for unvarnished nails and a hairier knuckle."

Rosner's story (which came with a recipe that looks absolutely delicious) was meant to quiet the trolls and clear up some misconceptions, but seemed to only result in more hate being thrown her way. Michael Harriot at The Root called the dish "the whitest thing on the internet" in an unrelentingly cruel blog post. Alexandra Deabler's Fox News article emphasized the cost of Rosner's dryer, as did Danielle Fowler's write-up at Yahoo.

Rosner spoke with me about the bizarre backlash to the totally innocuous food tip, sharing a bit of her thoughts on what it's like to be a woman writing on the internet.

The internet, for all the good it does, can enable what's known as "context collapse." Details get left out, facts get blurred, and words get twisted in ways they otherwise shouldn't.

In Rosner's case, some of the backlash seemed to be from people who thought she was recommending everyone go out and drop $400 on a blow-dryer, or else they mistakenly thought she was suggesting that you should actually use the blow-dryer to cook the chicken (please do not try to cook an entire chicken with a blow-dryer; it will not work and you could get sick).

None of that was true, but it's the new normal in an age where everything posted to the internet has the potential to become content.

Helen Rosner. Photo courtesy of Helen Rosner.

"Ideas get divorced from the people expressing them, and often knowing who's saying something can help you know how to judge the idea," she says. "When headlines in the NY Post or on Yahoo Lifestyle say things like 'Woman Uses a Hair Dryer to Cook Chicken,' even looking past the fact that I don't use the dryer to cook the damn chicken, by stripping out the context of who the hell this woman is, you open a door for the reader to immediately jump to skepticism and judgment. They could've gone with 'food writer uses a hair dryer to cook chicken' (or hell, 'award-winning food writer' also works) and then the reader response is tempered by position expertise."

To that last point, Rosner clarifies that she shouldn't have to be a highly credentialed food writer in order to share a cool tip without a flood of mockery being sent her way. The desire to pick other people apart over the tiniest things, such as how they make their roast chicken, has become a core part of internet culture, and it's not good for us.

At first Rosner was reluctant to respond to some of the harsher criticism, but then she noticed something.

She was irritated, understandably, by some of the inaccuracies pushed by her critics. At first she chalked it up to ignorance, but then she realized that some of her harshest critics knew exactly what they were doing.

"I saw a lot of people responding to that post by calling it sexist, and something clicked for me," she told me. "I'd been scrambling around trying to get strangers on the internet to understand that they were misreading or misrepresenting what the technique actually involved, and that actually I'm not full of shit, but the truth is — they just didn't care. They didn't want to be accurate; they just wanted to feign outrage. And so, so, so much of that outrage was really starkly gendered — the way that we, as a culture, assume that men know what they're talking about, but if the person speaking isn't a man, there's no such thing as the benefit of the doubt."

She wonders how different the response might have been had the person posting the original tweet were a guy. The fact that celebrity chefs like Alton Brown have been promoting this technique for years without outrage probably gives us an answer to that question.

"There's some kind of perfect synthesis in there of my own femininity, the femininity of a hair dryer as an appliance, and the perceived frivolousness of a feminine-coded appliance costing a few hundred dollars," she says. "So much of the response to this basically boiled down to 'Look at this ditzy lady doing a stupid thing,' which is just plain incorrect. What I did was really smart and has a lot of science behind it — it works, and it works well. You're gonna respond to a tested, vetted, effective technique — one that uses tools you probably already have in your home — with knee-jerk sexist mockery? At the end of the day, I don't think I'm the one who looks stupid here."

There are some important lessons in all of this about the internet, unconscious bias, assumptions, and empathy.

It's easy to jump to assumptions, whether it's assuming a woman on the internet with a blow-dryer doesn't know what she's doing when it comes to chicken or making snap judgments about other people's personal experiences. Those assumptions lead us to build up fictionalized versions of the people we see and we can come off cruel in the process. Ordinary context clues that you might be able to pick up from in-person conversations are lost behind keyboards.

We could all benefit from taking a few deep breaths and asking ourselves whether there's a possibility that we don't have all the information needed to offer an opinion on a topic and whether we really need to give someone doing something — like, say, offering a tip for cooking chicken — such a hard time about it?