Eddie Izzard

Equalites are never thrown away by accepting that others have them. They are however threatened every time we allow someone to be persecuted or denied their human rights. Inequality requires some be thought of as less than others.

Trisher, it’s weird behaviour from a very mixed up guy. Let him carry on but we don’t have to think his way.

Sparkling

Trisher, it’s weird behaviour from a very mixed up guy. Let him carry on but we don’t have to think his way.

Well there you have it! She may be mixed up (probably the first to say so), but she has and is working through her feelings and motivation. It would be a much better world if more people did so.

Great publicity for Izzard whichever way the pendulum swings.
In favour or not.

Yes, the charities will benefit from all this publicity.

By requiring that we all go along with whatever identity a transwomen feels is appropriate, we are being required to support a pretence. By politely agreeing to Eddie's chosen pronouns, and im sure we would all be polite, is this not women yet again bowing to the patriarchy. Because it is generally the trans women (men) who are so vocal, making their demands, on women.

I've been told that some transmen are quite vocal too, but men are much better able to resist them and are unlikely to be at any risk from a transman (or someone pretending to be a transman).
Hence men are less likely to see the trans issue as a problem.

Trans men can be as vocal as they like, yet will still be aghast that men don't accept them as males.
Hence no admittance of trans men into the Masons and no trans men gaining hereditary titles as men. Even saunas for gay men are not inviting places for trans men.

I wonder why that is?

Funny how misinformation is posted on this thread. Freemasons accept transmen as members and allow transwomen who joined before they changed gender to remain as members.
www.gaystarnews.com/article/men-only-freemasons-will-now-allow-trans-women-to-join-but-not-cis-women/

Freemasons' policy certainly is funny.

"Those now eligible to become a member of a male-only lodge include:

Men

A Freemason who joined as a man, but later underwent gender reassignment to become a woman

A woman who underwent reassignment to become a man before applying to become a Freemason"

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-45030075

Both transwomen and transmen are men.
So Masons are a beacon of sensibleness.

Thank you for the news.
So the Freemason are now a mixed sex organisation.
Either sex can join?

Eddie actuality serves to highlight the confusion we face with trans. A biological male who uses female pronouns, wears nail varnish and feels at times, girly.

Here is a possible solution to the situation. The solution is definition.

The definition of woman has served us we over the years. We know exactly what an adult human female is. It does what is says on the tin. Lets leave that as it stands.

What we need to do is define trans. Our legal protections depend on this.

What is trans?Is biology relevant?Are we talking pre op trans, pre medication trans, part time trans? Do we treat an intact biological male the same way we treat someone who has undergone major surgeries and hormone treatment.How important are feelings in all this?

Before flinging open the doors to all, we need some clarity.

Can we predict a rash of trans men wanting to join the freemasons?

Are the freemasons likely to review their sex admittance policy on the basis that too many trans men may be amongst their members?

Will Masonic men be asked to be kind to accept ever increasing numbers of trans men?

Self ID unleashes so many questions Eddie, so many questions.

Petunia
But transgender people do have clarity, the Gender Recognition Act. It is quite clear they are protected by being defined as a legal fiction.

This legal fiction provides the necessary function needed to protect the lived experiences of genuine trans people.

How do we define the legal fiction of genuine trans people? Does this mean its all an illusion? Are there non genuine trans people?And like a broken record I ask-how do we tell the difference?

I feel quite dizzy after reading about that Freemason’s policy, FarNorth! I also feel that I’m being gaslit.

I've been following this thread over the past couple of days. It does feel to me that there is a blurring of the lines between transvestites and some trans women (not all) as if they are seeking to take the most appealing facets of womanhood and customise a persona around those features.

Eddie exemplifies those aspects to me. I can't quite get my head around her assertions that she wishes to slip into, I think the expression is, "girly mode". I speak for myself of course, but honestly late fifties feeling girly???? just sounds bordering on ridiculously coy "woman mode" surely? if she wants to be taken seriously, maybe she doesn't, hence the trite teminology Eddie and other high profile older transwomen, for example India Willoughby exemplify an idealised version of women, all manicured nails, thigh flashing short skirts, vertiginous heels and flicky hair, such characteristics are not that prevalent among women generally in their age demographic. Speaking to my group of real life friends and conversations on line, an often defining physical phase from say 50 onwards can be the more debilitating aspects that come down the line for older women such as the menopause. So these new women don't resonate with me, they can never really understand how it feels to be a woman completely with the downsides as well as the benefits, anymore than I as a woman could know what it feels like to experience problems of the prostate. Many years ago when I occasionally watched Big Brother once a contestant was ejected from the house, there would be a compilation and heavily edited version of their "best bits". So pardon the analogy but that's often what is conveyed to me by some transwomen. I even remember India Willoughby saying something along the lines that women should shave their legs, because not to do so wasn't very nice. Trivial I know, but I don't think womenkind need a spokesperson, who for a large portion of their life had lived as a man, pointing out how the rest of womankind should do as far as physical appearances are concerned.

Far North if you read this, a while ago, you posted a link to a transwoman, can't remember her name, but she was excellent, she presented a far more balanced view of life as a transwoman imo.

i have no problem with his way of life but i just find it difficult to know how to refer to people . i was brought up to refer to he or she by the way people looked so it is difficult to know how to change. i must congratulate Eddy for all of the charity work he does

Terribull Eddie isn't fussed which pronouns you use, it turns out.
He seems to be continuing to call himself a transvestite and saying that it's all the same.
Indeed transvestite is under Stonewall's 'trans umbrella'.
If men would say they are transvestite men and men have to be kind to them, that's totally fine with me.
They are not women, however much lipstick they put on.

I don't remember who that was, that you refer to.
Was it a video or something written?

kjmpde I refer to people how I see fit.
Trying to tie oneself in knots using Newspeak is a loser's game, I think.

Funnily enough, I have had no problem with changing terminology for anything other than trans - that could be because I haven't previously encountered people claiming that their 'rights' take precedence over others' rights.

trisher

Equalites are never thrown away by accepting that others have them. They are however threatened every time we allow someone to be persecuted or denied their human rights. Inequality requires some be thought of as less than others.

So we should allow white people to access rights set aside for BAME people? Men to access rights set aside for children? Able bodied people to access rights and services set aside for people with disabilities?

Rights are nuanced and often hard won, they allow people to take part fully in society. In short it's okay to say No to men sometimes. Boundaries and safeguarding. There are many courses online, often free, you might want to look some up...

kjmpde the polite way of doing it if you are with the person is to ask. I've been (before lockdown) to quite a few workshops where everyone was asked to say which pronoun they preferred, young people seem to have no problem with it.
Eddie is interesting if you listen to his autobiography he likens gender to a sliding scale, which can change.
Perhaps it would be better if there was more acceptance of make up and different clothes for men. There was briefly a time in the 80s-New Romantics?

LumpySpacedPrincess

trisher

Equalites are never thrown away by accepting that others have them. They are however threatened every time we allow someone to be persecuted or denied their human rights. Inequality requires some be thought of as less than others.

So we should allow white people to access rights set aside for BAME people? Men to access rights set aside for children? Able bodied people to access rights and services set aside for people with disabilities?

Rights are nuanced and often hard won, they allow people to take part fully in society. In short it's okay to say No to men sometimes. Boundaries and safeguarding. There are many courses online, often free, you might want to look some up...

Actually LSP if you know anything about disability rights you would know they don't want special spaces. What they want is access to all spaces. It's the difference between the medical model of disability (there's something wrong with them and they need to be fixed) and the social model (society is wrong and needs to change to accommodate their needs). There's a lot of information about it on line.
As for all the business about men accessing women's spaces. It's few and far between. It won't change lives. It's happening anyway and it needs proper regulations not a few pretend feminists bnging on about it and pretending it's actually dangerous.
Real feminists support the less privileged, the underdog , the 'Other' as Simone De Beauvoir called them, be they gay, lesbian queer or trans.
I did ask about men and children. If you want to answer my question- Most paedophiles are men but we don't stop them all working with children.
A few transwomen are abusive and yet they all have to be sanctioned. Why?
Do women deserve more protection than children?

trisher pretend feminists how very insulting to anybody who doesn't tow your particular line, I really think it's unnecessary. Aside from that how do you reconcile when there are conflicting protected characteristics? The easiest is swimming pools. Muslim, and some Jewish women are not permitted to mix in this situation with men. When a pool decides its women only session is now open to those who identify as women, even though they are biological males, they exclude these women. Transwomen can attend mixed bathing sessions so are not being denied the chance to swim. Muslim women can't so are denied any chance.

Strangely enough the disabled people I know need special spaces reserved entirely for them in order to access all spaces. Special reserved parking spaces, accessible toilet provision, some with hoists and adult length changing facilities. On the buses in my area, while people are allowed to place baby buggies in the disabled area when it's unoccupied, if a wheelchair user wants to board then they have priority, their rights and needs outweighing the baby's need, and baby moves.

Some women are paedophiles, not many just a few. Some men are paedophiles, a greater number by far than women, but certainly not all or even a majority. All men and women have to go through checks before being allowed to work with children. These are not foolproof, but everyone is obliged to undergo the same checks. Most men are not a danger to women but we have a blanket ban on men who identify as men on women's hospital wards, changing rooms, swim sessions, prisons, refuges and a host of other places. We deny them all because there is no way of knowing who is a danger and for reasons of privacy, dignity etc An easy solution is to have male, female and mixed provision. On that note sport can also be accommodated by an open category and a female sex category. Everyone can then take part.

Transwomen are not women and can never be women as biologically, they will always be male. The X and Y chromosome cannot be altered.

There should be guaranteed legal protections to ensure that single sex spaces will continue to exist to protect women and girls.

Of course Transwomen should be afforded protection from harassment and assault, BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF WOMEN.

Either build safe units within men’s existing institutions or provide separate facilities.

I’m fed up of women always having to step aside both literally and figuratively for men.

Men need to find their own solutions.