Eddie Izzard

I don’t know about the UK but we have plenty of unisex toilets here so I can’t see any need whatsoever for men and trans people to use specifically female toilets. It seems this particular human being just wanted publicity . Either that or deliberately taking yet more power off females’ rights.

VS So, no you can't explain what you mean by a toilet is not a safe space ? OK I get that, you typed a sentence with no concept of the meaning. That or you don't want to spell out what you actually meant.

I would point out that words generally have set meanings for the vast majority of people. Feminist has its root in female, and therefore puts females at the centre, as in their rights and protections. In the same way that words that begin paed.... put children at the centre. The canine defence league finds itself putting dogs at the centre, not because they hate bunnies and cats and want them all dead, but because their area of concern is dogs.

As for Action Aid, do you really consider I need your advice on Charity giving. What on earth makes you categorise it as "intersectional feminism"? It is an organisation that clearly puts women (not men, not even those in frocks) and children at the forefront of its concerns and help. Some of us are involved in projects in Uganda that actually help real women and children in their struggles, and appreciate the problems women in these areas face.
I too don't know what these diversions have to do with Eddie Izzard and his blatant disregard for any woman's rights or comfort. He could easily have used the mens toilets. For goodness' sake Glorianny as a female is quite happy and secure in doing so. Eddie even has the required biology to make the urinals something he can use.

Rosie51

VS So, no you can't explain what you mean by a toilet is not a safe space ? OK I get that, you typed a sentence with no concept of the meaning. That or you don't want to spell out what you actually meant.

I would point out that words generally have set meanings for the vast majority of people. Feminist has its root in female, and therefore puts females at the centre, as in their rights and protections. In the same way that words that begin paed.... put children at the centre. The canine defence league finds itself putting dogs at the centre, not because they hate bunnies and cats and want them all dead, but because their area of concern is dogs.

As for Action Aid, do you really consider I need your advice on Charity giving. What on earth makes you categorise it as "intersectional feminism"? It is an organisation that clearly puts women (not men, not even those in frocks) and children at the forefront of its concerns and help. Some of us are involved in projects in Uganda that actually help real women and children in their struggles, and appreciate the problems women in these areas face.
I too don't know what these diversions have to do with Eddie Izzard and his blatant disregard for any woman's rights or comfort. He could easily have used the mens toilets. For goodness' sake Glorianny as a female is quite happy and secure in doing so. Eddie even has the required biology to make the urinals something he can use.

Worth rereading for all the information on feminism where VS isn’t aware. THANKS Rosie51.

Feminist has its root in female, and therefore puts females at the centre.
Sidetracking into intersectional has been done before and simply means anything that doesn’t put females at the centre, but tries to push them out. A good self description VS. ??

Action Aid. That’s a real novelty in the diversions offered by either VS, trisher or Glorianny. However, VS in case you missed Rosie51’s information, here it is again:
Action Aid “is an organisation that clearly puts women (not men, not even those in frocks) and children at the forefront of its concerns and help”

VS So, no you can't explain what you mean by a toilet is not a safe space ? OK I get that, you typed a sentence with no concept of the meaning. That or you don't want to spell out what you actually meant.
Probably the latter but . . .

Males have no place in female toilets.

He should have used the gents, he is very weird, , if I was in there I would come out until he left, he makes me feel uncomfortable, yes, know he does things for charity, there's those that think it's quite acceptable, they have their own reasons for that, I just don't agree.

Good morning

I think if the answers are important to you then you should probably try asking differently.

I've been tagged so many times in a thread I've tried to leave and been insulted to draw me back. I've been:

Accused of making rape jokes (I don't)

Asked if I'd support JS if he had been trans (that was a weird one)

Called narcissistic

And all sorts of other things

So maybe you guys should ask yourselves of you really think these discussions are important?

Or if you just want someone to vent your anger at?

Then proceed accordingly and I will decide if I want to answer but you should know that will depend on how I am asked.

Obviously it's the start of the work week and I'm not likely to be around much.

Have a good week

We are having a discussion on the internet. Whether you participate is up to you. These discussions will carry on here and elsewhere.

It is already a criminal offence to assault women, that doesn't seem to deter those determined to do so. Quite how making entering a public toilet a criminal offence would either prevent assaults or be policed I don't know. As I said before women should be aware of the dangers which will still exist even if entering a toilet was a criminal offence (to Mollygo)

I think the funniest things about these threads is the way we intersectional feminists try to make our points reasonably and carefully whereas the "radical feminists" perpetually misquote and make disparaging remarks about us. To my mind that sums up their feminism, agree with me, or you aren't the right sort of a woman and I will do all I can to destroy you. So I'll stick with intersectional feminism, and actually transwomen seem to getthe idea of supporting others far more

VS

* I will decide if I want to answer but you should know that will depend on how I am asked.*

If you can’t answer questions because you don’t like the way they’re put-that makes you a bit Mimi, whether you acknowledge that or not.

I think it’s important that males, even in dresses are not allowed in female toilets or other female safe spaces.

You don’t.

Whilst there are still posters who support the idea that putting a dress on, or calling themselves a ‘woman’ entitles males to

pretend they’re female,

use female toilets, making it quite obvious that they’re male, or for publicity purposes,

use female changing rooms,

cheat in sport,

access female safe spaces,

be housed in female prisons with those of the very sex they have harmed,

et al,

then the discussions are important.

The incredible damage to the image of TIM done by those who have claimed they are women for any of the above will never be undone, but they don’t care about that.

Do you?

Ah the old-if you can't win the discussion about toilets introduce other scenarios tactic.
Isn't that diversion?
Think I have been accused of that in the past.

Perhaps admitting that by using the women's toilet openly and carefully Eddie did no one any harm at all is too much of a step. If it was done for publicity it has certainly worked.

If the argument is now going to be made that by doing so Eddie sent a signal to all offenders that it is OK to enter a female toilet as long as you are wearing a dress, I don't think you can hold one person responsible for another's actions. and I don't think men intent on assaulting women really bother about what they are wearing. Still you can disagree if you wish. But try to do it without being personal, misconstruing, misrepresenting or otherwise attacking me. I'll have so much more respect for you if you do.

And I think transwomen who don't want to use women's toilets are perfectly entitled to their views, but have no right to insist others agree with them.

I don’t find any of this funny. None of it. There are ‘genuine’ transpeople who suffer because of exhibitionists like Izzard, women who become a little bit less safe each time a man is allowed in female spaces and a further diminishment of women’s rights and status as a sex class, but you think it’s ’funny’. In fact there are so many funny things about it all that you can choose which is the funniest.

The argument that allowing one man in the Ladies (particularly a famous one) will lead to all men using them was made at the start of the thread. It is not a new one brought in as a diversion.

What has been said that is personal? People are disagreeing, is all. You may feel that you have been misconstrued - we all do from time to time - but as often as not it is because we haven’t made ourselves clear, or our posts are worded ambiguously.

Where are the ‘attacks’? I knew this would happen- there comes a point in every thread when at least one person flounces and the accusations of hounding start.

For the record- I don’t think the argument has been lost at all. The list of defences I posted upthread has been added to by ‘jokes’ about sausages and ‘in shape’ vaginas, which in this context are disrespectful of women who have genuine concerns about men in their spaces. Not all of them - nobody is arguing for sex segregation- but when we are vulnerable, or when privacy and dignity are compromised.

Doodledog

I don’t find any of this funny. None of it. There are ‘genuine’ transpeople who suffer because of exhibitionists like Izzard, women who become a little bit less safe each time a man is allowed in female spaces and a further diminishment of women’s rights and status as a sex class, but you think it’s ’funny’. In fact there are so many funny things about it all that you can choose which is the funniest.

The argument that allowing one man in the Ladies (particularly a famous one) will lead to all men using them was made at the start of the thread. It is not a new one brought in as a diversion.

What has been said that is personal? People are disagreeing, is all. You may feel that you have been misconstrued - we all do from time to time - but as often as not it is because we haven’t made ourselves clear, or our posts are worded ambiguously.

Where are the ‘attacks’? I knew this would happen- there comes a point in every thread when at least one person flounces and the accusations of hounding start.

For the record- I don’t think the argument has been lost at all. The list of defences I posted upthread has been added to by ‘jokes’ about sausages and ‘in shape’ vaginas, which in this context are disrespectful of women who have genuine concerns about men in their spaces. Not all of them - nobody is arguing for sex segregation- but when we are vulnerable, or when privacy and dignity are compromised.

Oh come on the competition for "we are the best feminists" is at least faintly amusing, particularly as this discussion is all (or mostly) women.
Or are you subscribing to the old chestnut that women have no sense of humour?

As far as Izzard leading the way for all men to use the Ladies hasn't it been posted many times that "my son/husband wouldn't do that". Is the sight of Izzard emerging from the Ladies going to change them all?

If you can't see the attacks perhaps you need to examine what you consider acceptable as legitimate criticism of ideas and what you consider personal.

Dooodledog as you have said, this is what it is all about:*

when we are vulnerable, or when privacy and dignity are compromised

Perhaps admitting that by using the women's toilet openly and carefully Eddie did no one any harm at all is too much of a step.
You only think that, because you deliberately ignore the very valid reasons why it is not true-but that’s your problem, not mine.

If it was done for publicity it has certainly worked. That says it all.
I’m going to do this to prove I can and I neither know nor care whether it upsets anyone else Great attitude for a would be politician.

But try to do it without being personal, misconstruing, misrepresenting or otherwise attacking me.
These attacks? What attacks? Do you mean disagreeing with you on the matter of female rights and male wrongdoing?

I'll have so much more respect for you if you do. ???
Since your posts indicate you do respect men like EI and those TIM who consider their rights override those of females, you might understand why your possible lack of respect for me is unimportant.

Oh come on the competition for "we are the best feminists" is at least faintly amusing, particularly as this discussion is all (or mostly) women.
I'm not in any competition to be 'the best feminist'. I couldn't care less who is the best feminist, as that is subjective and, more importantly, not the subject of the thread. If someone started a thread on competitive feminism I probably wouldn't post on it.

Or are you subscribing to the old chestnut that women have no sense of humour?
No. That's a bit of a leap. I just object to having someone's fears or concerns ridiculed. I would feel the same if the subject were spiders - you are the one making this about feminism, not me.

As far as Izzard leading the way for all men to use the Ladies hasn't it been posted many times that "my son/husband wouldn't do that". Is the sight of Izzard emerging from the Ladies going to change them all? No, but (for the 26715th time) that's not the point. My husband (I'll use him as an example, as I introduced the argument you are trying to trash) doesn't use the Ladies. He is respectful of people, and knows that his presence there would be uncomfortable for a lot of women. EI is not a role model for him, so what EI does won't influence Mr Dog in any way. I'm guessing that most men are similar in outlook. However. There are men who are not like him, and who don't care about women. Some (shock horror) actively dislike women, and others want to attack them. If men are allowed in the Ladies, where women are vulnerable (on account of being alone in an enclosed space with their knickers down) then these men have a good opportunity to do so. Got it yet?

If you can't see the attacks perhaps you need to examine what you consider acceptable as legitimate criticism of ideas and what you consider personal.
If you can't point to an example, please stop flinging around unsubstantiated accusations? I certainly don't set out to make personal attacks. I get frustrated sometimes at having to respond to the same thing over and over (see above about 'not all men') and the 'gotcha's are irritating when serious points are routinely ignored, but on the whole I sigh, grit my teeth and respond as politely as I can. Tell me where that is personal, and I'll know what you are on about. Disagreement is not personal attack.

Finally (and this may be close to getting personal, but it is in direct response to a comment of your own), it is very clear that you have no respect for anyone on these threads - in fact it is difficult to see where you have respect for women at all, so please forgive me if I don't try to court your respect - it would be too hard won for me.

Oh dear the first paragraph says you don't subscribe to the "who is the best feminist" concept then you completely "dis" me in the last.

If you want an example of a personal attack there it is.

Apparently because I would tell women that predatory men will choose their place and time to attack and some loos are more dangerous than others. Because I would warn them that other groups of women can be dangerous, and ask them to take responsibility for themselves, and look after others, in certain circumstances, I don't respect women. Of course I do. I respect and care for them enough to know that all the proselytising and preaching about transwomen will not keep any of them any safer, whereas a simple warning about staying alert, and staying with friends, has kept many safe.

Still feminists support other women don't they?

icanhandthemback

I don't have a problem with Eddie Izzard using a cubicle in the ladies toilets providing he sits down and leaves it clean. I somehow doubt he is a prolific sex offender or is bothered by what the other women using the facilities are doing. However, I do think the facilities should be completely contained so that there can be no means of any funny business and that women (of either sex) are safe.
What I'd like to see is that the conversation is had that women are protected from deviants and a blue print for any premises offering mixed sex toilets so that women can feel safe. Anybody using Disabled toilets will have been "sharing" their toilet for years.

So you're okay with Eddie Izzard, but you're not okay with 'deviants'. Can you tell me how I'm to know the difference please? Because one quick look at EI and I know I'm dealing with a man, despite the dress. How do I tell, when I encounter a man in the Ladies, whether he's the right kind of cross-dresser or not?

I'll answer that myself. I can't, you can't, no one can. There's an easy solution, and that's to keep any male-sexed person out of women's loos. As we've done for the last two centuries. Problem solved.

I also suggest you google the word autogynephilia which will explain why a certain sort of cross-dresser gets a kick out of being where he shouldn't be.

We've had this conversation before.

No, I don't think that feminists need to agree with all other women just because of their sex. Support their right to live on the same terms as men, yes - but there is a difference between support and agreement.

Also, you are deciding the grounds on which I don't think you respect women - some of those grounds are part of a greater whole, and others are inaccurate, but in any case, it was simply a response to your own comment that you don't respect the 'gender critical' on here, and I'm not getting diverted down that road for a number of reasons.

Anyway, haven't you just started a thread 'dissing' Liz Truss?

MargotLedbetter

icanhandthemback

I don't have a problem with Eddie Izzard using a cubicle in the ladies toilets providing he sits down and leaves it clean. I somehow doubt he is a prolific sex offender or is bothered by what the other women using the facilities are doing. However, I do think the facilities should be completely contained so that there can be no means of any funny business and that women (of either sex) are safe.
What I'd like to see is that the conversation is had that women are protected from deviants and a blue print for any premises offering mixed sex toilets so that women can feel safe. Anybody using Disabled toilets will have been "sharing" their toilet for years.

So you're okay with Eddie Izzard, but you're not okay with 'deviants'. Can you tell me how I'm to know the difference please? Because one quick look at EI and I know I'm dealing with a man, despite the dress. How do I tell, when I encounter a man in the Ladies, whether he's the right kind of cross-dresser or not?

I'll answer that myself. I can't, you can't, no one can. There's an easy solution, and that's to keep any male-sexed person out of women's loos. As we've done for the last two centuries. Problem solved.

I also suggest you google the word autogynephilia which will explain why a certain sort of cross-dresser gets a kick out of being where he shouldn't be.

Perfectly summarised.

Still feminists support other women don't they? yes feminists support other women, want them kept safe, want their dignity preserved, want all, even those of different faiths and cultures to themselves, to be able to participate in activities and sports, want their hard won rights preserved. Then you have some women who will insist that men are women because they say they are, that men should be able to take awards set aside for women because they say they're a woman, even if only on a part-time basis. They agree that men who are failing in their own sex class in sports should, if they feel they are women, compete alongside women and take the prizes. Somehow the women they promote most are always the ones who have male biology but feel like or identify as women. Women don't 'identify' as women, they are women.

G
it is very clear that you have no respect for anyone on these threads
Excellent self-description Glorianny. ??
I suppose you’d call that an attack-except that you said it yourself.
Males are not and never will be female.

Males have no place in female only spaces.

The actions of some TIM and publicity seekers like IE have damaged the image of all TIM and made that fact even more important.

The way it shortened my post on the thread list was not my choice, whatever you might think. ??

icanhandthemback However, I do think the facilities should be completely contained so that there can be no means of any funny business and that women (of either sex) are safe. women of either sex? You don't consider women to be an exclusive sex class? Should we use female at all times to denote we are talking about 'women' with female biology? Ladies toilets were created to allow women to have single sex provision and free them from the 'urinary leash', allowing them to become mixed sex will put the leash back on women from some faiths and cultures.

Mollygo

Perhaps admitting that by using the women's toilet openly and carefully Eddie did no one any harm at all is too much of a step.
You only think that, because you deliberately ignore the very valid reasons why it is not true-but that’s your problem, not mine.

If it was done for publicity it has certainly worked. That says it all.
I’m going to do this to prove I can and I neither know nor care whether it upsets anyone else Great attitude for a would be politician.

But try to do it without being personal, misconstruing, misrepresenting or otherwise attacking me.
These attacks? What attacks? Do you mean disagreeing with you on the matter of female rights and male wrongdoing?

I'll have so much more respect for you if you do. ???
Since your posts indicate you do respect men like EI and those TIM who consider their rights override those of females, you might understand why your possible lack of respect for me is unimportant.

Google the word autogynephilia and then spend half an hour reading about it. Read about paraphilias/ fetishes. Read about men who take used sanitary pads from bins to wear themselves in the pretence that they are women. Read about cross-dressing men who fantasise about assisting schoolgirls to insert tampons. Read about the men who get a sexual thrill from just hearing a woman peeing in the cubicle next door.

When an older man with a wife and children suddenly decides he's a woman in a man's body and starts cross-dressing, it's rarely some deep-seated dysphoric issue, it's usually because he's been watching sissy-porn (google at your own peril) on the internet. This is about sexual thrills and fantasy — and the fantasies are all demeaning to women. When a cross-dressing man enters a women's loo or changing room, the women in there aren't real people to him, they're just props in his fantasy.

Women of either sex??

I missed that. No, there are women (who are female) and transwomen (who are male). Both may live their lives as they choose, wear and be called what they like, and do whatever suits them as regards so-called 'gender'. That won't alter their biology, however, as that can't be altered, and that is what determines their sex.

Try a man's take on Eddie's behaviour:

www.spiked-online.com/2022/10/02/eddie-izzard-was-born-male-and-he-will-die-male/