Eddie Izzard

Apropos of the "Spiked" article linked up thread, I'd previously read about EI's shout off with the school girls in the loos, no appreciation or understanding of where they were coming from, surely not reading people's reactions, theirs borne out of sheer alarm, would indicate that he has a complete lack of nous, or lack of empathy, which I suppose isn't uncommon in MPs per se, but hardly conducive to representing an entire constituency, it won't be all students, there will be those from strict religious groups who are hardly going to take him very seriously if anything he will offend.

Going back to the school girls, that hanging around toilets is typical of that age, I remember doing it with a couple of mates, sometimes trying out make up, I see girls doing it now. Of course they're going to be alarmed when seeing to all intents and purposes a man in what they regard as a private female only place, these are the real girls, not some 60 year old fella saying he's doing girl mode today. He EI, can wear all the raspberry berets and lipsticks he has at his disposal, he still looks like a bloke, a bloke dressed up as a quasi woman.

Rosie Duffied Labour MP for Canterbury has stated she will resign her seat if EI is selected from an all women short list and apparently she won't be alone.

Thank you JaneJudge.

"Seriously, if you are a parent then tell me this - if you saw Eddie Izzard in an ill-fitting dress and hideous lipstick bumbling into the ladies..and you didn’t KNOW it was Eddie Izzard..

..would you REALLY let your daughter go in there with him? Think about it.."

VioletSky you say

The onus isn't on me to prove anything I'm afraid

But it is. You're the one wanting to change thousands of years of the status quo. You want us all the change our language and behaviour and beliefs and for women to lose their identity and rights. You have to have a really sound reason for doing that.

There's no community on earth that doesn't divide its members between male and female. There's no man on earth who's had a child or woman who's impregnated a woman. We are sexed beings.

For hundreds of years men and women have had separate facilities as a means of safeguarding women from assault and offering both sexes dignity. You want to overturn all that because...?

Feelings.

We don't support those people with the psychological condition body integrity disorder to chop off a limb, or blind those whose fantasise about being blind. We don't say to a mentally ill anorexic whose weight is so low she's in danger of dying 'Here are some diet pills and here's an appointment for liposuction.' We don't create a false reality for those with dysphoria.

What will you want us to believe next? The Loch Ness monster is real? The earth is flat? The tooth fair exists?

MargotLedbetter

Oh, all the usual TRA tropes on display here. You don't like an article that to everyone else is just telling the straightforward truth? Look for something else the author has written that is controversial and do the 'well, if you like this piece you're aligning yourself to fascists/ racists/ the far right/ football hooligans'. No. We'll take each piece on its own merit. Brendan O'Neill may be erratic but on this he's right. We don't have to agree 100% with everything a journalist or commentator writes before we're allowed to hold one piece of work up as a good thing. This is an old trick of the far left, the purity test, and it lost its power some time ago.

And accusations of rudeness. No, just because people hold a different opinion to you express it robustly doesn't mean they're being rude.

I see that VS's 'proof' turns out to be a combination of kindness and born in the wrong body. Every time I ask 'believers' to explain their belief I always hope they'll come up with something rational and convincing — and every time I'm disappointed.

You don't seem to appreciate that Brendan O'Neil is about as far-left as it is possible to be. As someone whose views are much to the left of most on GN as is possible I disapprove strongly of assumptions about the working class most especially of the assumption they must be rascist. And as I said why should I listen to such a man? Because he is a man?

No, you can take each article as it stands. It's perfectly possible to disagree with someone about one thing and agree with them on another. But we've been over that.

"Yes, this is exactly why women don't want men in our bathrooms with us and girls."

FarNorth I don't have a daughter, but hell would freeze over before I'd allow a granddaughter to go in alone, that's for sure.
Eddie Izzard would not be in danger in the vast majority of male toilets, so why does he need to use female ones when he clearly isn't and never can be female? As for your latest post, they truly think threats will make us think "of course they're harmless, just want to pee"

Great posts MargotLedbetter . Some have great difficulty coming to terms with the fact we're sexually dimorphic, the sole reason being to facilitate sexual reproduction. We get the sex is a spectrum nonsense, wrong bodies, sexed brains that somehow reacted differently than all the other cells in the body to the 'chromosome washes'. No theory is too farcical that it can't be trotted out. And if you prefer to stick to proven science then you're just "not kind"

Doodledog

No, you can take each article as it stands. It's perfectly possible to disagree with someone about one thing and agree with them on another. But we've been over that.

He's been described as a Marxist anarchist Doodledog they're not people who write articles without set agendas. In this case no doubt to spread division, But he hates homosexual marriage as well. Perhaps he just has deep seated prejudices. Ignoring racism, condemning homosexual marriage and disliking transpeople would seem to confirm this. But I suppose if one of his hatreds coincides with yours you can ignore the rest.

No need for nasty jibes, Glorianny.

I don't hate transpeople, as I tire of having to repeat. As for the journalist - I have never heard of him or read anything he's written AFAIK. If I read something racist or homophobic I would disagree with it, but I thought his article on Izzard was spot on.

But I suppose if one of his hatreds coincides with yours you can ignore the rest. you really can't help yourself can you? False allegations time after time. That was a tactic of trisher a TRA when she posted, it wasn't true then and isn't true now.

What a weird post Glorianny.
Are you saying that Eddy’s aim is to promote division? Knowing this, and listing all his prejudices, you still support his right to infringe female rights?

Doodledog

No need for nasty jibes, Glorianny.

I don't hate transpeople, as I tire of having to repeat. As for the journalist - I have never heard of him or read anything he's written AFAIK. If I read something racist or homophobic I would disagree with it, but I thought his article on Izzard was spot on.

Of course you do. The problem with discrimination and separatism is that it always begins with one section of society, but it never stops there. And thinking you can separate one idea that promotes division and ignore the rest has always resulted in more intolerance.

I imagine that, because of the way he dresses / lipstick etc, Eddie I is probably scared of going into a male toilet. So he chooses something less scary to him, but more threatening to women?

Mollygo

What a weird post Glorianny.
Are you saying that Eddy’s aim is to promote division? Knowing this, and listing all his prejudices, you still support his right to infringe female rights?

Mollygo it is difficult to keep explaining what is happening on a thread. We are discussing the article by Brendan O'Neil, not Eddie Izzard.

Read that article by Brendan O'Neill and tell us what you disagree with. It doesn't matter if he's left or right or whether you agree with anything else he's written. Is he right about Eddie Izzard? I think he is.

Gloryanny is using the purity argument as a diversionary tactic. If an author has written anything controversial then Gloryanny will say that means that you shouldn't read or take seriously anything else they write.

I say read the article and see what you make of it. It's based on a well-documented incident. Use your own judgment to decide what you think of it. I trust you to think for yourself.

Gloryanny says you mustn't read it because it was written by a naughty man who hasn't always taken a pure left-wing line in his work and has sometimes argued controversial opinions. She doesn't trust you to use your own judgment when assessing what O'Neill says. She bandies around words like 'division' and 'prejudice' because he says things she doesn't approve of.

It's just standard TRA word salad.

Glorianny

Doodledog

No need for nasty jibes, Glorianny.

I don't hate transpeople, as I tire of having to repeat. As for the journalist - I have never heard of him or read anything he's written AFAIK. If I read something racist or homophobic I would disagree with it, but I thought his article on Izzard was spot on.

Of course you do. The problem with discrimination and separatism is that it always begins with one section of society, but it never stops there. And thinking you can separate one idea that promotes division and ignore the rest has always resulted in more intolerance.

No. It is perfectly possible to agree with some schools of thought whilst disagreeing with others. There is no continuum that includes, for example opinions on monarchy, religion, legalising drugs and TWAW. One can approve of all, none or some of them at the same time.

Do stop insinuating that I am prejudiced and intolerant. I'm neither, and your 'selective reading' of my posts doesn't make a coherent argument to the contrary.

MargotLedbetter

Gloryanny is using the purity argument as a diversionary tactic. If an author has written anything controversial then Gloryanny will say that means that you shouldn't read or take seriously anything else they write.

I say read the article and see what you make of it. It's based on a well-documented incident. Use your own judgment to decide what you think of it. I trust you to think for yourself.

Gloryanny says you mustn't read it because it was written by a naughty man who hasn't always taken a pure left-wing line in his work and has sometimes argued controversial opinions. She doesn't trust you to use your own judgment when assessing what O'Neill says. She bandies around words like 'division' and 'prejudice' because he says things she doesn't approve of.

It's just standard TRA word salad.

Exactly! My dinner arrived half way through typing my post, but you have said exactly what I was thinking.

I have read the article. The fact that I find the man unacceptable doesn't stop me reading it. I just don't accept his concepts. I haven't met any people who get off and get erections from pissing on lady's loo seats. The transpeople I know have been so welcoming and kind I really can't think any of them would behave in such ways. I do think that if the only way you can criticise a group is to refer to them all as being sexually deviant you are showing pure prejudice. Just as it was common to use financial abuse to discredit Jews it now seems sexual deviance is to be used against trans people.

As for Eddie Izzard she was dressed as a woman, she identifies as a woman, woman is a social construct and so she uses the facilities provided for the use of people who comply with the social construct that is woman.

You are entitled to believe those facilities are provided for the female sex, which is different, but quite how that will be policed or the restrictions applied I have no idea. I tend not to favour laws and rules which are unenforceable.

Why can’t EI use the Disabled (or whatever they are called now) Loos. I use them regularly?

As for Eddie Izzard she was dressed as a woman, she identifies as a woman, woman is a social construct and so she uses the facilities provided for the use of people who comply with the social construct that is woman.
You are entitled to believe those facilities are provided for the female sex, which is different, but quite how that will be policed or the restrictions applied I have no idea. I tend not to favour laws and rules which are unenforceable.

oh for goodness' sake of course they were introduced for the female sex, how absurd you make yourself sound with this rubbish!
I suppose it's a step too far to ask, expect or even hope that a transwoman could be honest and honourable enough to use the facilities appropriate to their sex voluntarily?

Doodlebug, these accusations of hatred are just the standard slur resorted to by people trying to justify an untenable, irrational belief system that can't stand up to rational scrutiny. You always know you've won, Doodlebug, when they're reduced to telling you you hate transpeople. That's all they've got left to sling at you. I'm like you: I support trans rights to dress and live how they like as long as they do no harm and as long as they're not claiming women's hard-won rights.

Years ago I was a volunteer member of a women's organisation that was approached by a trans woman who wanted to get involved. We were kind and reasonable, we let him in — but because we kept some boundaries and there were some things he wasn't allowed to do he made so much trouble (complained to funders, made up lies and accusations) that we ended up folding. An organisation that had survived for 40 years offering services to some of the most deprived and marginalised women in the area was forced to shut down by a man who wanted access to vulnerable women. That was a decade ago. I started looking into this subject then and I've seen it all, over the years. I'm pleased that at last the spell has been broken and we're on our way back to sanity.

Just ignore the 'hateful' gibes. It means nothing.

Glorianny woman is a social construct ?

Wrong, woman/women/female are the product of chromosomes XX , they carry babies in their wombs (apart for the small percentage who are unable to)

www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/womens-right-work-toilet-bathroom-victorian-london-wwi-factory-protest

Glorianny you really think these were created in response of the need for social construct 'women' not females. I would remind you that TRAs haven't yet managed to change the definition of woman from "adult human female"