Eddie Izzard

Glorianny

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.
The Title says Eddie Izzard , but your neat little response is your usual avoidance tactic so you don’t have to answer my question.
As usual.

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.
So dressing and identifying as a 'construct' makes you become it? I'm guessing that duchesses are social constructs? I quite fancy being one, and I have a posh frock upstairs. Does this mean that I get to use the VIP lounge from now on? Just call me Your Grace.

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.
Well yes, that is different. Me being a duchess is a fantasy, but me being a woman is a biological reality. As for the policing thing - I tend to favour laws and rules that make sense and benefit society. The police and lawyers can work out how to make people comply. That's not my area of expertise at all, but it is theirs, so I'd happily leave them to it. Or the Nudge Unit would be able to sort it in no time, I expect.

Damn I don't look like, nor dress like Eddie Izzard. I don't wear makeup other than a dab of mascara, never wore bright pink lippy even when I plastered makeup on in my youth. I don't paint my nails, don't wear high heeled boots and short skirts. Am I a man?

I have been working with tiny human beings (and they had the upper hand) so I feel like a wrung out dish cloth Jane.

Galaxy

Women is a social construct .

I know!

are you a chocolate bar or are you mobile phone? no one even knows Galaxy

What is the difference between Izzard and Starmer? Could it be clothes and make up. 1950 's stereotypes is now the definition of women. So regressive so old fashioned.

Women is a social construct .

woman is a social construct

No. Woman is an adult human female. Defined in law. A human female has XX chromosomes. Eddie is XY — male. It's biology and it's easily defined and scientifically testable.

Gender is a social construct, an internalised individual and unverifiable feeling. It's constantly changing and indefinable.

* should read in response to the needs of

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

No one was saying the men in the ladies toilets were trans people, hence why you cannot get over you own narrow minded view of what other people are concerned about

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"

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)

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?