Eddie Izzard not chosen to be Labour candidate for Sheffield Central.

Fits my experience of the issues I care about so well.

I have no doubt that some women will be disturbed by Eddie using the women's toilets Doodledog but equally a number won't. So are you saying that those who take offence at something should be prioritised over those who don't ?|

Maybe I am. I wouldn't put it like that or look at it in that way; but yes, if there is a status quo and someone or some people from outside of it want to change it, then if everyone is happy it would be foolish not to go ahead. If, OTOH, there are those who are deeply unhappy, and who are able to defend the reasons for their unhappiness, then their views should be prioritised.

If so where should we draw the line? Very right wing Christian evangelists don't approve of abortion, should I modify my views to take into consideration their views? Or is this something which only needs to apply when the views match yours?
No, if you want to have an abortion and others don't, then both can go about their business without affecting the other. That is a very different situation, as in the case of men in women's toilets, it is the women who are affected.

Many women recognise trans identities, some don't what makes one more acceptable than the other?
Neither is more acceptable. You can't police thought, much as you may like to do so. What you can do, however, is to police actions, and base that policing on the safety of those who need protection.

Eddie Izzard is just sexist, the views he expresses about women are just regressive and based on stereotypes.

GagaJo

I'm an intersectional feminist. Many of the rights above are included in feminist issues.

Drop the questions MG. You've been there, done that. Got no T-shirt.

You mean you can’t answer. That’s fine. I didn’t expect it.

I feel we are here to share POV, not be aggressively pushed into answering extremely personal questions.

Fair enough, if we want to share if we are straight/gay/trans/etc then it can sometimes be helpful but please don't lets start demanding like that.

I agree. There is no need for questions about our personal lives.

No, I mean I won't answer your questions, based on past experience with you on GN.

Could we not just talk about the politics of it?

Is there much to talk about, in that area? It seems everyone thinks the best person won and, in any case, she was the choice of the local labour members.
So that's that isn't it?

It seems pretty cut and dried to me, FN. Did you listen to Woman’s Hour by any chance? The programme is on BBC Sounds if not. An interview with Hadley Freeman about why she left the Guardian. The highlight for me (out of several good bits) was when she rejected the term ‘gender critical’ in favour of ’reality-based feminist’

FarNorth

^Could we not just talk about the politics of it?^

Is there much to talk about, in that area? It seems everyone thinks the best person won and, in any case, she was the choice of the local labour members.
So that's that isn't it?

Yep!

Galaxy

Eddie Izzard is just sexist, the views he expresses about women are just regressive and based on stereotypes.

Do you have any links? I must admit I've never followed Eddie's views that closely.

I used to like watching him/her because (s)he's a good linguist and used to do stand up in French. (S)he also took part in a documentary about Old English, which IMO was funny.

I must admit I've gone off him/her since he became serious about politics because good politicians spend years in the ranks and I think (s)he's trading on celebrity status.

Wyllow3

I feel we are here to share POV, not be aggressively pushed into answering extremely personal questions.

Fair enough, if we want to share if we are straight/gay/trans/etc then it can sometimes be helpful but please don't lets start demanding like that.

Why is it an extremely personal question?
If I'm asked whether I'm a woman I will say, 'yes I'm a woman . I have the chromosomes of a woman and don't have a penis or testicles, so am a Woman.
Last time I checked anyway.(confused)

I could cut my hair short, bind my breasts, or have a mastectomy, and I would still be a woman..
You can't 'wear your way into being a woman.
Deep down everyone knows this truth and it angers some sectors.

It's the "where are you really from" debate all over again....

I know what you mean, snowberry, but online discussions work because we are anonymous. Our opinions speak for themselves and are not coloured by prejudices or perceptions about what we look like, how we speak, where we live and so on. If we know a lot about one another that dynamic shifts, and people start to become more guarded about what they say. Also, if someone said she is trans, everything she said after that would be viewed through that prism, which would inhibit debate - particularly for her, but also for others talking to her, and her experience of GN would change. Some people would be fine with that but others not, and it has to be their choice. And, of course, there is the possibility that the hypothetical trans person would be ’outed’ offline, whether she liked it or not.

My life is entirely unremarkable, but I am careful not to give too much detail in case someone I know recognises me. Not because of a big secret, but because I might be less inclined to be honest about my posts if I thought they might identify others (eg mentioning colleagues or family members, or giving examples of things from my life). Again, no big secrets, but it would be awkward and unfair.

I say it was easier than that*Doodledog*.

It's nobody's d*** business if any poster is a man or a woman.

And the sooner people stop thinking they have the right to know, or that they are able to discern the answer by the way someone posts, the better.

Well there's that, too

snowberryZ

Wyllow3

I feel we are here to share POV, not be aggressively pushed into answering extremely personal questions.

Fair enough, if we want to share if we are straight/gay/trans/etc then it can sometimes be helpful but please don't lets start demanding like that.

Why is it an extremely personal question?
If I'm asked whether I'm a woman I will say, 'yes I'm a woman . I have the chromosomes of a woman and don't have a penis or testicles, so am a Woman.
Last time I checked anyway.(confused)

I could cut my hair short, bind my breasts, or have a mastectomy, and I would still be a woman..
You can't 'wear your way into being a woman.
Deep down everyone knows this truth and it angers some sectors.

The question you asked, albeit phrased differently was 'Do you have a penis'.

Now, I'm not sure where you're from (I am not asking!), but where I'm from, that is definitely a personal question. Whether you're happy to answer personal questions or not is irrelevant.

I don't care whether you think I do or I don't. But it is a personal question and TBH, I'd question your judgement if you can't understand that.

FarNorth

^Could we not just talk about the politics of it?^

Is there much to talk about, in that area? It seems everyone thinks the best person won and, in any case, she was the choice of the local labour members.
So that's that isn't it?

Yes, and that's fine. EI wasn't the best choice. Not local enough. Maybe not well versed enough in local issues. That's something that I'd be interested in finding out/hearing. I don't know enough about their politics to know just how Labour they are.

Gagajo you may be interested to read an interview with Eddie Izzard in The Skwarkbox of 12th November 2017. I know that is some time ago but I can't see that his views are very different now. I am afraid that I am unable to give you a link but if you Google "the skwarkbox " " Eddie izzard" you will see an interview entitled " I'm more of a Blairite" which is interesting.

That interview was instrumental in forming my view of EI

Doodledog

*I have no doubt that some women will be disturbed by Eddie using the women's toilets Doodledog but equally a number won't. So are you saying that those who take offence at something should be prioritised over those who don't ?|*

Maybe I am. I wouldn't put it like that or look at it in that way; but yes, if there is a status quo and someone or some people from outside of it want to change it, then if everyone is happy it would be foolish not to go ahead. If, OTOH, there are those who are deeply unhappy, and who are able to defend the reasons for their unhappiness, then their views should be prioritised.

If so where should we draw the line? Very right wing Christian evangelists don't approve of abortion, should I modify my views to take into consideration their views? Or is this something which only needs to apply when the views match yours?
No, if you want to have an abortion and others don't, then both can go about their business without affecting the other. That is a very different situation, as in the case of men in women's toilets, it is the women who are affected.

Many women recognise trans identities, some don't what makes one more acceptable than the other?
Neither is more acceptable. You can't police thought, much as you may like to do so. What you can do, however, is to police actions, and base that policing on the safety of those who need protection.

But Doodledog I and many other women are not happy to have spaces policed and regulated and are perfectly happy to have transwomen sharing those spaces. After all they have been doing so for a long time. There is no evidence to say that most women are unhappy, just that a vociferous minority are making a lot of noise about it. And I believe you have said before that activists do not represent or speak for the majority.

As for policing thought I have absolutely no idea of doing so. In fact I have said many times you may think what you wish. I have however been told that my thinking is wrong and I need to change it. So who exactly wants to "police thought"?

I always prefer to have as little regulation as possible and al the evidence from places where transgender people have had access to public toilets for some time shows that there is no threat. So no protection is needed.
time.com/4314896/transgender-bathroom-bill-male-predators-argument/

There is no evidence to say that most women are unhappy, just that a vociferous minority are making a lot of noise about it.
With no evidence how do you know that the 'noise' is coming from a minority? It seems you want to have it both ways.

As for policing thought I have absolutely no idea of doing so. In fact I have said many times you may think what you wish. I have however been told that my thinking is wrong and I need to change it. So who exactly wants to "police thought"?
Not me, if that is what you are insinuating. It is actions I believe should be policed. My comment was in reply to your question about far right Christians not wanting abortions. Again, you can't twist things both ways - if you ask a question you are likely to get an answer (from me, anyway, as I believe it is only good manners to reply to direct questions). You can't then claim that the premise of the question was wrong and use that to negate the logic of the answer.

I always prefer to have as little regulation as possible and al the evidence from places where transgender people have had access to public toilets for some time shows that there is no threat. So no protection is needed.
All the evidence, or a selected sample? There certainly have been instances of women and children being attacked in toilets by transwomen. The policing of language (of which you are, I believe, in favour?) makes it increasingly difficult to search - journalists fight shy of using everyday language to report anything involving transwomen - but here is one example:
metro.co.uk/2019/03/16/transgender-woman-18-sexually-assaulted-girl-10-morrisons-toilet-8914577/

Thank you for the link Doodledog. It’s appalling.
I don’t want to rule out the words woman/women, as they should still refer to females.
Would renaming all facilities male or female instead of men and women help to stop atrocities like that?
If you are male, you cannot access female spaces.
In all probability those TiM who have accessed them unnoticed, because they have no ill-intent would continue to do so. But males like KD could be arrested for fraud, which is a criminal offence and would hopefully carry a heavier penalty.

Or would the males cheat, with the same support as they get now? I did ask someone if using ‘female’ would affect their POV but lacking an answer, it probably wouldn’t.

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202212/medium-627038-ftnvqzjxoaayaxg.jpg https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202212/medium-801791-fpe2fffx0ayvbc-.jpg

Transwoman cyclist Emily Bridges said, in an interview, that he wanted to race with 'other females'.
Transwoman India Willoughby claims that he has female anatomy.
This pic shows a man happily telling how he hoodwinked a woman who had asked for a female nurse.
I'm sure it's the aim of many trans ideology supporters to remove all words which distinguish people's sex.
So far, tho, there's been a lot less removing of the categories of 'male' and 'man' than of 'female' and 'woman'.