Is it wrong to identify as something you aren’t?

Chocolatelovinggran

theworriedwell, this gentleman pleaded guilty, and went straight to sentencing. No trial, no time/ money spent on barristers, calling a jury, organising a court date etc.
Trials take time to come to court because of all of the above. This gentleman's brief time before a judge will not have impacted on anyone awaiting a court date.

Chocolatelovinggran

Thankyou. More has been made of this on this thread, in fact, than it warrants but misconceptions abound. Whether or not he did it because he has an inferiority complex and was self-aggrandising or whether he did have other motives is unknown. He had done this several times and needed to be stopped and this was probably the only way.

Rosie51

M0nica

theworriedwell

Mollygo

The strangest aspect of this is that a man recognised that Mr Carley was misrepresenting himself by wearing apparel he wasn’t entitled to wear, claiming to be something he wasn’t and using that to appear on occasions where he wasn’t entitled to
Evidently, Carley, initially offending a man (CPO Terry Stewart) by doing that is more important and worth arresting for than the increasing number of men who upset and disrespect women by doing the same thing.
Eddie Izzard wasn’t arrested. He was encouraged to indulge his fantasy.
One law for males offending males . . .

An interesting point.

Totally disagree. Anyone can wear any clothing they wish in a general way. Clothing is not gender specific and if a man decides he prefers to wear clothes usually worn by women, why shouldn't he?

The artist Sir Grayson Perry is regularly seen in clothes that send up the concept of gender defined clothes but he is clearly male, addressed as he and has a wife and child, a traditional family unit.

Eddie Izzard is the same. neither of them pretends to be anything they aren't.

Dressing up in order to convince someone you hold/held authority or power by reason of the work you did/do or power given to you, is a completely different matter.

The artist Sir Grayson Perry is regularly seen in clothes that send up the concept of gender defined clothes but he is clearly male, addressed as he and has a wife and child, a traditional family unit.

Well I'm grateful that most men wouldn't see this outfit as appropriate dress for the occasion. In my opinion GP is a pervert, an opinion I'm perfectly entitled to hold.

Eddie Izzard maintains he is a 'woman' when it suits and uses female facilities. Another entitled, selfish man.

He sure looks like a pervert in a girl’s outfit with a male appendage poking out, how anyone applauds this weirdo is a mystery.

Basically he was spotted dressing and behaving inappropriately by a man.
The man complained about Carley dressing and be having in a manner he was not entitled to do.
Carley was taken to court and fined because he was doing something that initially bothered a man.
Oh well. Shame he wasn’t noticed and complained about by a woman. He may well have got off.

I think the point is that a man wearing the uniform of a rear-admiral and knowing exactly how to behave and speak as a rear-admiral, who boarded a naval vessel and (supposedly) passed on orders from above, could cause a shipful of less exalted officers and men to use the ship and its armaments to break laws and commit acts which would bring the country to the brink of war, or even over the brink.

The habit needs to be nipped in the bud as soon as it is recognised, for the sake of national security. That is why it is an offence to wear a uniform and medals to which you are not entitled. Someone who pretends to be a cat is not likely to be taken seriously if they claim to be passing on orders from Top Cat to invade a neighbouring country and sweep all ornaments off the mantelpiece of the head of state.

Oreo

Rosie51

M0nica

theworriedwell

Mollygo

The strangest aspect of this is that a man recognised that Mr Carley was misrepresenting himself by wearing apparel he wasn’t entitled to wear, claiming to be something he wasn’t and using that to appear on occasions where he wasn’t entitled to
Evidently, Carley, initially offending a man (CPO Terry Stewart) by doing that is more important and worth arresting for than the increasing number of men who upset and disrespect women by doing the same thing.
Eddie Izzard wasn’t arrested. He was encouraged to indulge his fantasy.
One law for males offending males . . .

An interesting point.

Totally disagree. Anyone can wear any clothing they wish in a general way. Clothing is not gender specific and if a man decides he prefers to wear clothes usually worn by women, why shouldn't he?

The artist Sir Grayson Perry is regularly seen in clothes that send up the concept of gender defined clothes but he is clearly male, addressed as he and has a wife and child, a traditional family unit.

Eddie Izzard is the same. neither of them pretends to be anything they aren't.

Dressing up in order to convince someone you hold/held authority or power by reason of the work you did/do or power given to you, is a completely different matter.

The artist Sir Grayson Perry is regularly seen in clothes that send up the concept of gender defined clothes but he is clearly male, addressed as he and has a wife and child, a traditional family unit.

Well I'm grateful that most men wouldn't see this outfit as appropriate dress for the occasion. In my opinion GP is a pervert, an opinion I'm perfectly entitled to hold.

Eddie Izzard maintains he is a 'woman' when it suits and uses female facilities. Another entitled, selfish man.

He sure looks like a pervert in a girl’s outfit with a male appendage poking out, how anyone applauds this weirdo is a mystery.

Oh, for goodness sake, he is a superb artist and has written extensively about his childhood and the "why's": we've seen him on Tv in the USA engaging with MAGA types with great friendliness because he's a caring and interesting bloke, is not carrying any "political" message

drop the attitude and appreciate harmless "difference". the world is a better place for him, what a joyless world to inhabit.

Elegran

I think the point is that a man wearing the uniform of a rear-admiral and knowing exactly how to behave and speak as a rear-admiral, who boarded a naval vessel and (supposedly) passed on orders from above, could cause a shipful of less exalted officers and men to use the ship and its armaments to break laws and commit acts which would bring the country to the brink of war, or even over the brink.

The habit needs to be nipped in the bud as soon as it is recognised, for the sake of national security. That is why it is an offence to wear a uniform and medals to which you are not entitled. Someone who pretends to be a cat is not likely to be taken seriously if they claim to be passing on orders from Top Cat to invade a neighbouring country and sweep all ornaments off the mantelpiece of the head of state.

Exactly.

Wyllow3

Oreo

Rosie51

M0nica

theworriedwell

Mollygo

The strangest aspect of this is that a man recognised that Mr Carley was misrepresenting himself by wearing apparel he wasn’t entitled to wear, claiming to be something he wasn’t and using that to appear on occasions where he wasn’t entitled to
Evidently, Carley, initially offending a man (CPO Terry Stewart) by doing that is more important and worth arresting for than the increasing number of men who upset and disrespect women by doing the same thing.
Eddie Izzard wasn’t arrested. He was encouraged to indulge his fantasy.
One law for males offending males . . .

An interesting point.

Totally disagree. Anyone can wear any clothing they wish in a general way. Clothing is not gender specific and if a man decides he prefers to wear clothes usually worn by women, why shouldn't he?

The artist Sir Grayson Perry is regularly seen in clothes that send up the concept of gender defined clothes but he is clearly male, addressed as he and has a wife and child, a traditional family unit.

Eddie Izzard is the same. neither of them pretends to be anything they aren't.

Dressing up in order to convince someone you hold/held authority or power by reason of the work you did/do or power given to you, is a completely different matter.

The artist Sir Grayson Perry is regularly seen in clothes that send up the concept of gender defined clothes but he is clearly male, addressed as he and has a wife and child, a traditional family unit.

Well I'm grateful that most men wouldn't see this outfit as appropriate dress for the occasion. In my opinion GP is a pervert, an opinion I'm perfectly entitled to hold.

Eddie Izzard maintains he is a 'woman' when it suits and uses female facilities. Another entitled, selfish man.

He sure looks like a pervert in a girl’s outfit with a male appendage poking out, how anyone applauds this weirdo is a mystery.

Oh, for goodness sake, he is a superb artist and has written extensively about his childhood and the "why's": we've seen him on Tv in the USA engaging with MAGA types with great friendliness because he's a caring and interesting bloke, is not carrying any "political" message

drop the attitude and appreciate harmless "difference". the world is a better place for him, what a joyless world to inhabit.

Oh, so behaving as Rosie51 and Oreo describe, with a prosthetic penis poking through his clothes, is perfectly ok and not offensive in any way because you think he is a superb artist and is caring and interesting?

You are ordering them to drop the attitude? Really?
😂

Emperor's New Clothes.

People who identify red flags are often called all sorts of names, it happens all the time.

He's making a humourous point on gender issues for goodness sake. Something I'd be very glad for my grandchildren to engage with. "why is he doing that" opens a dialogue. Starting with giggles. Art includes the apparently transgressive to make us think.
Banning work like this or pearl clutching - oh well, if you dont get it, re what art can do and why it does - you dont get it.

Fallingstar ....HA HA HA!

Wyllow3

He's making a humourous point on gender issues for goodness sake. Something I'd be very glad for my grandchildren to engage with. "why is he doing that" opens a dialogue. Starting with giggles. Art includes the apparently transgressive to make us think.
Banning work like this or pearl clutching - oh well, if you dont get it, re what art can do and why it does - you dont get it.

No-one has said his work should be banned.

But they are entitled to have a different opinion of him without being told to drop the attitude and appreciate harmless "difference". and told they inhabit a joyless world.

Just different ideas of what is harmless and what brings joy.

Just so we can be clear on his art. He is wearing a dildo to a childrens charity fundraiser.
I have a different interpretation to his art that is all.

Of course people can dress as they choose but not in uniforms which they’re not entitled to. This gives a false impression to others. Imagine what could happen if someone impersonated a police officer or a doctor and a member of the public put their trust in them. Also Carley appeared in the uniform at a Remembrance ceremony which was an insult to veterans, serving officers and their families.

Mollygo

Basically he was spotted dressing and behaving inappropriately by a man.
The man complained about Carley dressing and be having in a manner he was not entitled to do.
Carley was taken to court and fined because he was doing something that initially bothered a man.
Oh well. Shame he wasn’t noticed and complained about by a woman. He may well have got off.

Indeed.

I don't think there are real parallels between this and men saying they are women. If there were, however, I'd feel the same I think - if the transwomen wear 'female' clothing at home, or in public places, fair enough, as nobody is hurt by that. If they try to enter female spaces, where women and girls are vulnerable (ie in states of undress or incapacity) then it is different. It is the behaviour, not the 'feelings' that matter.

Galaxy

Just so we can be clear on his art. He is wearing a dildo to a childrens charity fundraiser.
I have a different interpretation to his art that is all.

Yes. I think GP is a good artist, and his TV programmes are intelligent and thought-provoking. All well and good. But his behaviour when it comes to dressing like that in front of children is not acceptable, and it is behaviour that matters when it comes to the law.

aonk

Of course people can dress as they choose but not in uniforms which they’re not entitled to. This gives a false impression to others. Imagine what could happen if someone impersonated a police officer or a doctor and a member of the public put their trust in them. Also Carley appeared in the uniform at a Remembrance ceremony which was an insult to veterans, serving officers and their families.

Exactly my point in my post at Fri 09-Jan-26 11:13:28.

A naval uniform identifies a naval officer to anyone who sees it, and the uniform of a rear admiral identifies a high ranking officer whose orders are to be obeyed by any member of the navy who is subordinate to him. Ignoring this man's wearing of the uniform when he is no longer entitled to wear it is creating a precedent which could suggest to a traitor to dress up as a senior officer and order actions that would endanger the security of the country.

Galaxy there is the world of difference between an aggressive terf and an artist like Perry.

He's making us think not forcing a view on us in any harmful way.
And his art is wonderful, featuring as it does the everyday often of working class lives and contemporary life in general like his own in his wonderful textile murals.

Have just consulted DS re "whats OK" re 13,9, 7 yrs old: he doesn't have a problem, for it's discussed contextually. We really have to get less anxious because sex is involved. Discussion can open doors to understanding, and I believe his work to be benign.
I have the benefit of Fine Art training, and know of many art works that interrogate the sexual aspects of our beings. Other cultures - like the ones who celebrate sex and sexuality (think Hindu gods and goddesses hard at it) just don't have this attitude.

Think Shiele, Picasso, Tracy Emin, Betty Tomkins, (US) Helen Beard (UK) and many more.

But surely the whole point if his art s to provoke opinion and discussion.

So trying to shut down that discussion, with pejorative terms like ‘Pearl-clutching” is the very antithesis of what GP intends in his work.

Myself, I’ve never really got the “ let’s have a giggle about penises” attitude to body parts.🤔

That's kids for you, Lathyrus "giggle giggle" was what I suggested of kids not adults.

Pearl clutching, if it occurs, is an attempt to shut down discussion due to a prudishness I don't think particularly valuable when it comes to benign sexual art.

Wyllow3

That's kids for you, Lathyrus "giggle giggle" was what I suggested of kids not adults.

Pearl clutching, if it occurs, is an attempt to shut down discussion due to a prudishness I don't think particularly valuable when it comes to benign sexual art.

Maybe drop your own attitude Wyllow3 and there’s nothing benign about the way that GP was dressed for a children’s charity fundraiser, it was disgusting and not funny or thought provoking or anything else.The man , like Izzard is simply a self obsessed weirdo.
Just because a man is a good actor or artist doesn’t make a shred of difference.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree, for I see Izzard as completely different to Grayson Perry, would never, ever, put them together.

Doodledog

Galaxy

Just so we can be clear on his art. He is wearing a dildo to a childrens charity fundraiser.
I have a different interpretation to his art that is all.

Yes. I think GP is a good artist, and his TV programmes are intelligent and thought-provoking. All well and good. But his behaviour when it comes to dressing like that in front of children is not acceptable, and it is behaviour that matters when it comes to the law.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Well, some kids I guess. We’ve always been rather matter of fact about penises and vulvas in our families, so haven’t really had that prurient giggling.

When does expressing an opinion, saying that you’re shocked or find something distasteful- become shutting down a discussion? Surely that’s taking part in the discussion?

Whereas sneering at that opinion and demeaning the person who expressed it, has nothing to do with the art and everything to do with trying to render the person and their opinion of no value and therefore excluding them - shutting them down.