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

Of course I don’t ‘have the benefit of a fine art training’ maybe thankfully in this case.

I just laugh at pearl clutching. I sometimes think I should detail my life and work experience, and then I just think oh I can't be bothered. But a decade in Hiv work tends not to lead to much naivety.

Oreo

Of course I don’t ‘have the benefit of a fine art training’ maybe thankfully in this case.

Do you know, I’m sitting here ( eating cheese and crackers) and trying to think of something I’ve had “the benefit of training’ in. and I can’t think of anything really.

I think I’ve just picked stuff up as I went and bumbled through😬

Guess that’s why my opinion doesn’t really amount to much😬

He’s pretending to be a woman, Carley was pretending to be a rear admiral.
One offends some women who believe you can’t change sex, so claiming/pretending to be a woman is wrong.
The other offended a man and people who believe that a man claiming /pretending to be something he isn’t, is wrong.
If you upset a man by doing that, you get taken to court and fined £500.
If you upset a woman by doing that, you get told he is a superb artist.
It’s either wrong or it isn’t.

I am not sure GP is pretending to be a woman, he has a fetish which he displays in public.

I started to type a long reply to Wyllow but get that she's incapable of understanding that celebrating the public display of a fetish such as GP does nothing to curb the entitlement of men to indulge whatever sexual fantasies they like in public, including inappropriate touching. Would she apply the same 'giggle, giggle, let's discuss penises' attitude if instead of a dildo GP had displayed his own erect penis? If not, why not, both are sexual predatory behaviour.

And just to be clear Wyllow is your "aggressive terf" comment addressed to me? I am well trained in safeguarding, something you obviously have not been. Red flags are red flags. Call me what you will, but as a victim of a sexual assault I'd expect you to be more aware about the dangers of endorsing public displays of private fetishes.

No rosie, most certainly not, it was addressed generally in order to compare the actions of terfs (which I wholly condemn) and compare them with artists who explore sexuality explicitly. In the case of Perry, it's only part of his work.

There is such a rich history of women artists going back to the surrealists (1940's, 50's and the likes of Louise Bourgeois, (same time)

then later in the 1970's as part of the feminist movement who explore sexuality very explicitly and richly, and includes work such as aging and sexuality too:

that discussing and condemning such images as the specific one work (of many) by one artist seems - well - just taken out of the context of all the work in this field.

Mayb he’s a gifted artist.

Or maybe he’s a man who gets kicks from waving a penis in front of children.

How do you tell the difference?

Or of course both.

And happily for him, lovers of his art will support him.

WyllowI note you haven't addressed the question in my post of 13:32:25?
As for Grayson Perry's art are you saying that the man himself is a walking art exhibition that entitles him to display his fetish in public? That would be a great excuse for every pervert out there, just declare yourself an artist displaying your 'living art'. A painting, sculpture, photograph is not the same as a person walking around exhibiting a dildo. Why are there age limits on certain exhibitions as being unsuitable for people under a certain age I wonder. Surely not just pearl clutching prudishness?
I think you are very confused about the term 'terf' which is a pejorative term used to abuse people who are biologically literate and know that there are two sexes, and your sex is set at the moment of conception, and it's impossible to change it. My knowledge of biology is probably as equally extensive as your knowledge of art.

Not just a victim or sexual assault, Rosie, but also an escape from a co-ercively abusive marriage.

Glad to announce that hasn't affect my brain or made me hate men to the extent that I don't understand transgressive art and its place in discussions.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with using specialist knowledge to contribute to a discussion -

because as I've said it's often been women historically who have produced very controversial art on sex and sexuality. they are a delight and raise so many questions on gender issues of many kinds.

They have done so in climates where they are challenging a traditional view in the art work of the female or gay body as "object"and I see Perry as a male contributing to this tradition with a particular view - not a damaging one. As I say, the real life behaviour of someone like Izzard, is utterly different.

Oreo

I suppose it was a bit of fantasy that went too far.He had quite a prestigious past didn’t he and maybe in retirement he needed to continue to be admired? Am certain he really regrets it, not a big fine really but it’s the shame of it that will haunt him.

He had quite a prestigious past didn’t he

? No.

He's a retired teacher.

Oh well Wyllow if you're unwilling to answer the questions I've asked (which is entirely your right) I'll leave it at that, but will draw my own conclusions as to why that is (as is my right).

butterandjam

Oreo

I suppose it was a bit of fantasy that went too far.He had quite a prestigious past didn’t he and maybe in retirement he needed to continue to be admired? Am certain he really regrets it, not a big fine really but it’s the shame of it that will haunt him.

He had quite a prestigious past didn’t he

? No.

He's a retired teacher.

I think he was well respected for his past career but he was not the naval officer he impersonated, and that was his offence. I imagine he has tarnished his memory forever, silly man.

Ah, I see what you mean by unanswered question Rosie.

My point is that many artists, women and men, have been using their own bodies as art for at least 50 years now, on a huge scale. That's performance artists, as well as photography and paintings. Perry is doing nothing unusual nor particularly transgressive when you see the whole body of work in this field.
It's by no means all around gender transgression, thats only part of it.
There is a whole wonderful body of work by artists who challenge the norms of what is "Beauty". Age, disability, being "fat" - all covered. The cruelties of bodies who have been "used" in one way our another..lots more.

Wyllow So Perry could just as easily use his own erect penis poking through the coat and that would be absolutely fine in your opinion? At a charity event for children with cancer? Is that really any different to the man who waggles his penis at young girls in the park, after all he's expressing himself too, and if he identifies as an artist.....?

Rosie51

butterandjam

Oreo

I suppose it was a bit of fantasy that went too far.He had quite a prestigious past didn’t he and maybe in retirement he needed to continue to be admired? Am certain he really regrets it, not a big fine really but it’s the shame of it that will haunt him.

He had quite a prestigious past didn’t he

? No.

He's a retired teacher.

I think he was well respected for his past career but he was not the naval officer he impersonated, and that was his offence. I imagine he has tarnished his memory forever, silly man.

but he was not the naval officer he impersonated
Not just a Naval Officer, a Rear Admiral no less.

silly man. Quite.

Shame he wasn’t noticed and complained about by a woman. He may well have got off.
Indeed

No, I do not agree.
What he did was unlawful. Anyone could have reported him, man or woman.

You are conflating two entirely different situations.
As I pointed out, men invading women's spaces and making them feel vulnerable and threatened is an entirely different issue and needs the law to be clarified if necessary and robustly followed.

Rosie51

butterandjam

Oreo

I suppose it was a bit of fantasy that went too far.He had quite a prestigious past didn’t he and maybe in retirement he needed to continue to be admired? Am certain he really regrets it, not a big fine really but it’s the shame of it that will haunt him.

He had quite a prestigious past didn’t he

? No.

He's a retired teacher.

I think he was well respected for his past career but he was not the naval officer he impersonated, and that was his offence. I imagine he has tarnished his memory forever, silly man.

He was wrong to impersonate, perhaps he didn't understand?

I've no idea job titles of people in the forces.

Elegran

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.

Ignoring this man's wearing of the uniform when he is no longer entitled to wear it

He never was entitled to wear it.

A veteran could wear a uniform for a ceremonial occasion but generally would need permission.

Oreo

Of course I don’t ‘have the benefit of a fine art training’ maybe thankfully in this case.

What I think is that gransnetters have a real wealth of both academic and work based and home based knowledge and experience -all as valid as each other -to bring to gransnet. Maybe they come from an SW background. Maybe they have had to care for people all their lives. Maybe they have lived in difficult marriages, or have chosen to live alone.

Some outsiders view Gransnet as "older women gossiping" when in fact we all have long lives that have brought us those experiences to bear on what we are talking about. and sometimes to give super advice and support in the help or AIBU threads. And most of us have at one time or another benefitted from another experiences or qualifications.

So, we generally benefit from that breadth of experience - but apparently not if you happen to disagree personally with what someone has said? Or decide to try and use someone's being abused as a weapon against them? is that what we are really about?

So, we generally benefit from that breadth of experience - but apparently not if you happen to disagree personally with what someone has said?

That's exactly why we may disagree, surely? Because we all have different experience?

Rosie51

Wyllow So Perry could just as easily use his own erect penis poking through the coat and that would be absolutely fine in your opinion? At a charity event for children with cancer? Is that really any different to the man who waggles his penis at young girls in the park, after all he's expressing himself too, and if he identifies as an artist.....?

I've never considered what Grayson Perry produces, nor his provocative behaviour in front of children to be fine art.
However, that is just my opinion.

What any of this has to do with a rather sad man impersonating a high-ranking, serving Royal Naval Officer is beyond me.

Allira
What any of this has to do with a rather sad man impersonating a high-ranking, serving Royal Naval Officer is beyond me.

It has nothing to do with it per se, but I find it irritating that a man whose pretence causes offence to another man can be taken to court be fined £500 whilst other men who cause offence to women are praised for their artistry or we are told they don’t cause any harm.
That ex teacher wasn’t causing any harm.