Izzard as female reimagining of Dr Jekyll, anyone ?

So at time of the interview Eddie was a 'she' i take it? But if Eddies gender fluid, then next interview 'she' could be a 'he' then? And how come if 'he' is now 'she' why is he/she keepibg the name Eddie? So, not a true transgender person then? Just a bloke who likes cross- dressing then basically? I used to like him, but all this is too taxing for me.

Jeckyl and Hyde is a strange choice of story to choose to 'reimagine' into a different sex. What does the protagonist's sex add to the story?

Is the suggestion that women are more likely to become raging monsters at particular times? Or that we have more reason to be angry?

Whatever the reason, casting a famously androgynous actor such as Izzard just muddies the waters, or was done to make some sort of statement, although I'm not sure what statement that would be.

As I said in my first post on this thread, the role itself is of very little interest to me, but the principle of a man wearing a dress and taking a role that was clearly intended as a woman's (in its reimagined form) is indicative of the way in which the TWAW mantra is detrimental to women, not just in the acting profession but across the board.

Surely that's the only way to do it. No one will be able to see Eddie Izzard as a woman, he is too famous, whereas he could easily play a transwoman.

AmberSpyglass

Why are we all assuming Nina Jekyll is a cis woman? Given the casting, it’s much more likely she’ll be a trans woman.

Why then trumpet that the role has been 'reimagined as female'?

And why choose an actor who is known to everyone as male and who doesn't even try to pass as a female person?

Maybe it's going to be a big 'surprise' when the film comes out, that Jekyll is trans, perhaps a cross-dresser as Izzard is. ?

Bye trisher. Since you’ve left, I don’t need to repeat myself, but women being violent to women does not justify allowing men in whatever guise, access to AHF safe spaces. Women are still being castigated and attacked by males for rebelling against the norms you mention.
But now they’re also up against these patriarchal feminists who can’t bring themselves to support AHF , but instead support the men who want to override the existing hard won rights and take what rightfully belongs to AHF, calling this progress, when what it actually is, is going backward. Since you don’t seem to grasp that, I understand you leaving the discussion.

Heavily pregnant transmen in maternity wards aren't likely to be mistaken for men, whichever way you cut it, so that argument falls flat straight away. I don't care if women dress 'as' men - I don't see clothing as necessary gendered, tbh. Women's fashion is far more flexible than men's, so a man in a dress stands out far more than a woman in trousers, but for the millionth time, it is not I (or any other gender-critical feminists I know) who thinks that clothing or 'presenting as' a gender is linked to sex. Quite the opposite.

It's not 'funny' that arguments are not addressed. It's far more likely that they simply haven't come up or been considered. I doubt that many of us spend hours thinking about any of this - I just respond on here when I see blatantly anti-feminist things posted in the name of 'inclusion'.

The sentence about 'the extent of my feminism' makes no sense to me however I read it, I'm afraid. The one before it is not true, although as I'm not a follower of sport I fully accept that there will be lots of things that pass me by. As I've said, I'm not obsessed with trans issues, and that, plus my lack of interest in sport makes it very likely that there are things I don't know. The argument that not wanting men to compete against women is somehow akin to racism (or was it Nazism?) is laughable, though, as well as being offensive.

I talk about transmen all the time. All the bloody time. The detransitioners who are mostly transmen are one of the reasons I fight this endless battle. Oh and if you think transmen are campaigning to be in Male prisons for example you are wrong. And no feminist would want transmen in Male prisons because you know Male violence.

Transmen may not personally present any threat to women (neither do most transwomen) but any policy of insisting people use facilities related to their birth gender means that people who look like men would be using women's facilities. It would therefore become impossible to challenge any predatory natal man using them. As I said it would save them the bother of dressing as a woman. Funny no one ever addresses this or explains how it makes women safer.

I'm not getting into the sport discussion again. You are only interested in one aspect of the harm done to women by sport regulation. And in fact that seems to be the extent of your feminism it only registers the harm caused by transpeople whilst huge steps are happening which erode our rights and freedoms

Mollygo I'm sorry you don't appreciate the work done by generations of women to undermine the patriachy by not submitting to gender norms. Without them none of the freedoms we currently enjoy would exist. Women have been castigated, imprisoned and tortured because they challenged those norms.
I abhor all violence, so saying I have implied one type of violent behaviour was worse or better than another is categorically wrong. I have simply pointed out that women's refuges are experienced in risk assessment because they have sometimes had to deny access to violent women and that experience could be used to risk assess any transwomen.
And now I am leaving the thread. It has become the same polarised argument.

Well said Doodledog

The reason that I rarely bring transmen into the discussion is because they are female-bodied, and therefore don't present a threat to women, and as a feminist it is threats to women that concern me. As I have said over and over, how transpeople live their lives is up to them, and I am not anything but supportive of their rights to do so.

It is when women are affected that I get upset - whether that is by being locked in a prison cell with a male-bodied sex-offender, losing a sporting title to a male-bodied 'opponent', or in any of the other ways that are routinely discussed on these threads.

I (and I'm certain that this applies equally to others, but don't want to put words in their mouths) don't respond to threads about transpeople because of 'discriminatory sh*t'. I respond to raise awareness of the ways in which women are threatened physically and emotionally by self-id and the way it is interpreted, and the way in which the trans lobby is encroaching on women's rights by stealth - changing the language and making debate impossible by cancelling and otherwise silencing (non-patriarchal) feminists.

Transmen don't do most of this, which is why they rarely get mentioned. When the discussion centres on things like removing the word 'mother' from maternity care, however, I am happy to lend my voice to those who say that it is wrong to base policy on such a tiny percentage of 'people who give birth'. That is not at all the same as not 'allowing transmen to take part in the discussion'. That is yet another misrepresentation of what is said on these threads.

Trisher, every time you post that you support all TW, you support men overriding women’s rights. You have regurgitated your posts so often I’ll leave it to you to look them up.
If you wanted to discuss women being violent it would be a good discussion, but no, you only regurgitate that point when you are saying it’s not only men or trans who perpetrate violence on AHF. Implying that men’s or trans violence towards women is not so important because women do it too.
*Gender non conformity is a recognised act against the patriarchy*????. Listen to yourself.
Men, in whatever guise, taking what belongs or is intended for AHF in any sphere is a demonstration of patriarchy (as described earlier by you) in action. The support of that, by those including you, claiming to be feminist is a demonstration of Patriarchal Feminism in action. QED.

Well Eddie Izzard has a long history of activism to destabilise systems of control. He was the first man in a dress on TV when no one talked about transvestites. It seems to me that if it is OK for men to take the role of ballerinas in Swan Lake and reimagine it, it's OK for someone who has a history of cross dressing to portray a female character. As I said earlier I don't care what gender a role is written for, or what gender the actor taking the role is, what matters is the quality of the performance. Gender non-conformity is a recognised act against the patriarchy.

If you can post me one remark I have made that "Overides the rights of women in terms of safety" I would like to see it. Just because I question the logic of some of the ideas presented does not show that. In fact I have many times asked how some of these ideas will make women safer. Like the belief that transwomen should use men's facilities and therefore transmen must use women's which means people who look like men will be going into ladies facilities, so any predator would be saved the bother of dressing as a woman. How is that safe?
Sorry if "dragging women" in makes things more difficult I would have imagined any feminist would regard them as being an essential and important part of a transdiscussion.
It seems only focussing on the transgressions of a few trans activists is acceptable, which is a bit like saying all Muslims must be treated as potential terrorists

Love the way you misread everything in your regurgitations trisher.
How is your support for events like the OP raised ‘smashing the patriarchy?’
How is your support for all trans, hence your refusal to condemn the trans who want to override the rights of women in terms of safety, (and those are the only trans I can be accused of condemning) be called anything except patriarchal feminism?
I’m not attacking transpeople, but I am supporting the rights of AHF when they are infringed or endangered by either trans or men OR women, (since you always drag women in as if it makes men’s or ill-intentioned trans behaviour less wrong).

Please can you explain to me how women committed to smashing the patriarchy are somehow patriarchal? or how condemning transpeople is in anyway feminist? I'm afraid if yu support all women then you have to accept that some natal women want to be men and some women support them and their right to decide that. Quite how that is supporting men I don't understand either.

Oh and how is attacking transpeople doing anything at all to the patriarchy? Apart of course from reinforcing the prejudice and division on which it thrives.

Are you regurgitating again trisher?
We don’t talk about TW general, only those who see TW as a means for eroding AHF rights.
Those Patriarchal feminists (Male and Female) who support the erosion of AHF (women’s) rights in any sphere, whilst claiming to support AHF, always find ways and means including diversionary tactics like ‘women can be violent too’ and lack of basic understanding to excuse their behaviour, but it doesn’t make it any more supportive of females. They are really supporting men, hence the title of Patriarchal feminists.

Unfotunately whilst you clamour and complain about transpeople and their supporters (always with the emphasis on transwomen of course, heaven forbid we should allow transmen to enter the discussion, because that just complicates things) the real enemies of feminism and those who have fully embraced the patriachy are active and prospering. Stop trying to denigrate other women who are active against the patriachy (how on earth can that be feminist?) and accept that actually the people trampling on women's rights are not the tiny minority of transpeople who just want to have a voice but are the people in power some of whom are women and who are actively and succesfully making the every day lives of a great many women absolute hell. They and the system are the enemy not a tiny group of people. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns!

Of course they do, and of course women will feel uncomfortable changing next to a male-bodied person. It's yet another example of how women's rights are trampled on to support the rights of men to do what they like, and some posts on here show yet another example of 'patriarchal feminism' in action.

TerriBull

Talking of single sex spaces, there is a swimmer in the US, lately called Leah something or other who is beating all the natal women at their game. That person I have read still has their male genitalia and uses the women's changing areas, where in the process of changing, his genitals are often exposed. Some of the women do not like this, I imagine the majority of women would feel the same, does their disquiet not matter in this drive for inclusivity ?

It's shocking isn't it?
Men have bigger hearts and lungs.
Their pelvis is shaped differently (Theyre more suited to sport because of these differences.
Men who have transitioned will always have a physical advantage over women when it comes to sport
It's one of the reasons there are separate categories - one for men, one for women.
There should be a third category for transwomen.

Even if their testosterone is below a certain level they still have physical advantages over women.

trisher

Good try Doodledog but I'm not getting into the same old same old. . You constantly refer to things I have said or you allege I have said. I prefer to post my own views and leave others to post theirs. I always think regurgitating things is just lazy, or incorrect anyway.
Read the 8 ways to smash the patriachy they are enlightening and helpful.

I refer to things that have been said in the same way as I would if we knew one another irl. If we don't use previous experience to underpin our conversations we constantly reinvent the wheel. It's far less lazy to base arguments on an understanding of someone's previously stated point of view than not, really.

And if we are making accusations of laziness, constant quoting of dictionary definitions fits that bill, surely? Backing up assertions about facts and figures is one thing, but we all know that finding definitions online does not constitute research, unless it is introducing a new concept that readers may not have come across.

(Nice try at another fudged answer, btw ?. It's very clear that you do not put the needs or rights of women ahead of those of men or transwomen, however much you try to disguise it with the use of the 5th amendment)

Best joke of the morning for reflecting trisher,
I think regurgitating things is just lazy, or incorrect anyway.
I expect this will be removed, because the truth hurts.

Patriarchal feminists in the same way as intersectional feminists may support many groups. Feminists or anyone who belongs to neither of these groups may well be caring and supportive. The difference is that Patriarchal Feminists support the entitlement of all the groups named in my post at 10:22 to override the rights of women (AHF) to suit their own purposes.
I expect that from some men, but find it appalling that some women belong to this category and cannot accept the damage they are doing to members of their own sex.

No, that is totally misrepresenting what I said. As I'm sure you are very well aware.

Doodledog

Very true, and it is disgraceful. But that does not in any way equate to the point, which is that a whole sex is being trampled by a very small percentage of the opposite sex who have issues around their perceived 'gender'.

So trampling on women only matters if a transwomen does it?? Who knew???
As many women don't agree with you Doodledog claiming all women are being trampled on by transwomen isn't supported at all.

Good try Doodledog but I'm not getting into the same old same old. . You constantly refer to things I have said or you allege I have said. I prefer to post my own views and leave others to post theirs. I always think regurgitating things is just lazy, or incorrect anyway.
Read the 8 ways to smash the patriachy they are enlightening and helpful.

Very true, and it is disgraceful. But that does not in any way equate to the point, which is that a whole sex is being trampled by a very small percentage of the opposite sex who have issues around their perceived 'gender'.