Izzard as female reimagining of Dr Jekyll, anyone ?

trisher

Rosie51

I have never seen the Alien films but is Ripley written as an obviously male character but acted by an obviously female actor?

Yes. Originally a male character when the script was written Sigourney Weaver was in the film. It's not the only instance. Characters often change when the parts are cast, they also change sometimes in re-makes of older films.

I'm not keen on Eddie Redmayne although I know he is very succesful I believe he said after playng the part that transgender parts should go to transgender actors. I wouldn't condone any condemnation of an actor for a part they played.

You say originally a male character, so did Sigourney Weaver play it as a man although she is obviously a woman?

Eddie Redmayne only decided transgender parts should be played by transgender actors because he saw the writing on the wall from TRAs. Transgender actors can't be a lone sacred caste so presumably nobody can play a part they aren't. No more science fiction, historical dramas, thrillers. Might as well give up completely.

I've just googled Ripley and it seems the role was changed from a male part to be acted by a male to a female part to be acted by a female, so totally different and not relevant to this discussion at all.
From Wicki Ridley Scott, director of the first film in the series, Alien, made the decision early in production to switch Ripley from a standard male action hero to a heroine

Sorry I thought one of the points being made was that a male character had become female? I simply pointed out this is a common occurrence in film making.

trisher

Sorry I thought one of the points being made was that a male character had become female? I simply pointed out this is a common occurrence in film making.

I think the main point being made, clearly to my mind, was that a role had been re-imagined from a male character to a female character, and normal logic would expect that character to now be played by a female actor not a male one, otherwise why bother with the change?

Rosie51

trisher

Sorry I thought one of the points being made was that a male character had become female? I simply pointed out this is a common occurrence in film making.

I think the main point being made, clearly to my mind, was that a role had been re-imagined from a male character to a female character, and normal logic would expect that character to now be played by a female actor not a male one, otherwise why bother with the change?

That's a bit like asking what is the point of any script, if you haven't read it how can you possibly comment?

You are missing the point that poor Pammie1 has made several times.

Jeckyl/Hyde is traditionally a male role. It has been 'reimagined' as female, so the logical thing would be to give it to a woman. But no. It has gone to a man who sometimes has 'girly days'.

Why do you think that any and all 'gender bending' is 'good'? Or is that misrepresenting what you said above in your post at 12.56? Is there anything that you would protect and keep for women only?

tidyskatemum

Riverwalk you are not allowed to call Eddie Izzard “he” or the thought police will be after you. Eddie Izzard is a self-appointed woman who happens to have all the male bits

There's more to being a woman than throwing on a frock and piling on a load of slap.
Woman is something that can't be worn and it's more than a 'feeling'

If a male person has all his bits (and contrary to popular belief the majority of transwomen don't get rid of their male members), then that person is male.
Biology doesn't lie.

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.

cis woman?
What's that?

There's Woman and there's Transwoman.
Fact.

Doodledog

You are missing the point that poor Pammie1 has made several times.

Jeckyl/Hyde is traditionally a male role. It has been 'reimagined' as female, so the logical thing would be to give it to a woman. But no. It has gone to a man who sometimes has 'girly days'.

Why do you think that any and all 'gender bending' is 'good'? Or is that misrepresenting what you said above in your post at 12.56? Is there anything that you would protect and keep for women only?

All gender bending is good because it blurs the lines and the barriers which have been imposed by the patriachy. It means men can be caring and nurturing without losing their masculinity, it means women are not restricted to the roles assigned to them. It means more equality.
I don't understand why you would equate provision for women with gender bending. What has how someone presents or their gender got to do with that?

I didn't equate it. I asked two separate questions.

I disagree that barriers that allow men to nurture and women to step outside of gender roles should be dismantled; but to me, that's the crux of the matter - gender is a construct, and insisting that it can be changed buys into the notion that it is somehow connected to sex.

The TWAW mantra reinforces gender roles by saying that men who 'see themselves as women' (although so few ever say what that means) can only step outside of those roles by 'being' women, if only in their heads. I would much rather see men being men as they care and nurture, and women being women as they step outside of assigned roles, and neither sex feeling that they have to abandon their sex in favour of the other in order to do so.

My other question is whether there is anything that you would protect and keep for women (in fact for either sex) without opening it to all comers?

Sorry - my second paragraph should begin 'I agree'!

Doodledog

I didn't equate it. I asked two separate questions.

I disagree that barriers that allow men to nurture and women to step outside of gender roles should be dismantled; but to me, that's the crux of the matter - gender is a construct, and insisting that it can be changed buys into the notion that it is somehow connected to sex.

The TWAW mantra reinforces gender roles by saying that men who 'see themselves as women' (although so few ever say what that means) can only step outside of those roles by 'being' women, if only in their heads. I would much rather see men being men as they care and nurture, and women being women as they step outside of assigned roles, and neither sex feeling that they have to abandon their sex in favour of the other in order to do so.

My other question is whether there is anything that you would protect and keep for women (in fact for either sex) without opening it to all comers?

Well that's weird. Gender is a social construct.. Dismantling the norms of that social construct in no way impacts on sex how can it? It is something which changes anyway. The gender norms of the Victorians are not the gender norms of today. They change all the time. Bending and dismantling them changes society not sex.

There are men who feel they are women and women who feel they are men. How they are going to be made to stop feeling that I really don't know.

Will single sex facilities remain if gender norms are bent or disappear? Well why wouldn't they? Do you expect me to list them? Even assuming I could list all those which exist now, in a society where gender norms have radically changed there might be some new ones.

trisher

Rosie51

trisher

Sorry I thought one of the points being made was that a male character had become female? I simply pointed out this is a common occurrence in film making.

I think the main point being made, clearly to my mind, was that a role had been re-imagined from a male character to a female character, and normal logic would expect that character to now be played by a female actor not a male one, otherwise why bother with the change?

That's a bit like asking what is the point of any script, if you haven't read it how can you possibly comment?

Sorry but I truly don't understand this comment, please can you elucidate?
My point is why bother rewriting a story to change the titular role from male to female if you then cast a male, no matter how that male presents, in the role?
As for barriers it seems to me that it is trans agenda and the allies who are putting up barriers. Wear a dress, like pink, frills, nail varnish and sequins....you're a girl. Blue, cars, short hair and dinosaurs....over to the boys corner.
The fact that some directors and/or writers have decided their main character should be rewritten as the other sex (and acted by a person of that sex) does not validate Eddie Izzard or any other male being cast in a female role. Will this production make it clear Jekyll/Hyde is now a male transgender person?

trisher Gender is a social construct
Hallelujah! How many times have I seen Doodledog and others try to explain this and that it differs from sex, so sex segregation should be honoured no matter the 'gender presentation' which is just a stereotype!

So a male who takes a female role which has been rewritten specifically for a female is not part of the patriarchy that says it has a right to do whatever it wants rather than accepting that women (AHF) have rights and entitlements.
OK trisher I get you. You simply want men to be in power. I thought women had fought long and hard to overcome the ‘men are in charge and set the rules’.
However, when they established some measure of success, we began to see men seeking ways to destroy that success and even managed to suck some women into their delusions of grandeur.
Hence, a man can take a female role, specifically rewritten as a role for a female, just by saying he has girly days, or claiming to be a female and you support the patriarchal act of doing that.

There are men who feel they are women and women who feel they are men. How they are going to be made to stop feeling that I really don't know

What does it mean, to ‘feel they are women/men’? Is woman a feeling? Do all women feel the same? How do I know my feelings are those of a woman? Maybe I have the feelings of a man. Of course, I don’t know because no one has ever explained what these feelings actually feel like!

One thing I do know, magical thinking and womanface do not a woman make.

Well that's weird. Gender is a social construct.. Dismantling the norms of that social construct in no way impacts on sex how can it? It is something which changes anyway. The gender norms of the Victorians are not the gender norms of today. They change all the time. Bending and dismantling them changes society not sex.

What's 'weird' about that? I agree that gender and sex are different, and of course gender norms change over time, place and culture, and have never said otherwise. That is why I don't believe that there is a need to change gender - you can't. Gender is about external things, which we appear to agree are fixed in time, place etc. They (the gender norms) change - people can't change to 'be' them.

There are men who feel they are women and women who feel they are men. How they are going to be made to stop feeling that I really don't know.
I don't understand this. How does it 'feel' to be a man or a woman? 'Feeling' like a woman, would, in my experience, leave plenty of scope for ignoring gender stereotypes and living life as you please, whether that includes conforming to traditional 'female' stereotypes or not, so why the need to 'change' and insist that people go along with the pretence?

Will single sex facilities remain if gender norms are bent or disappear? Well why wouldn't they? Do you expect me to list them? Even assuming I could list all those which exist now, in a society where gender norms have radically changed there might be some new ones.
Why wouldn't they? Well, because it is becoming increasingly difficult for women to even say they are female. Men, claiming to be transwomen, are allowed into female spaces, and before you quote the law, we all know that it is often ignored because of ignorance. Even at the top levels of sport, there are no single sex competitions, and as we've discussed, women in serious distress are no longer able to insist on a biological female to examine them, or to counsel them after being raped. Female prisons now house male inmates and so on. I could list more examples of where female spaces have become unisex, but am more interested in knowing the ones you believe should stay as female spaces.

Cross posted, SueDonim

Izzard can currently be heard on BBC Sounds, reading from his autobiography.

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b08vxt0l

FarNorth

Izzard can currently be heard on BBC Sounds, reading from his autobiography.

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b08vxt0l

Well worth listening to I heard it first time round.

Rosie51 and Doodledog I refuse to getinto the same old arguments with you. Single sex spaces are protected by law and as far as I know they will continue to be. The rest is the same old same old. Which actually has absolutely nothing to do with a proposed film script and the actor being asked to play a part.

Rosie51

trisher

Rosie51

trisher

Sorry I thought one of the points being made was that a male character had become female? I simply pointed out this is a common occurrence in film making.

I think the main point being made, clearly to my mind, was that a role had been re-imagined from a male character to a female character, and normal logic would expect that character to now be played by a female actor not a male one, otherwise why bother with the change?

That's a bit like asking what is the point of any script, if you haven't read it how can you possibly comment?

Sorry but I truly don't understand this comment, please can you elucidate?
My point is why bother rewriting a story to change the titular role from male to female if you then cast a male, no matter how that male presents, in the role?
As for barriers it seems to me that it is trans agenda and the allies who are putting up barriers. Wear a dress, like pink, frills, nail varnish and sequins....you're a girl. Blue, cars, short hair and dinosaurs....over to the boys corner.
The fact that some directors and/or writers have decided their main character should be rewritten as the other sex (and acted by a person of that sex) does not validate Eddie Izzard or any other male being cast in a female role. Will this production make it clear Jekyll/Hyde is now a male transgender person?

I don't know Rosie51 I haven't read the script- which I think was my point. This is a bit like the blind men of Hindustan and the elephant.

Eddie Izzard, however ‘good at acting’ he is, is supported by the patriarchal feminism group.
Patriarchal feminists in case you haven’t come across them, are a group (some claiming to be feminists) composed of :
-some men,
-those TW who are ill-intentioned,
-people like the producer who decided to offer Izzard the role rewritten for a woman,
and sadly,
-some women.
Patriarchal Feminists support the idea that men still have the right to say what women (AHF) are allowed to have, do or say. They declare that anyone who doesn’t support this is discriminatory and anti-trans.
Be on the look out for patriarchal feminists. They will try to override the efforts of real feminists to achieve and maintain existing and future rights for females.

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 ?

In order to accommodate the 1% trans people in the population, the 50% of women have to be trampled on.