Izzard as female reimagining of Dr Jekyll, anyone ?

Mollygo

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.

Once again a misunderstanding of what a patriachy does. The patriachy is the group of mainly white men who have organised our society since women stopped running it (basically when we began farming and stopped being nomadic). Their main concerns are maintaining power and protecting property. They do this through setting one section of society against another and by scaring others about those who are different to them. In the resulting conflict they simply make sure their position remains unthreatened. So Christians against Jews or against Muslims and vice versa. Now women against transpeople. The 1970s wave of feminism unfortunately bought into this and sought to change the people in charge from men to women but left the system unchanged. Not surprisingly that didn't work. Intersectional feminism has looked at the bigger picture and realised there are levels of oppression and that uniting the oppressed may at times include people who have suffered under the patriachy just as much as women have. And not surprisingly they have decided it isn't enough just to ask that women become the same as men but that the whole system needs to change because the patriachy damages everyone. Smash the Patriachy! This is a great explanaion koolkanya.com/blogs/passion/8-ways-to-smash-the-patriarchy-with-love-and-compassion/

The idea that I would ever support a man telling a women what to do will have my friends in stitches!

trisher, patriarchy as you describe it has evolved into exactly what Patriarchal Feminism involves. For explanation, see above.

I don’t care what he identifies as, if he’s got XY chromosomes, he’s biologically a male. I have no problem with people deciding to live as the opposite sex, and going through with the surgery and hormones, but they can never change sex. It’s not possible to change every cell in a human body.
I agree, if he’s taken the role from a female, shame on him.

trisher

The idea that I would ever support a man telling a women what to do will have my friends in stitches!

Can you not see the irony, then, trisher?

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

Mollygo

trisher, patriarchy as you describe it has evolved into exactly what Patriarchal Feminism involves. For explanation, see above.

Mollygo if you choose to make me and other women who support transgender rights your enemy that is your choice. Personally I can't see how that actually contributes to smashing the patriachy. Indeed as some transgender people are women who choose to be men, and I support their rights just as much as I support those of men who want to be women I can't see any connection at all with the patriachy. I'm actually much more interested in the methods we can use to work against it than I am in these endless debates.

As far as acting and cross gender roles go I prefer to judge solely on the basis of artistic merit. If the actor is good in the role gender is irrelevant

Callistemon21

trisher

The idea that I would ever support a man telling a women what to do will have my friends in stitches!

Can you not see the irony, then, trisher?

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

Well I don't know any women who have been trampled on by a transwomen. So a little evidence to support that statement would seem essential.

maddyone

I don’t care what he identifies as, if he’s got XY chromosomes, he’s biologically a male. I have no problem with people deciding to live as the opposite sex, and going through with the surgery and hormones, but they can never change sex. It’s not possible to change every cell in a human body.
I agree, if he’s taken the role from a female, shame on him.

There is absolutely no evidence that the role would ever have been offered to a woman. And writers sometimes have a specific actor in mind when they write a screenplay.

trisher

Mollygo

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.

Once again a misunderstanding of what a patriachy does. The patriachy is the group of mainly white men who have organised our society since women stopped running it (basically when we began farming and stopped being nomadic). Their main concerns are maintaining power and protecting property. They do this through setting one section of society against another and by scaring others about those who are different to them. In the resulting conflict they simply make sure their position remains unthreatened. So Christians against Jews or against Muslims and vice versa. Now women against transpeople. The 1970s wave of feminism unfortunately bought into this and sought to change the people in charge from men to women but left the system unchanged. Not surprisingly that didn't work. Intersectional feminism has looked at the bigger picture and realised there are levels of oppression and that uniting the oppressed may at times include people who have suffered under the patriachy just as much as women have. And not surprisingly they have decided it isn't enough just to ask that women become the same as men but that the whole system needs to change because the patriachy damages everyone. Smash the Patriachy! This is a great explanaion koolkanya.com/blogs/passion/8-ways-to-smash-the-patriarchy-with-love-and-compassion/

That sounds suspiciously like Mansplaining .

Patriarchy, like feminism, is one of those words that mean different things to different people, and those who like to 'back up' their own views on the matter can easily find quotes with the aid of Google.

IMO, (FWIW), patriarchy is the underlying assumption that men and men's needs are paramount, and that women are supposed to support them. It takes different forms in different circumstances, so is difficult to pin down.

Men taking women's places in sport, pushing their way into changing rooms, pushing aside female shortlists and insisting on changes to the language to massage their egos are all, however, pretty obvious examples of the patriarchy in action.

I do like Molly's concept of patriarchal feminists, as I think we are all aware of them about, but hadn't heard of that name. It seems to be contradiction, but is in fact just an oxymoron, and many of those are illuminating.

trisher

The idea that I would ever support a man telling a women what to do will have my friends in stitches!

To be honest, your posts on here do suggest that you favour men over women. I have asked directly if you have ever supported anything that would put women first if all else were equal and a choice had to be made, and you fudged the reply. I have asked if you have ever supported anything that put women's rights above those of transwomen, and you fudged that reply, too. Whenever someone posts about vulnerable women being threatened by the presence of men (however they define) you point out that women can also be violent/sex predators etc, rather than post in support of the vulnerable members of your own sex. You have often said that 'your feminism' includes men, which is, to me, a contradiction in terms. Men can support feminism, but feminism can't include men's rights over women's - as soon as it does that it is no longer feminism.

A feminist (the clue's in the name) puts women first, or at least foreground women in their thinking. Clearly, policies which put women first for the sake of it, or which discriminate against other groups in favour of women are undesirable (or would be if they existed), but when rights clash, feminists would always ensure that women's rights are not secondary, and I don't see you doing that. Obviously, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - have I missed an example of your putting women before men, or before transwomen? Ever?

Your friends may have a different perspective, of course - I can only go on what is posted here - or maybe it's just that they share your views.

trisher

Callistemon21

trisher

The idea that I would ever support a man telling a women what to do will have my friends in stitches!

Can you not see the irony, then, trisher?

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

Well I don't know any women who have been trampled on by a transwomen. So a little evidence to support that statement would seem essential.

I just thought that I do know a few women who have had their rights trampled on by other women- women seeking refuge in this country and asylum seekers already in this country have seen their rights absolutely stamped on by Pritti Patel.

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'.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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).

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