Izzard as female reimagining of Dr Jekyll, anyone ?

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.

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.

Well said Doodledog

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. ?

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.

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.

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.

*keeping

The thing is, though, Eddie doesn’t look androgynous to me. He always looks like a bloke, wherever he’s wearing. ?

SueDonim

The thing is, though, Eddie doesn’t look androgynous to me. He always looks like a bloke, wherever he’s wearing. ?

Yes, he is very male.

Dame Edna was much more feminine.

Dame Edna being feminine -amazing. I love to watch clips like this one. m.youtube.com/watch?v=cKdCTtTMwgU.

Eddie Izzard would suit the lead role in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane . He makes a rather unattractive "woman"

Eddie Izzard has got great legs though and he can walk in heels!!!

Thanks trisher for coming back to give us a laugh with that.

Stanley Baxter had very good legs - maybe still does.
(No comment on the outfit)

I liked the contrast in the outfits FarNorth woman in trousers and a sweater Eddie in skirt and heels (and I like his politics)

Exactly trisher.
Clothes mean nothing in relation to sex.

trisher

I liked the contrast in the outfits FarNorth woman in trousers and a sweater Eddie in skirt and heels (and I like his politics)

I wonder how you know the person pictured with Eddie ('his' pronoun today?) is a woman? Are you personally acquainted or did you make an assumption not based on clothing?

Rosie51

trisher

I liked the contrast in the outfits FarNorth woman in trousers and a sweater Eddie in skirt and heels (and I like his politics)

I wonder how you know the person pictured with Eddie ('his' pronoun today?) is a woman? Are you personally acquainted or did you make an assumption not based on clothing?

I guessed like most of us do most of the time!

Eddie has said he doesn't mind which pronoun is used about him. I find I swap round all the time

.

Today I’m in a fleece and joggers. Cotton Traders sell the same for either sex

I am hoping the campaign with regard to Primark gains some momentum, its looking at the messages that are emblazoned on clothes for girls and boys (generally be kind for girls, and make a mess for boys). There is absolutely no need for childrens clothes to be divided into for girls and boys.

As FarNorth pointed out, clothes have nothing to do with the sex of the wearer. Buying in to the idea that ‘woman in trousers and man in dress’ is radical suggests an adherence to gender norms. Yes, it’s unusual (well, the man in a dress bit is) but the act of wearing a dress doesn’t make Izzard a woman any more than wearing trousers makes women into men.

Izzard, in common with many transpeople, has had neither surgery nor hormones, so remains very firmly in the sex he was at birth (and that assumes that there is a possibility of changing sex using those methods). How, in that case has he ‘become a woman’ on the days he decides he is ‘girly’?

How do transwomen (I understand that Izzard does not claim this status for himself) ‘become women’? What does it mean to ‘be a woman’ if hormones, gametes, socialisation, dress (or heels) or biological makeup are deemed irrelevant, and if we are not to insist that both sexes stick to socially determined gender norms in order to hang on to their birth sex identification? I would really like an answer to this, as it is at the heart of so much of the conflict surrounding this issue.