Which is probably the reason for why he's now (seemingly) banned.That ia Glaston’s modus operandi in every thread.
g = window.googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; window.googletag = googletag; googletag.cmd.push(function() { var interstitialSlot = googletag.defineOutOfPageSlot('/17085479/redcafe_gam_interstitial', googletag.enums.OutOfPageFormat.INTERSTITIAL); if (interstitialSlot) { interstitialSlot.addService(googletag.pubads()); } });
Which is probably the reason for why he's now (seemingly) banned.That ia Glaston’s modus operandi in every thread.
says Tory voters pay little to no attention to this issue, according to the reportThis is what happens when the right picks a topic for the culture war. People who didn't previously really have an opinion on it are now suddenly convinced it's deeply wrong.
But the likes of Rowling push a victim narrative that swings “moderates”says Tory voters pay little to no attention to this issue, according to the report
I hear what you are saying and you are possibly correct. its not just her there are many youtubers and others talking about it all the time and making documentaries. You have Piers Morgan, Navratilova and Sharon Davies always talking trans issues. I think Rowling influence is overstated. A lot of people don't listen or understand what she is on about as it dont affect them.But the likes of Rowling push a victim narrative that swings “moderates”
well that’s why I said the likes of Rowling, although I do think you underestimate her influence given how many people grew up on her books and the film adaptations yeah, lots of people are spouting the same stuff and/or using her complaints as their talking points.I hear what you are saying and you are possibly correct. its not just her there are many youtubers and others talking about it all the time and making documentaries. You have Piers Morgan, Navratilova and Sharon Davies always talking trans issues. I think Rowling influence is overstated. A lot of people don't listen or understand what she is on about as it dont affect them.
Doesn't help when terms like 'birthing people' are introduced though. The right doesn't always have to manufacture outrage, sometimes all they need is to jump on existing sentiments.This is what happens when the right picks a topic for the culture war. People who didn't previously really have an opinion on it are now suddenly convinced it's deeply wrong.
Another way of describing it is that it says 74% of Tory voters paid some attention to the issue.says Tory voters pay little to no attention to this issue, according to the report
The outrage over 'birthing people' definitely has a lot to do with the right pushing the culture war. Otherwise the prevailing sentiment would probably be something like "that's dumb, but whatever".Doesn't help when terms like 'birthing people' are introduced though. The right doesn't always have to manufacture outrage, sometimes all they need is to jump on existing sentiments.
could just be thatIn other transphobia-related news today, it's emerged that, according to their own records, only 7% of the LGB Alliance's 4502 subscribers identify as lesbians. That means LGB Alliance, an organisation with the stated goal of promoting the rights of lesbians, has around 315 lesbian subscribers in total.
Speaking of the LGB Alliance, here is a (long) thread on Allison Bailey's case, which was recently decided:In other transphobia-related news today, it's emerged that, according to their own records, only 7% of the LGB Alliance's 4502 subscribers identify as lesbians. That means LGB Alliance, an organisation with the stated goal of promoting the rights of lesbians, has around 315 lesbian subscribers in total.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The Globe theatre will be showing a play on the life of Joan of Arc, and have made the creative decision to portray Joan of Arc as non-binary.What's this about?
Rewriting her as not female and presenting it as progress is deeply offensive and totally ridiculous.
Dan Hodges, he of the Mail who has terrible opinions, has decried that the world has gone mad.Joan was charged with the crime of heresy, as have those of us that speak out against transgender orthodoxy, but we refuse the labels of TERF, bigot and fascist, just as Joan refused to surrender. She took on an entire army, but so do feminists when we resist the patriarchal boot.
Or this could just become a transphobia thread? Which does sound like I am advocating a hate crime...Perhaps a separate thread on transphobia in general needs to be created since a lot of the content in this thread isn't about J.K Rowling anymore.
Not sure those points in bold carry any weight.The Globe theatre will be showing a play on the life of Joan of Arc, and have made the creative decision to portray Joan of Arc as non-binary.
This has caused uproar as an attack on feminism and all women. Here's Julie Bindel's take: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-the-globe-making-joan-of-arc-non-binary-
Dan Hodges, he of the Mail who has terrible opinions, has decried that the world has gone mad.
Many people have pointed our that:
a) Glenda Jackson is his mum (news to me!), and
b) Glenda Jackson, a woman, portrayed a man in King Lear, and no-one thought the world had imploded.
Equally so when Patrick Stewart starred as Othello in 1997 when Othello was white and the rest of the cast was African American: https://playbill.com/article/patrick-stewart-stars-in-race-reversed-othello-in-dc-nov-17-com-72158.
I'm on the fence. Artistic freedom and experimentation is a valid and important element. The white Othello in an otherwise black cast is an interesting setup - and one that potentially challenges an audience to see the dynamics at work. Glenda playing Lear is just a twist on men playing women in drama in the past. In both cases they present challenges to typical scenarios of under-representation and the lack of good roles to certain groups.The Globe theatre will be showing a play on the life of Joan of Arc, and have made the creative decision to portray Joan of Arc as non-binary.
This has caused uproar as an attack on feminism and all women. Here's Julie Bindel's take: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-the-globe-making-joan-of-arc-non-binary-
Dan Hodges, he of the Mail who has terrible opinions, has decried that the world has gone mad.
Many people have pointed our that:
a) Glenda Jackson is his mum (news to me!), and
b) Glenda Jackson, a woman, portrayed a man in King Lear, and no-one thought the world had imploded.
Equally so when Patrick Stewart starred as Othello in 1997 when Othello was white and the rest of the cast was African American: https://playbill.com/article/patrick-stewart-stars-in-race-reversed-othello-in-dc-nov-17-com-72158.
Would help finding topics of interest. I was hoping to see some thoughts on a documentary making it's rounds in the US , by a pretty obnoxious conservative media group , but which also has quite a few positive remarks from all sides of the coinPerhaps a separate thread on transphobia in general needs to be created since a lot of the content in this thread isn't about J.K Rowling anymore.
Race reverse casting has been used fro Anthony and Cleopatra and in 2014 in Death of a Salesman too:Not sure those points in bold carry any weight.
Women taking opportunities away from men should generally be applauded, in terms of correcting historical imbalance. The converse is obviously a completely different scenario.
Casting a white man as Othello would get you absolutely crucified if it happened today. With good reason. So whatever happened in 1997 isn’t particularly relevant.
I do understand the bolded.I'm on the fence. Artistic freedom and experimentation is a valid and important element. The white Othello in an otherwise black cast is an interesting setup - and one that potentially challenges an audience to see the dynamics at work. Glenda playing Lear is just a twist on men playing women in drama in the past. In both cases they present challenges to typical scenarios of under-representation and the lack of good roles to certain groups.
I guess Joan of Arc bothers me, because she is actually a challenge in herself - she's more or less a classic example of a gender non-conforming woman. However, the leap from being a woman who doesn't fit the stereotype to non-binary or trans feels like the co-option of that historic and dramatic rarity a strong woman.
It's hard to get past the idea that the message is that if you're strong, you're not a woman. I'm sure that isn't the intent of the drama. It might not even be how I'd actually react to seeing it performed. Still, my first instinct was it was taking a rare female heroine and explaining her away.
@golden_blunderPerhaps a separate thread on transphobia in general needs to be created since a lot of the content in this thread isn't about J.K Rowling anymore.
I want to stay away from the topic because some people may trigger me. I have a trans nephew that was born a girl
No worries at all and my apologies - I only asked as I saw you were online.I want to stay away from the topic because some people may trigger me. I have a trans nephew that was born a girl
Ironically, I think this reading requires on an anachronistic application of a relatively modern concept of gender and feminism to a world in which they simply didn't apply. Generally speaking, our society is at least somewhat accepting of the idea that women are perfectly capable of doing stereotypically manly things, or disliking stereotypically womanly things, without it being a shocking affront to natural law. This was not the case in Western Europe in the Late Middle Ages.I'm on the fence. Artistic freedom and experimentation is a valid and important element. The white Othello in an otherwise black cast is an interesting setup - and one that potentially challenges an audience to see the dynamics at work. Glenda playing Lear is just a twist on men playing women in drama in the past. In both cases they present challenges to typical scenarios of under-representation and the lack of good roles to certain groups.
I guess Joan of Arc bothers me, because she is actually a challenge in herself - she's more or less a classic example of a gender non-conforming woman. However, the leap from being a woman who doesn't fit the stereotype to non-binary or trans feels like the co-option of that historic and dramatic rarity a strong woman.
It's hard to get past the idea that the message is that if you're strong, you're not a woman. I'm sure that isn't the intent of the drama. It might not even be how I'd actually react to seeing it performed. Still, my first instinct was it was taking a rare female heroine and explaining her away.
I agree with what you just said. And yet...Ironically, I think this reading requires on an anachronistic application of a relatively modern concept of gender and feminism to a world in which they simply didn't apply. Generally speaking, our society is at least somewhat accepting of the idea that women are perfectly capable of doing stereotypically manly things, or disliking stereotypically womanly things, without it being a shocking affront to natural law. This was not the case in Western Europe in the Late Middle Ages.
When she wore women's clothes, Joan of Arc was not simply seen as a woman who didn't conform, she was seen as a woman who had fundamentally transgressed against the laws of God. Her wearing of men's clothes was one of the reasons she was able to be charged with heresy, and her continuing to wear them after abduring was the pretext to reopening her case and having her charged as a relapsed heretic and handed over the English for execution.
With that in mind, I think the metaphor being made in the play is quite obvious. It's drawing an analogy between the way Joan of Arc was treated by the church as a woman transgressing the widely accepted gender roles of Christian Europe at the time, and the way AFAB non-binary people are received by many elements of our society (particularly journalism and politics) for transgressing the widely accepted gender binary our society subscribes to. I certainly can see a tinge of something akin to religious fundamentalism in the way some people talk about AFAB non-binary people "denying biology", "betraying their sex" etc. The way someone like Julie Bindel rails against "gender ideology" she might as well be a 14th century Bishop railing against the latest heresy.
Now, I don't know if this play is the best way to make that point, but it's just a play. It's not claiming to be a documentary and there are thousands of other interpretations of Joan of Arc's story which are likely just as inaccurate, albeit for different reasons. I'd say the fact that this specifically has garnered so much publicity and stirred up so much controversy, largely due the collective outrage of "gender critical" "feminists" in the media, probably proves the point the director was trying to make.
It's not. Don't really understand that line of thought here.Is someone playing a character of the opposite sex the same as rewriting a character?