Eddie Flipping Izzard

Question - why would it be difficult for me to insert a tampon in a cubicle next to a bloke? The cubicles are locked and he wouldn't be able to see me.

I think he is awesome.

Repeating one of my comments from the original Eddie Izzard thread, because teenage girls today are being demonised and fetishsed everywhere:

Also have a hard time believing his story, sounds like a fantasy - he wishes a lesbian accompanied him on his dressings up trip, and the weird humiliation fetish played out with lowly girls shaming him.
The dismissive way he talks about the girls, ie chavy/mouthy, smoking., truanting. Sounds the same dismissive attitude handed out to the Rotherham Abuse children. The attitude to young teen girls needs to somehow stop. No they are not temptresses or have mystical power over adult men.

The toilet story - a man wishes to dress in what is normally considered women's clothing; he then decides that gives him the right to use the women's toilet; and claims it is wrong of young girls who happen to be in there to challenge him?!?!! No. He is a man who should use the men's toilet, but I guess he was scared of attracting the attention of any other males in there. But women or girls, they can just put up with it can't they?

Of course the story is bollocks

It's quite eye opening though that the lies people tell make them look worse than the rather more pedestrian truth

As there's no Christine Shawcroft thread, I'll just post on here that given a choice for Labour's NEC (which I suspect sparked this thread) between the person who conspired to ensure that a Holocaust-denier was chosen as a Labour candidate and someone who chose to change clothes in a ladies public loo while dressed as a woman and shouted at three girls following him and publicly mocking him, I'll go for Eddie Izzard
It's not much of a choice though is it? A misogynist or an anti-Semite - what has the Labour Party come to?

Ugh. I also think it's a made up story. But why the fuck was he in the ladies' toilet in the first place? They really aren't there for cross-dressers to get a thrill out of and women should have the right to ask wtf he is doing in there. Obviously, following and heckling is not on and you can expect to be shouted at.

Also just read that he believes he is a 'male lesbian'. Okaaaaayyyy then. At least he is not claiming to be a 'real woman' I guess.

The story of the teenage girls is clearly a made up story.

Think back to when you were 13yrs old Would you really have followed a man in a dress? Probably not. You would more than likely have gone straight home, traumatised, and perhaps told your mum.

Eddie Izzard has described a common AGP fantasy. Lesbian handmadien who is a possible sexual partner - check. Humiliation fetish, ie being humiliated dressed up in front of other people, especially other men - check. Young teenage girls bossing and dominating him because of dressing - triple check.
Not saying that EI has made up this story, but what a coincidence that Sissy Fetish themes are all over it.

www.express.co.uk/news/politics/940060/Labour-anti-Semitism-row-Eddie-Izzard-NEC-orders-Jeremy-Corbyn-stamp-out-hate

I hadn't realised Izzard was not in favour with Corbyn. I wonder how long he will last.

He has made a career out of making up stories.

I know exactly what Islington was like in the 80s. Which is why I don't believe his story of those girls following him across Highbury fields, around the roundabout and down canonbury road. It's a fantasy

So you agree pursuing someone home and mocking their clothing choices was the wrong thing to do?

Then we agree.

incorrigiblyplural, where have I said that they did the right thing?

And you have some wires really badly crossed, LostArt, if you think that to attack Izzard is to attack the current Labour establishment.

The current Labour establishment hate Izzard, because he's not one of Corbyn's inner clique. Hence the determination to hold on to Shawcroft even though she had been exposed as secretly conspiring to ensure a known Holocaust denier was allowed to be a Labour candidate.

Because if she went, Corbyn and his mates knew it would automatically let Izzard in. Eventually, they had no choice and Shawcroft had to go.

But if you have a problem with how Labour under Corbyn is managing things, then Izzard is much more likely to be on your side than he is on Corbyn's.

"l probably now count as an "outsider" so far as the Labour party. It looks more like a continuation of the Labour party's mission to make itself unelectable."

I don't think Corbyn wants the responsibility of government. He wants to be remembered as the best leader we never had.

I am not in favour of three teenagers pursuing someone - whether trans or not - and mocking what they're wearing. That sounds pretty threatening. I don't understand who you think you're benefitting by arguing this is normal or acceptable behaviour. You can validly argue he shouldn't have been in the ladies' loos, though as I said, given the way he describes it and given the era it occurred, I don't think it's such a serious crime either.

But misogyny??

There may well be lots of misogyny in Labour, but nothing you've presented is an example of it.

I'm open to hearing about real examples - please post.

Don't you see that to the outsider, it might look theres a lot of misogyny within the Labour party?

I probably now count as an "outsider" so far as the Labour party. It looks more like a continuation of the Labour party's mission to make itself unelectable.

Why are you so critical of the school girls alleged behaviour, but so ready to make lots of excuses for the man's behaviour?

Don't you see that to the outsider, it might look theres a lot of misogyny within the Labour party? The Labour party, after all must have read his book and thought his actions were acceptable, otherwise why let him be a candidate?

LostArt - seriously???

You think it is suitable, nay apparently inevitable behaviour, that if you see a transvestite, you should follow them home and demand they explain what they're wearing?

WTF?!

I repeat, you seriously are not doing the side you purport to support any favours here at ALL.

He might well be a dick. He's a celebrity comedian. Though the fact that some anonymous poster says he is on the internet is not exactly proof.

I agree that he shouldn't have been in women's loos, though he was dressed as a woman (when he went in) and can see that I probably wouldn't have fancied my chances going into a men's public toilets dressed as a woman in Islington in 1980-something. Nothing in what he wrote suggested he did it in order to 'validate himself', as JigglyTuff put it - that seems to come from your imagination. It comes straight after a section where he talks about his fear, so that is at least as likely a reason for his choosing not to brave Islington men back in 1980-something. Islington then, by the way, was a long, long way from the posh, gentrified area it now is - it wasn't multi-million pound houses and lattes, it was extremely down at heel and notorious for its council estates and crime.

And the whole issue of which sex toilets you use just wasn't something I ever remember people discussing until about 2 years ago. I guess he put his own safety before worrying if he'd frighten anyone else in the toilets at the time, but to be fair he makes it very clear he was desperately hoping there'd be no-one in there, he wasn't hoping to intimidate anyone. I daresay these days he'd think more about which toilets to use, because it's something that's talked more about and no, for the record, I have no idea whether he is in favour of using female toilets now.

Again, I just find it odd that this piece, exploring an interview published last year, is being discussed on the very day Izzard takes over from Christine Shawcroft, who is indisputably guilty of far, far worse.

"if I was scared by finding a man in the public loos, I wouldn't follow him home to demand he explained his clothing choices to me."

So how should those girls have behaved?

Eddie izzard had no need to be in that toilet. He was there, if it happened at all, because he wanted to be there. He didn't care that anyone there might feel his presence alarming. And he was disgusted that girls might challenge him. Not just girls, but bad girls, the wrong sort of girls who would skip school. He thought that then, he thinks that now. That's the man you are defending.

I think I might have met him once, and he was a dick.

Just saying.

@incorrigiblyplural - as I wrote on the last thread, if you know Highbury Corner, Izzard alleges they pursued him across the park and across three separate sets of traffic lights. I find that extraordinarily hard to believe.

Say there is a kernel of truth in there, I can believe they challenged him and took the piss. By why wouldn't they? He was a bloke in the women's toilets. They were already in there. Rather than deciding to use the men's when he saw there were teenage girls in there, he continued to place his needs to validate himself above their discomfort.

incorrigiblyplural
What Izzard shows is a lack of hindsight that it was him that was in the wrong, he had no place being in those female toilets, that's the point. He showed a complete lack of respect for those girls by being there on the first place. He was 23, these were young teenage girls......