Eddie Izzard - "these arguments will drift away".

Asparagus is reputed to be an aphrodisiac.

So no.

I can’t imagine that Eddie ever troubles himself to think about transmen.

"We know we are a mixture: XX and XY, not XX and YY. We start in the foetus as girls and some get coded boys".

Thinking about it, this also means that Eddie thinks being a TW is a real genetic thing that involves really being female, but XX women cannot be men (as they have no Y). So TM are not M. Which is.... terribly transphobic.

I would not eat it with a spoon
I would not eat it on the moon

In vinaigrette?

I, for one, will not be eating poached salmon with new potatoes and steamed Eddie Izzard. No matter how he is dressed.

A quick google shows that asparagus has XX and XY chromosomes. By his logic, does that mean EI is asparagus?

I just think he is a few mints short of tin these days. And that is a shame because he was once rather funny. Whatever is going on for him is one thing, but the externalising of it is quite another. It seems a bit desperate

Bloody hell, he couldn't know less about genetics if he tried. And his logic is seriously lacking too. If men being XY means they're somehow partly female (though of course it really DOESN'T mean that), then that would be true of all men, so there would be nothing "trans", non-male or less male about Eddie.

I get it...girl foetus is the norm, helpful, collegiate, neat and tidy, caring, feathers the nest.
Boy rebels against the norm of female foetus, arrogantly and aggressively fighting wars and beating women, lying and conniving, hunter gathering.
Eddie was always that girl foetus, he was always into short skirts and knee length boots, just like Freda Wallace, both of them hate they became those caricatures called boys/men.
Now they're regressed back to his true original gender, girl foetus.

The only thing that rings true amongst this total bollocks (sorry Freda, but if you will sit that way...) is the foetus bit, and the fact that Eddie is arguing his point as if his IQ was that of a foetus, girl or otherwise.

Sad eyes of Eddie's O level biology teacher

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4912423-eddie-izzard-interview-with-salon

'we know that, that, in the fetus, everyone's a girl in the fetus'

I've not RTFT and certainly CBA to listen to Eddie pontificating.

But hopefully the arguments will drift away as rational people see the idiotic, scientific illiteracy of him and his ilk, accept that humans can't change sex, and realise that people can just be themselves regardless of oldfashioned 'gendering'. Eddie had it right first time, they weren't womens frocks they were just his frocks.

Ffs

This is non scientific garbage

Lol what.

An X chromosome doesn't mean you have a latent girl mode just waiting to be activated, Eddie.

Arnold Schwarzenegger has as many X chromosomes as you do.

This is what actors do. They reinterpret stuff. In this case, Eddie the actor (cos)playing the Eddie female role, is reinterpreting Eddie the gender non conforming male person.

He's been doing it for a while...his well worn story where as a teen he was chased out of the Ladies by some teenage girls, here again he's reinterpreting these girls acting naturally as some sort of bullies or transphobes. I'm sure they love a man attempting to eliminate their agency.

The whole of TRA is acting, there's some sort of kismet that an actual actor would be the most prominent trans person the public knows (way more than Lia Thomas), alongside, yes another actor, Dylan Mulvaney.

Eddie's whole life is now an act, whether this breaking the fourth wall Jeckyll and Hyde role, or breaking the actual walls of women's spaces as he queues up to use the Ladies at the National Theatre.

The original film is rather witty and entertaining, with the excellent Martine Beswick. Though it does have nudity.

I wouldn't bother with the remake.

www.theguardian.com/film/2023/oct/26/eddie-izzard-why-wouldnt-you-take-me-seriously-given-everything-ive-done-in-my-life

Eddie rewriting history about coming out as trans many years ago.

Eddie, dear boy, we've just been watching that great female humanitarian Freda Wallace spit venom at Helen Joyce at the IEA "debate".

Amongst millions of other reasons, and now most recently on the basis of watching Wallace's disdain and hate of women, no way is this existential argument "drifting away".

It's only a very short review but glad Bradshaw was professional enough to keep it to the film and not shoehorn in a load of identity politics. Very few at the Guardian wouldn't make sure their personal opinions took up most of the space. Seemed to avoid using pronouns for Izzard as well (necessary for the character near the end). Smart, as again it keeps it all about the film - although comments are closed anyway? What a surprise.

I'm not even averse to the premise - it could have been good, campy horror fun in a way. But Bradshaw's review confirms my own suspicions from the trailer about it missing the mark. The thing may be Izzard doesn't have the sense of humour anymore to pull something like this off.

Self-indulgent and uncaring to anyone but himself. Who does that remind me of?

Wikipedia's summary of the plot of the original book:

'Jekyll's letter explains he held himself to strict moral standards publicly, but indulged in unstated vices and struggled with shame. He found a way to transform himself and thereby indulge his vices without fear of detection.

Jekyll's transformed body, Hyde, was evil, self-indulgent, and uncaring to anyone but himself. Initially, Jekyll controlled the transformations with the serum, but one night in August, he became Hyde involuntarily in his sleep.'