Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Has anyone seen the movie Conclave and would be happy to talk about the ending with me

84 replies

Philodendrine · 26/01/2025 12:10

I looked for a thread but am not very good with the search function so if there's one already please let me know. I hope it's OK to ask this question here; I know there are some v knowledgeable posters and have followed various threads over the years and learned quite a bit.

I'm interested in whether the ending of Conclave (in particular, the new Pope's genetic make-up and appearance combination) is actually possible. My understanding from watching the film is that s/he was said to be chromosomally female (so I assume XX) but appearance had been unclear at birth, had been raised male and outward appearance is consistent with that (masculine features, low voice) but had found out in adulthood they had a uterus and ovaries.

My very limited understanding of DSDs is that if there is a voice that's broken / masculine body shape consistent with male puberty, then there must be testes of some kind (whether fully formed/descended or not) or otherwise there wouldn't be testosterone to effect those puberty type changes. So having a XX dsd and uterus/ovaries wouldn't work for that scenario I wouldn't have thought.

I read somewhere that the movie differed from the book in that the book said they had a vagina (not ovaries/uterus) - which I think could work, because an outwardly apparent 'vagina' but internal male organs and an XY DSD could still produce the outward male face/voice/body appearance. But to me the movie version doesn't seem to work. Can anyone with any better knowledge than mine tell me if I'm misunderstanding things?

OP posts:
DeepFatFried · 26/01/2025 20:46

YourAmplePlumPoster · 26/01/2025 19:27

It's a movie and speaking as an ex Catholic, it will never happen. It's just Hollywood trying to push the "trans" agenda.

I didn’t think they were pushing a trans moment.

After all the material / storylines about the oppression of women in the church I thought it was a subversive moment about women in the Catholic Church. As in ‘hah! For all your misogyny and discrimination you now have a female born person, if only you knew it’.

woollyhatter · 26/01/2025 20:40

As a medievalist, it just made me laugh in the cinema as the Protestants came up with a similar aprocrypha 500 years ago as fun stick to beat Roman Catholics with. They wrote pamphlets about the corruption of the Catholic church going back to the ninth century where they accidentally put a female pope on the throne in the ninth century, who of course got pregnant and got tossed into the Tiber when the Curia found out.

The pamphlet writers claimed after that cock up the papal throne has a hole in the seat so a cardinal can to an inspection to ensure any pope is intact. So when I saw the twist I just shrugged my shoulders at the progressive version of this “shocker”.

Pope Joan’s bawdy story is recounted in a novel by Lawrence Durrell as well as in a play Top Girls by Carol Churchill.

GrumpyMenopausalWombWielder · 26/01/2025 20:33

It struck me as a claim of DSD but through the trans fantasy lense, using someone else's health issue as a prop for their own ideological 'make believe' agenda. It was such a poor ending.

I saw the film in an early preview so couldn't talk about it (as no one else had seen it) but it was enormously frustrating cos I called bullshit as soon as the reveal came up. Up until that point, I was really enjoying it, the music was so good in building the tension & atmosphere, the acting was fantastic, & I just felt robbed by the ending. I prefer films when you can suspend disbelief, and get engrossed in the drama. And it had me all the way through until that crap ending.

It's like the bullshit you hear on sci-fi films which you know is bollocks but if the actor or the script is good enough, you let it slide & just let the nonsense wash over you. The fantasy DSD that made no sense just burst that bubble I was in, enjoying the film & keen to finally get the big reveal.

I'm still annoyed by it 😁

YourAmplePlumPoster · 26/01/2025 19:27

It's a movie and speaking as an ex Catholic, it will never happen. It's just Hollywood trying to push the "trans" agenda.

fanOfBen · 26/01/2025 18:10

I've seen it and I agree, no sense. Obviously male-normal levels of testosterone, plus a uterus (did they even say overies, I forget)? Some kind of mosaicism? I don't think that works - how do you have both a uterus and testes, how do the connections work? "Authors just decided intersex means pick your own adventure" seems more plausible than there really being an explanation.

Mila6464 · 26/01/2025 17:21

I don't think they worried about the biological realities of someone presenting as a masculine man while having female organs internally. It was the last card to turn over, with regard to modern dilemmas facing the church, after racism, corruption, religious extremism and a sex scandal ruled out other candidates.

RufustheFactuaIReindeer · 26/01/2025 16:21

And yes..very convenient

RufustheFactuaIReindeer · 26/01/2025 16:21

Ive read it but not seen the movie, sounds like they have changed the ending which is bloody annoying

unmemorableusername · 26/01/2025 16:13

I've not seen it but heard about the end.

Yes it sounds like they don't have a clue about DSDs & conveniently got it wrong.