Trans woman in Riot Women! WTF?

[OneBadKitty]

I usually love anything by Sally Wainwright, but what was she thinking by have a trans-woman in a band called Riot Women that is supposed to be full of menopausal women singing about HRT and other female related issues?

So you're not going to watch a really good show just because one of the supporting characters gets about 10 min of attention? Only because said character is trans? It's not even made much of to be honest (in fact the character in question is reluctant to join the band on stage but has to step in because something happens to one of the bandmates). Trans people are human beings and very much a part of society, like it or not. Boycotting anything that features or mentions them is ridiculously extreme.

So you’re saying that representations of trans people being accepted by society can’t be shown on tv or in the media?

You clearly don't know the place well. Yes, Hebden has more 'alternative' people than the average small market town and has reason to be known as 'the lesbian capital of the UK', but having lived here most of my life I can state categorically that there is only one pervert transwoman who insists on parading around in a mini skirt and pop socks. And he could easily be one of the many frequent tourists.
As for Riot Women, I've watched it all and enjoyed it, but I think YANBU and I hope that the trans character doesn't appear in any later series. He irks me but in no way is the character made to 'pass', he is an obvious bloke in a dress, the part is tiny and the other band members barely acknowledge him so it's actually a reflection of real life, where women are expected to tolerate this shit and #BeKind. I'd love to think that this is what SW means to convey.

Of course they can. But if the intent of the representation is to endorse the nonsense that men are women if they say are, you can expect that nonsense will be widely criticised.

So you are criticising something that actually happens in RL, i.e. people being trans inclusive. You can do that, you can disagree with it, but it is an unpleasant look.

I don't see it as 'endorsing' anything. I see it as a representation of things that actually happen in RL, because not everyone is trans exclusive. Are you saying that any positive representation of transwomen in the media is an automatic endorsement of TWAW? Because that is a very simplistic take. Life is shades of grey.

@BeanQuisine It's perfectly realistic that a family and a community gets along fine with a trans woman, calls her by her name and uses her preferred pronouns.

I would gently suggest that the science of transgenderism (if that's a word) is not yet fully understood. We really don't know why some men and some women identify as being, respectively, women and men. Perhaps one day we will understand, and that society evolves so that we can treat everyone with respect and maintain safety for everyone. I certainly hope so.

I think you’ve just contradicted yourself in that comment. I don’t think this instance of representation challenges or threatens my sex based rights. A sense of proportionality is needed here and none of us know what the writer’s intentions are.

It's not at all unpleasant to defend a scientifically realistic view of the world, and to defend women's sex-based rights.

You find it unpleasant, presumably because of the cognitive dissonance that comes from maintaining your misogynist perspective, in which men (and particularly entitled and arrogant men, at that) should be free to cancel women's rights, while fully appropriating and redefining "what it means to be female".

@BeanQuisine what about F2M trans?

You haven't identified any contradiction in my comment.

And yours is the "disproportionate" stance - that if GC/sex realist people criticise a TV show of this kind, that means we think "representations of trans people being accepted by society can’t be shown on tv or in the media".

How is my perspecgtive misogynist? I have never said transwomen are anything but transwomen. However, that does not mean that I feel it is acceptable to deny them the basic courtesies of using the names they have chosen for themselves. It also does not mean that I feel they should not be represented in the media in any way but the negative.

I've met too many transwomen to think of them collectively as entitled and arrogant. I've also never felt threatened by a transwoman in a toilet. On the other hand I have been aggressively challenged by women for being in the bathroom appropriate to my sex (bio female) because I don't present in a way that is acceptably feminine to them.

It is this divisive black and white view of the world that puts me off being GC.

Right, the usual narrative on here is that trans women are space invading perverts so they're not Ok (before anyone comes at me, someone even mentioned the one trans woman they know on this thread with the word pervert like this pervert crossed out (people can still see it and know what you're implying about a whole group of people)
Whereas when it comes to trans men they're ok, as they're just lost, confused, women who needs saving from themselves and others out to "get them."

I think it's logical that we should think you believe that trans people being accepted by society can't be shown in the media, since all the criticism of this programme from GC people on this thread has focused exclusively on this point. If you were criticising the script, the soundtrack, the acting etc. it would be different - but 100% of the focus is on this one character who is trans. So why would we think otherwise?

"Transmen" don't threaten women's rights in the way that "transwomen" do, but obviously there's much GC/sex realist criticism of that side of the TRA movement too, especially regarding their tragic exploitation of vulnerable adolescent girls, a situation that has reached epidemic proportions in many places.

Called it! As if a woman can't possibly know her own mind.

One can easily imagine a drama portraying men being accepted as women by "trans-inclusive" women but from a critical perspective, in which the folly and danger of such a stance is at least hinted at.

But again, I'm sure everyone here accepts that writers and producers are free to present ideas and perspectives that we may disagree with - as long as everyone also accepts that we should all be free to criticise such productions if we feel they deserve it.

Read it again: none of us know what the writers’ intentions are. I wasn’t taking a stance, I was giving my opinion.

Not everyone agrees that this stance is one of 'folly and danger'. Because not everyone believes that all transwomen are dangerous predators.

Anyway, that's my shift over, I'm off to read and relax.

Nobody suggested that "everyone agrees" - it's obvious that we don't.

But reason, science and justice are on the side of the GC/sex realists.

Likewise you're not going to implode if women publicly say why they won't watch it

That’s a big claim. It’s too boring to hear your justification of all of that, but just be careful you don’t start to sound like a Nazi.

You can be reasonable, scientific and just without judging an entire group of people by the actions of a few of their number.

Where is your evidence for saying exploitation of girls has reached epidemic proportions?