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?

I have no idea what I meant! Was typing and heard ominous crash from upstairs so had to run.. have established toddler dc in training for pole jump...

Is it not using a trans woman to represent a trans woman ? I have my own doubts about some aspects of trans ideology but have absolutely no problem with SW choosing to include a trans character. It doesn’t detract from the main arc of the story unless you want it to.

In a programme about menopause?

There are lots other male characters too - does that bother you? It's not like all other characters are menopausal women then there's one bloke and he's a TIM.

Have you even watched it? It is so plainly about more than menopause. Family, community, police violence, mental health, child sex abuse & adoption are among the other themes. A trans person can be just as much part of a family & community as anyone else.

Nope, the songs in Riot Women were written by Brighton duo Arxx.

Me too.

I haven’t watched it yet. Do the other characters know that this is a man who identifies as a woman? Or is it played as if it is actually a woman?
If the character is a man who identifies as a woman then there’s no problem far as I’m concerned; as others have said, I would think that’s representative of Hebden Bridge. If the character is supposed to be a woman, but he’s being played by a man who says he’s a woman, that is a problem for me because it’s taken away a role that should’ve gone to a woman.

Why not watch it & form your own judgement? This thread is already full of posters with strong opinions about a programme they’ve never even watched.

Wait, What's that noise I hear? Is it the dulcet tone of a virtue signaling flag?....

Well, I’ve said what my opinion would be if it was one thing and what my opinion would be if it was the other. In other words, I know what my judgement is in either scenario, I just need to know what the situation is.

Are you aware of the concept of an informed opinion?

I binge watched it over two nights, I thought it was brilliant.

Ooh I do love a patronising/high-handed little question 😄
I'm asking whether the character (as opposed to the actor) is a woman or a TIM. It’s a simple principle: I’ve no problem with a TIM playing a TIM, definite problem with a TIM playing a woman.
I’d just like someone on here to say which it is.

This is a minor character and I’m not sure how it could be written specifically as a trans woman without then becoming about that. Sally Wainwright is also the director so I think she’s made her intentions clear by casting a trans woman in the role.

Well, there could be a brief conversation about the character having transitioned. It wouldn’t necessarily make the thing ‘about’ trans people any more than it’s about menopausal women or everyday sexism; they’re all part of the show - it’s about a lot of things.

There’s no conversation about them being trans, they just very obviously are trans.

Why not watch and find out for yourself?

The ‘trans character’ is just a person. Not the devil, not the bogeyman, not the downfall of western civilisation. Just a human person who is trans.

I am going to watch it; I just haven’t yet. I imagined (more fool me, clearly) that if I asked about it in the meantime someone might say, ‘Yes, there’s a bit where two characters talk about the person having transitioned’ or ‘No, it seems to be written and played as if the characters believe this person to be a woman, and so it looks like the viewer is supposed to accept that a man is a woman.’
I’m interested in your use of disproportionately dramatic/inflammatory language.
As I’ve said, if the character is supposed to be a woman, then they’ve cast a man and therefore taken a role away from a woman. Which I have a problem with.
But obviously I didn’t use words like ‘devil’, ‘bogeyman’ or ‘downfall of western civilisation’. And yet you seem to think that’s what I think. Why is that?

Why are you so very concerned about a minor character in a series you haven’t watched - that seems disproportionately dramatic

It was women’s lived experience of those things. It was totally framed in how these things distinctively impact women. Why would you claim most viewers saw it through your lens? Beth was nearly 60 with a lifetime of doing what is usually women’s work and no-one was grateful or gave a fuck. She was seen as an annoyance or ignored. Kitty was raped at 12. Sorry to break it to you but only women could be raped at 12 and become pregnant and then have baby and have it adopted. It’s distinctive to women.

I'm 2 eps in and though it whiffs a bit of shoe horning all the current touchstones issues, I'm on board nonetheless.

In this day and age though, people could say they are women but mean "women" - so I assume you mean they are bio women. I guess I thought someone called Ben Foster had taken credit for them all.

I thought it was great. The trans character played a very minor part anyway but so what!

I just feel it must have been obvious to everyone on set and backing this that putting a man in a cast where they all have life experience of being a woman as being relevant to the plot was going to turn into a discussion about why they did that? It's the whole point of having a show about women, that it doesn't turn into one about men. For once. So why put a man in it in a dress and expect no one to bring it up? Has anyone asked Sally?