Really? Is it just me who doesn't get the Daniel Craig drag thing?

[Adair]

James Bond. Hardly most enlightened character.

Dressing up as 'a woman' which as we all know involves long hair, lipstick, high heels and a dress .

So an ad for International Womens Day that doesn't actually feature any women (well, the voiceover - but no-one is mentioning that).

(just realised how dodgy my 'some feminists probably actually do hate men' analogy is, particularly as I have seen more evidence of some transwomen being antiwoman and none of some feminists hating men. Can I take it back and replace with 'some women probably do actually hate men' please?)

I presumed they put him in drag momentarily to highlight the false dichotomy the voiceover is referring to.

Whatver a woman is (in this context, expressing it visually as a direct counterpoint to the voiceover that is expressing it factually), is that deserving of the inequality that's still around? DC's expression remains the same. He is the same person, but if he appeared to be a woman, his lot would be different. Sort of questioning why a woman might still be unequal. Because there's nothing to say she's less capable, maybe it's the way she looks, no hang on, that's ridiculous. Isn't that his point?

Maybe I misread it... and I'm probably not explaining myself very well.

Bet Daniel Craigs girlfriend respect him for doing it.
Whatever, i love him and he cant go wrong in my eyes.

I don't understand Twisty's argument, it doesn't make sense to me. Also I don't understand her vision of a world without gender, I don't think that will ever exist and is therefore an argument that is bound to lose and will never gain the approval of the majority of women and men.

An interesting question is how do men see transsexuals? Do men think that MtoF transsexuals are women?

I'm not sure I follow her argument and perhaps it's because I don't feel so strongly about it that I can be bothered to apply myself...

What she doesn't seem to address, is what to do in the here and now, before this marvellous gender-free world. I don't disagree that it would be nice if at some stage none of it really mattered, I think it matters at the moment because many women feel that their voices are being drowned out by members of the privileged class and I think that whether you agree with them or not, you have to take that POV seriously.

That really is an intellectual contortion isn't it.

I think a lot of feminists have to really bend backwards in their thinking to accept trans as female.

It's not like sexuality, where you can argue that we're all on a continuum and some people are further towards one end or the other. You do actually have xx and xy chromosomes. Is she saying these are irrelevant, like eye colour?

Yes but gender's not sex is it?

I thought I was clear on the difference before this...

Surely only a tiny, tiny minority of people are intersex and don't fit into a simple male/female biological divide?

but I understood that the masculinity/femininity thing is not about biological sex, but about gender, which is largely socially determined

What about the menz?

Do they say that men don't exist as well?

Is gender really entirely socially constructed? Is it even possible to completely tease out biology and social influence do you think?