Oh wow, I didnt expect so many replies! I have emailed the culture desk and the guardian editorial desk, saying this:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to express my deep concern and anger at the publication of today's interview with Eddie Izzard, in the context of this week's shocking events around women's safety and murder rates.
I wish to state firstly that I have the greatest respect for Eddie Izzard's right to live and identify in a way that is authentic. This is in no way a complaint about the subject of the interview, their identity or their right to present and talk about it as they wish.
My concern is related to the Guardian's Editorial Code area 5 - intrusion into grief or shock.
This week has seen a collectively appalled response to the brutal murder of Sarah Everard, alongside the (annual) reading of the Counting Dead Women femicide list in Parliament. As shown on the front page of the Guardian today, women across the UK are frightened, shocked and griefstricken at the way in which our lives are governed by male violence, regardless of our self-identity. Juxtaposing this coverage on the front page alongside a headline that Eddie Izzard 'has always had boob envy' and then later - presumably after complaints were made - changed to 'I've been promoted to she - it's an honour', is at best tone-deaf and at worst evidence of the Guardian's total disregard for the issues that women face in public life.
The interview itself then contains two sections which I feel are particularly concerning, given this week's events and public outpouring of shock. Firstly:
'For her first half century, boy mode had dominated, and now it was time for girl mode to take centre stage, but on occasions she would still like the freedom to be a he. She soon discovered that wasn’t an option, though.'
The implication here is that somehow the perceived inability to switch between 'boy mode' and 'girl mode' in the eyes of others is of concern. Perhaps on another day this is a discussion to be had. But when the headlines are dominated by pictures of women - and girls (because adult females are women, not girls) who have been abused and slaughtered because of their position as females in a misogynistic society, it is offensive to suggest that self-identity defines or influences public perception of sex. If this were the case, the women on the front page of your paper could have avoided death by identifying as men.
The second section refers to dealing with abuse and harassment. Eddie Izzard, and no transperson, should have to deal with harassment or abuse because of the way they present or are perceived by others. It is unacceptable. However, I am again concerned by the below quote with regard to ways of dealing with street harassment.
“I was the right person to come out because if people were going to hurl abuse at me in the streets, as they have done, I would hurl it back. Sometimes it would just be us standing in the street swapping abuse or if they fight me, I’ll fight them back.”
My concern stems from the unquestioned way this is presented in the interview, as if this is a perfectly normal, reasonable response for a womandealing with harassment (given that Eddie Izzard is referred to as a woman throughout the interview). As this week has shown us, it is not. Women's behaviour in public is subject to constant scrutiny and the suggestion that we can or should - if we are 'feisty' enough - fight back is yet another way of expecting women to make changes to deal with men's poor behaviour.
I appreciate that questions around gender identity cause high emotion. The Guardian has made clear over the last few years its editorial position on this. It may be one I personally disagree with, but generally speaking it is important that all sides are publicised. However, the publication of this interview on this day in particular and containing the above references, is offensive to all female victims of male harassment and violence. Which, as we know, is approximately 100% of women