I still have no idea what a “trans” actually is.
Even Stonewall is unable to enlighten me.
Here is their, er, “definition”: https://www.stonewall.org.uk/the-truth-about-trans#know-trans
Q on Stonewall site:
“How does a person know they are trans?”
A on Stonewall site:
“Many people know they’re trans from a young age. Some trans people might not have the language or understanding of what it means to be trans until later in life. Other trans people do not know until they are teenagers or adults. There is no right or wrong way to be trans, but what is clear is that it’s not something that’s a fad or a ‘lifestyle choice’ and that all trans people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. If you aren’t recognised as being the gender you know you are, it’s extremely damaging.”
Clear as mud.
Now try adapting that question for straights and gays – see how clear and simple the answers are:
Q: How does a woman knows she’s straight?
A: She’s sexually attracted to men.
Q: How does a woman know she’s gay?
A: She’s sexually attracted to women.
Q: How does a woman know she’s bisexual?
A: She’s sexually attracted to men and women.
When something actually exists, it’s easy to define.
I defy anyone to read the stonewall “definition” of what a trans person is and tell me what on earth it means.
I take issue with your statement that When something actually exists, it’s easy to define, there are things that exist that are complicated to define. However, this is beside the point – the problem with the Stonewall “definition” is that it is not a definition, it’s not even a simple statement of how being trans manifests itself in the sexual feelings or behaviours of an individual, it is a jumbled justification of Stonewall’s stance of the whole trans issue.
Maybe the reason that sentence doesn’t explain what being trans is, is because it’s not supposed to? It answers how a person knows they’re trans not what being trans means. It even clearly says that in the title of the segment which is “How does a person know they are trans?” and not “Definition of the word Trans”. See things make a lot more sense when you don’t purposefully misinterpret them.
If you want a simpler answer to the question “A person knows they’re Trans because their gender does not match their sex assigned at birth.” The reason stonewalls answer is longer is because it tries to dispell common myths for example the myth that every trans person knows they’re trans from the moment they were able to think.
But judging from your second to last sentence I doubt that you’ll listen to reason as you seem to have already made up your mind so I’m mostly typing this out to highlight your flawed arguments to others reading through the comments here.
I take issue with your statement that When something actually exists, it’s easy to define, there are things that exist that are complicated to define. However, this is beside the point – the problem with the Stonewall “definition” is that it is not a definition, it’s not even a simple statement of how being trans manifests itself in the sexual feelings or behaviours of an individual, it is a jumbled justification of Stonewall’s stance of the whole trans issue.
Maybe the reason that sentence doesn’t explain what being trans is, is because it’s not supposed to? It answers how a person knows they’re trans not what being trans means. It even clearly says that in the title of the segment which is “How does a person know they are trans?” and not “Definition of the word Trans”. See things make a lot more sense when you don’t purposefully misinterpret them.
If you want a simpler answer to the question “A person knows they’re Trans because their gender does not match their sex assigned at birth.” The reason stonewalls answer is longer is because it tries to dispell common myths for example the myth that every trans person knows they’re trans from the moment they were able to think.
But judging from your second to last sentence I doubt that you’ll listen to reason as you seem to have already made up your mind so I’m mostly typing this out to highlight your flawed arguments to others reading through the comments here.
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
I still have no idea what a “trans” actually is.
Even Stonewall is unable to enlighten me.
Here is their, er, “definition”: https://www.stonewall.org.uk/the-truth-about-trans#know-trans
Q on Stonewall site:
“How does a person know they are trans?”
A on Stonewall site:
“Many people know they’re trans from a young age. Some trans people might not have the language or understanding of what it means to be trans until later in life. Other trans people do not know until they are teenagers or adults. There is no right or wrong way to be trans, but what is clear is that it’s not something that’s a fad or a ‘lifestyle choice’ and that all trans people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. If you aren’t recognised as being the gender you know you are, it’s extremely damaging.”
Clear as mud.
Now try adapting that question for straights and gays – see how clear and simple the answers are:
Q: How does a woman knows she’s straight?
A: She’s sexually attracted to men.
Q: How does a woman know she’s gay?
A: She’s sexually attracted to women.
Q: How does a woman know she’s bisexual?
A: She’s sexually attracted to men and women.
When something actually exists, it’s easy to define.
I defy anyone to read the stonewall “definition” of what a trans person is and tell me what on earth it means.
Steve Murray
1 year ago
I’d imagine this article represents something of a niche subject as far as Comments is concerned. I think it’s important though, not least since Pakistani communities here in the UK (and probably elsewhere in the West) tend to take their mores from their home country. I was struck, having worked with many Pakistanis in healthcare, how many still refer to Pakistan as “home”. So anything which allows for greater understanding between communities is to be welcomed.
This isn’t about pushing an aggressive trans agenda, but simply about the right of trans people to live in peace in a civilised society. It should be said that the trans lobby we witness in action has become a hindrance rather than a help to trans people.
Not having seen the film, i can’t comment on whether it gets this balance right. It would seem so, if passing at least some censors in Pakistan and with the writer of this article at pains to point out it’s not the primary focus of the film, which appears to be the treatment of Pakistani women as second class citizens, itself an even more important hindrance to social integration.
Like you, I haven’t seen the film and probably won’t. On the surface it does seem a niche issue but it speaks powerfully to how progressive obsessions with minority issues, affecting trivial numbers of people, are now actively hindering efforts in less developed societies to deal with inequities that impact the lives of huge numbers.
The rights of women, actual gay people and all types of religious minorities are fairly non-existent in Pakistan so it is a bit rich that a film that is so feted in western countries deals with the tiniest of these minorities. It may not be widely known but like Iran, the Pakistani government actually promotes surgical transition for its gay men and passed a landmark trans rights law in 2018 which is considered very progressive by transactivists. Traditionally given the seclusion of women, transwomen were used in entertainment and the sex industry. Transwomen straddle two worlds and have much greater ease of movement compared to the average Pakistani woman.
As it happens, i’m aware of the issues with females in Pakistan.
You’ve actually missed the point of the article, which is that the trans issue it just a minor part of the film, despite what the film buffs have taken as being their preferred issue. Instead, as the article clearly points out, the film deals with the major issue of women’s rights in Pakistan.
Audiences can judge for themselves what’s important. You should therefore welcome the film, rather than describing something which you’ve misjudged as “a bit rich”.
As it happens, i’m aware of the issues with females in Pakistan.
You’ve actually missed the point of the article, which is that the trans issue it just a minor part of the film, despite what the film buffs have taken as being their preferred issue. Instead, as the article clearly points out, the film deals with the major issue of women’s rights in Pakistan.
Audiences can judge for themselves what’s important. You should therefore welcome the film, rather than describing something which you’ve misjudged as “a bit rich”.
Like you, I haven’t seen the film and probably won’t. On the surface it does seem a niche issue but it speaks powerfully to how progressive obsessions with minority issues, affecting trivial numbers of people, are now actively hindering efforts in less developed societies to deal with inequities that impact the lives of huge numbers.
The rights of women, actual gay people and all types of religious minorities are fairly non-existent in Pakistan so it is a bit rich that a film that is so feted in western countries deals with the tiniest of these minorities. It may not be widely known but like Iran, the Pakistani government actually promotes surgical transition for its gay men and passed a landmark trans rights law in 2018 which is considered very progressive by transactivists. Traditionally given the seclusion of women, transwomen were used in entertainment and the sex industry. Transwomen straddle two worlds and have much greater ease of movement compared to the average Pakistani woman.
Steve Murray
1 year ago
I’d imagine this article represents something of a niche subject as far as Comments is concerned. I think it’s important though, not least since Pakistani communities here in the UK (and probably elsewhere in the West) tend to take their mores from their home country. I was struck, having worked with many Pakistanis in healthcare, how many still refer to Pakistan as “home”. So anything which allows for greater understanding between communities is to be welcomed.
This isn’t about pushing an aggressive trans agenda, but simply about the right of trans people to live in peace in a civilised society. It should be said that the trans lobby we witness in action has become a hindrance rather than a help to trans people.
Not having seen the film, i can’t comment on whether it gets this balance right. It would seem so, if passing at least some censors in Pakistan and with the writer of this article at pains to point out it’s not the primary focus of the film, which appears to be the treatment of Pakistani women as second class citizens, itself an even more important hindrance to social integration.
Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
David McKee
1 year ago
Mr. Murray says that this piece is something of a niche subject. And so it is, for about 1bn Westerners. For the 7bn non-Westerners, it is anything but niche. For them, having to deal with the preoccupations and hypocrisies of the West is an everyday problem, and a problem they could well do without.
We Westerners occupy a privileged position in non-Western imaginations, and it’s a position we don’t deserve. This has nothing to do with colonialism, and everything to do with us being imperfect human beings.
Our relative wealth allows us to dominate the airwaves. Thus, our opinions, good, bad and indifferent, are hard to ignore. People like Ms. Husain wish we would shut up once in a while. It’s hard to disagree.
Mr. McKee has misinterpreted (wilfully?) my comment.
The “niche subject” i was referring to was the film itself, not the publicity and discussions which surround it.
Interestingly, only 8 comments (by mid-afternoon, UK time) seem to confirm my description.
Mr. Murray – I meant no personal slight. In fact, I thought I was agreeing with you!
Your point about seeing Pakistan as home is relevant, and important. Is this attitude confined to the emigrants themselves, or is it leaching into their British-born descendants?
Mr. Murray – I meant no personal slight. In fact, I thought I was agreeing with you!
Your point about seeing Pakistan as home is relevant, and important. Is this attitude confined to the emigrants themselves, or is it leaching into their British-born descendants?
Mr. McKee has misinterpreted (wilfully?) my comment.
The “niche subject” i was referring to was the film itself, not the publicity and discussions which surround it.
Interestingly, only 8 comments (by mid-afternoon, UK time) seem to confirm my description.
David McKee
1 year ago
Mr. Murray says that this piece is something of a niche subject. And so it is, for about 1bn Westerners. For the 7bn non-Westerners, it is anything but niche. For them, having to deal with the preoccupations and hypocrisies of the West is an everyday problem, and a problem they could well do without.
We Westerners occupy a privileged position in non-Western imaginations, and it’s a position we don’t deserve. This has nothing to do with colonialism, and everything to do with us being imperfect human beings.
Our relative wealth allows us to dominate the airwaves. Thus, our opinions, good, bad and indifferent, are hard to ignore. People like Ms. Husain wish we would shut up once in a while. It’s hard to disagree.
TERRY JESSOP
1 year ago
Sorry for being basic here, but if I am reading an article about a movie I like a rough hint as to what the plot of the movie is. I get that it’s about a trans person, but is this person in the movie played by the actor on the left of the accompanying photo (who appears to be an attractive woman, although maybe she is really a natal male who thinks she/he is a woman). Or is it the actor on the right (who looks like a regular bloke). Either way I think I might be giving this movie a miss.
TERRY JESSOP
1 year ago
Sorry for being basic here, but if I am reading an article about a movie I like a rough hint as to what the plot of the movie is. I get that it’s about a trans person, but is this person in the movie played by the actor on the left of the accompanying photo (who appears to be an attractive woman, although maybe she is really a natal male who thinks she/he is a woman). Or is it the actor on the right (who looks like a regular bloke). Either way I think I might be giving this movie a miss.
Jason Highley
1 year ago
It’s all so tiresome.
Jason Highley
1 year ago
It’s all so tiresome.
Mary Garner
1 year ago
A simple point I am tired of the abbreviation LGBT
Adding T is forced teaming trans is a huge umbrella term which is largely manufactured
Non trans women and cis are also plain insults
Not seen film yet but seems Western critics are looking at through reductionist lens so yawn
Last edited 1 year ago by Mary Garner
Mary Garner
1 year ago
A simple point I am tired of the abbreviation LGBT
Adding T is forced teaming trans is a huge umbrella term which is largely manufactured
Non trans women and cis are also plain insults
Not seen film yet but seems Western critics are looking at through reductionist lens so yawn
Last edited 1 year ago by Mary Garner
Marissa M
1 year ago
Can’t blame the West for everything.
Pakistan made the movie….
Marissa M
1 year ago
Can’t blame the West for everything.
Pakistan made the movie….
mike otter
1 year ago
You’ve got to feel sorry for the Pakistani people – they have been as cruelly used by Western countries pre and post 1948 as they have by their own leaders: 1940s -present: Proxies against India and particularly Indian communists. 1950s > Cheap labour in UK. 70s > target practice for cops and skinheads. 90s > scapegoats for Jihadism and now proxies for the TQI brigade and their far left fellow travellers. I write from a town where Urdu is the most common language and Pakistani the largest of our population groups by ethnic origin. I think it’s their strong work ethic, natural honesty and Chinese levels of respect for Family above all that causes envy, which breeds spite, which breeds lies and so on. What do the leftists in UK (or Cannes) care for gay or trans people who may get battered in Islamabad because of their virtue signalling? The same SFA that Mountbatten cared when Hindu gangs burned Moslems alive on trains in 1948. (Not that he cared anymore for Indians killed in that conflict). A late friend of mine who came over as a child in 1950 remarked when the leftist/al qaeda/grooming gang axis was forming in the 90s: “My father brought us 5000 miles from Port Qasim to escape these primitives and now they are following us!”
Last edited 1 year ago by mike otter
mike otter
1 year ago
You’ve got to feel sorry for the Pakistani people – they have been as cruelly used by Western countries pre and post 1948 as they have by their own leaders: 1940s -present: Proxies against India and particularly Indian communists. 1950s > Cheap labour in UK. 70s > target practice for cops and skinheads. 90s > scapegoats for Jihadism and now proxies for the TQI brigade and their far left fellow travellers. I write from a town where Urdu is the most common language and Pakistani the largest of our population groups by ethnic origin. I think it’s their strong work ethic, natural honesty and Chinese levels of respect for Family above all that causes envy, which breeds spite, which breeds lies and so on. What do the leftists in UK (or Cannes) care for gay or trans people who may get battered in Islamabad because of their virtue signalling? The same SFA that Mountbatten cared when Hindu gangs burned Moslems alive on trains in 1948. (Not that he cared anymore for Indians killed in that conflict). A late friend of mine who came over as a child in 1950 remarked when the leftist/al qaeda/grooming gang axis was forming in the 90s: “My father brought us 5000 miles from Port Qasim to escape these primitives and now they are following us!”
I still have no idea what a “trans” actually is.
Even Stonewall is unable to enlighten me.
Here is their, er, “definition”:
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/the-truth-about-trans#know-trans
Q on Stonewall site:
“How does a person know they are trans?”
A on Stonewall site:
“Many people know they’re trans from a young age. Some trans people might not have the language or understanding of what it means to be trans until later in life. Other trans people do not know until they are teenagers or adults. There is no right or wrong way to be trans, but what is clear is that it’s not something that’s a fad or a ‘lifestyle choice’ and that all trans people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. If you aren’t recognised as being the gender you know you are, it’s extremely damaging.”
Clear as mud.
Now try adapting that question for straights and gays – see how clear and simple the answers are:
Q: How does a woman knows she’s straight?
A: She’s sexually attracted to men.
Q: How does a woman know she’s gay?
A: She’s sexually attracted to women.
Q: How does a woman know she’s bisexual?
A: She’s sexually attracted to men and women.
When something actually exists, it’s easy to define.
I defy anyone to read the stonewall “definition” of what a trans person is and tell me what on earth it means.
I take issue with your statement that When something actually exists, it’s easy to define, there are things that exist that are complicated to define. However, this is beside the point – the problem with the Stonewall “definition” is that it is not a definition, it’s not even a simple statement of how being trans manifests itself in the sexual feelings or behaviours of an individual, it is a jumbled justification of Stonewall’s stance of the whole trans issue.
Maybe the reason that sentence doesn’t explain what being trans is, is because it’s not supposed to? It answers how a person knows they’re trans not what being trans means. It even clearly says that in the title of the segment which is “How does a person know they are trans?” and not “Definition of the word Trans”. See things make a lot more sense when you don’t purposefully misinterpret them.
If you want a simpler answer to the question “A person knows they’re Trans because their gender does not match their sex assigned at birth.” The reason stonewalls answer is longer is because it tries to dispell common myths for example the myth that every trans person knows they’re trans from the moment they were able to think.
But judging from your second to last sentence I doubt that you’ll listen to reason as you seem to have already made up your mind so I’m mostly typing this out to highlight your flawed arguments to others reading through the comments here.
I take issue with your statement that When something actually exists, it’s easy to define, there are things that exist that are complicated to define. However, this is beside the point – the problem with the Stonewall “definition” is that it is not a definition, it’s not even a simple statement of how being trans manifests itself in the sexual feelings or behaviours of an individual, it is a jumbled justification of Stonewall’s stance of the whole trans issue.
Maybe the reason that sentence doesn’t explain what being trans is, is because it’s not supposed to? It answers how a person knows they’re trans not what being trans means. It even clearly says that in the title of the segment which is “How does a person know they are trans?” and not “Definition of the word Trans”. See things make a lot more sense when you don’t purposefully misinterpret them.
If you want a simpler answer to the question “A person knows they’re Trans because their gender does not match their sex assigned at birth.” The reason stonewalls answer is longer is because it tries to dispell common myths for example the myth that every trans person knows they’re trans from the moment they were able to think.
But judging from your second to last sentence I doubt that you’ll listen to reason as you seem to have already made up your mind so I’m mostly typing this out to highlight your flawed arguments to others reading through the comments here.
I still have no idea what a “trans” actually is.
Even Stonewall is unable to enlighten me.
Here is their, er, “definition”:
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/the-truth-about-trans#know-trans
Q on Stonewall site:
“How does a person know they are trans?”
A on Stonewall site:
“Many people know they’re trans from a young age. Some trans people might not have the language or understanding of what it means to be trans until later in life. Other trans people do not know until they are teenagers or adults. There is no right or wrong way to be trans, but what is clear is that it’s not something that’s a fad or a ‘lifestyle choice’ and that all trans people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. If you aren’t recognised as being the gender you know you are, it’s extremely damaging.”
Clear as mud.
Now try adapting that question for straights and gays – see how clear and simple the answers are:
Q: How does a woman knows she’s straight?
A: She’s sexually attracted to men.
Q: How does a woman know she’s gay?
A: She’s sexually attracted to women.
Q: How does a woman know she’s bisexual?
A: She’s sexually attracted to men and women.
When something actually exists, it’s easy to define.
I defy anyone to read the stonewall “definition” of what a trans person is and tell me what on earth it means.
I’d imagine this article represents something of a niche subject as far as Comments is concerned. I think it’s important though, not least since Pakistani communities here in the UK (and probably elsewhere in the West) tend to take their mores from their home country. I was struck, having worked with many Pakistanis in healthcare, how many still refer to Pakistan as “home”. So anything which allows for greater understanding between communities is to be welcomed.
This isn’t about pushing an aggressive trans agenda, but simply about the right of trans people to live in peace in a civilised society. It should be said that the trans lobby we witness in action has become a hindrance rather than a help to trans people.
Not having seen the film, i can’t comment on whether it gets this balance right. It would seem so, if passing at least some censors in Pakistan and with the writer of this article at pains to point out it’s not the primary focus of the film, which appears to be the treatment of Pakistani women as second class citizens, itself an even more important hindrance to social integration.
Like you, I haven’t seen the film and probably won’t. On the surface it does seem a niche issue but it speaks powerfully to how progressive obsessions with minority issues, affecting trivial numbers of people, are now actively hindering efforts in less developed societies to deal with inequities that impact the lives of huge numbers.
The rights of women, actual gay people and all types of religious minorities are fairly non-existent in Pakistan so it is a bit rich that a film that is so feted in western countries deals with the tiniest of these minorities. It may not be widely known but like Iran, the Pakistani government actually promotes surgical transition for its gay men and passed a landmark trans rights law in 2018 which is considered very progressive by transactivists. Traditionally given the seclusion of women, transwomen were used in entertainment and the sex industry. Transwomen straddle two worlds and have much greater ease of movement compared to the average Pakistani woman.
As it happens, i’m aware of the issues with females in Pakistan.
You’ve actually missed the point of the article, which is that the trans issue it just a minor part of the film, despite what the film buffs have taken as being their preferred issue. Instead, as the article clearly points out, the film deals with the major issue of women’s rights in Pakistan.
Audiences can judge for themselves what’s important. You should therefore welcome the film, rather than describing something which you’ve misjudged as “a bit rich”.
The trans relationship is central to the movie and the wife set aside is a minor footnote.
The trans relationship is central to the movie and the wife set aside is a minor footnote.
As it happens, i’m aware of the issues with females in Pakistan.
You’ve actually missed the point of the article, which is that the trans issue it just a minor part of the film, despite what the film buffs have taken as being their preferred issue. Instead, as the article clearly points out, the film deals with the major issue of women’s rights in Pakistan.
Audiences can judge for themselves what’s important. You should therefore welcome the film, rather than describing something which you’ve misjudged as “a bit rich”.
Like you, I haven’t seen the film and probably won’t. On the surface it does seem a niche issue but it speaks powerfully to how progressive obsessions with minority issues, affecting trivial numbers of people, are now actively hindering efforts in less developed societies to deal with inequities that impact the lives of huge numbers.
The rights of women, actual gay people and all types of religious minorities are fairly non-existent in Pakistan so it is a bit rich that a film that is so feted in western countries deals with the tiniest of these minorities. It may not be widely known but like Iran, the Pakistani government actually promotes surgical transition for its gay men and passed a landmark trans rights law in 2018 which is considered very progressive by transactivists. Traditionally given the seclusion of women, transwomen were used in entertainment and the sex industry. Transwomen straddle two worlds and have much greater ease of movement compared to the average Pakistani woman.
I’d imagine this article represents something of a niche subject as far as Comments is concerned. I think it’s important though, not least since Pakistani communities here in the UK (and probably elsewhere in the West) tend to take their mores from their home country. I was struck, having worked with many Pakistanis in healthcare, how many still refer to Pakistan as “home”. So anything which allows for greater understanding between communities is to be welcomed.
This isn’t about pushing an aggressive trans agenda, but simply about the right of trans people to live in peace in a civilised society. It should be said that the trans lobby we witness in action has become a hindrance rather than a help to trans people.
Not having seen the film, i can’t comment on whether it gets this balance right. It would seem so, if passing at least some censors in Pakistan and with the writer of this article at pains to point out it’s not the primary focus of the film, which appears to be the treatment of Pakistani women as second class citizens, itself an even more important hindrance to social integration.
Mr. Murray says that this piece is something of a niche subject. And so it is, for about 1bn Westerners. For the 7bn non-Westerners, it is anything but niche. For them, having to deal with the preoccupations and hypocrisies of the West is an everyday problem, and a problem they could well do without.
We Westerners occupy a privileged position in non-Western imaginations, and it’s a position we don’t deserve. This has nothing to do with colonialism, and everything to do with us being imperfect human beings.
Our relative wealth allows us to dominate the airwaves. Thus, our opinions, good, bad and indifferent, are hard to ignore. People like Ms. Husain wish we would shut up once in a while. It’s hard to disagree.
Mr. McKee has misinterpreted (wilfully?) my comment.
The “niche subject” i was referring to was the film itself, not the publicity and discussions which surround it.
Interestingly, only 8 comments (by mid-afternoon, UK time) seem to confirm my description.
Mr. Murray – I meant no personal slight. In fact, I thought I was agreeing with you!
Your point about seeing Pakistan as home is relevant, and important. Is this attitude confined to the emigrants themselves, or is it leaching into their British-born descendants?
Mr. Murray – I meant no personal slight. In fact, I thought I was agreeing with you!
Your point about seeing Pakistan as home is relevant, and important. Is this attitude confined to the emigrants themselves, or is it leaching into their British-born descendants?
Mr. McKee has misinterpreted (wilfully?) my comment.
The “niche subject” i was referring to was the film itself, not the publicity and discussions which surround it.
Interestingly, only 8 comments (by mid-afternoon, UK time) seem to confirm my description.
Mr. Murray says that this piece is something of a niche subject. And so it is, for about 1bn Westerners. For the 7bn non-Westerners, it is anything but niche. For them, having to deal with the preoccupations and hypocrisies of the West is an everyday problem, and a problem they could well do without.
We Westerners occupy a privileged position in non-Western imaginations, and it’s a position we don’t deserve. This has nothing to do with colonialism, and everything to do with us being imperfect human beings.
Our relative wealth allows us to dominate the airwaves. Thus, our opinions, good, bad and indifferent, are hard to ignore. People like Ms. Husain wish we would shut up once in a while. It’s hard to disagree.
Sorry for being basic here, but if I am reading an article about a movie I like a rough hint as to what the plot of the movie is. I get that it’s about a trans person, but is this person in the movie played by the actor on the left of the accompanying photo (who appears to be an attractive woman, although maybe she is really a natal male who thinks she/he is a woman). Or is it the actor on the right (who looks like a regular bloke). Either way I think I might be giving this movie a miss.
Sorry for being basic here, but if I am reading an article about a movie I like a rough hint as to what the plot of the movie is. I get that it’s about a trans person, but is this person in the movie played by the actor on the left of the accompanying photo (who appears to be an attractive woman, although maybe she is really a natal male who thinks she/he is a woman). Or is it the actor on the right (who looks like a regular bloke). Either way I think I might be giving this movie a miss.
It’s all so tiresome.
It’s all so tiresome.
A simple point I am tired of the abbreviation LGBT
Adding T is forced teaming trans is a huge umbrella term which is largely manufactured
Non trans women and cis are also plain insults
Not seen film yet but seems Western critics are looking at through reductionist lens so yawn
A simple point I am tired of the abbreviation LGBT
Adding T is forced teaming trans is a huge umbrella term which is largely manufactured
Non trans women and cis are also plain insults
Not seen film yet but seems Western critics are looking at through reductionist lens so yawn
Can’t blame the West for everything.
Pakistan made the movie….
Can’t blame the West for everything.
Pakistan made the movie….
You’ve got to feel sorry for the Pakistani people – they have been as cruelly used by Western countries pre and post 1948 as they have by their own leaders: 1940s -present: Proxies against India and particularly Indian communists. 1950s > Cheap labour in UK. 70s > target practice for cops and skinheads. 90s > scapegoats for Jihadism and now proxies for the TQI brigade and their far left fellow travellers. I write from a town where Urdu is the most common language and Pakistani the largest of our population groups by ethnic origin. I think it’s their strong work ethic, natural honesty and Chinese levels of respect for Family above all that causes envy, which breeds spite, which breeds lies and so on. What do the leftists in UK (or Cannes) care for gay or trans people who may get battered in Islamabad because of their virtue signalling? The same SFA that Mountbatten cared when Hindu gangs burned Moslems alive on trains in 1948. (Not that he cared anymore for Indians killed in that conflict). A late friend of mine who came over as a child in 1950 remarked when the leftist/al qaeda/grooming gang axis was forming in the 90s: “My father brought us 5000 miles from Port Qasim to escape these primitives and now they are following us!”
You’ve got to feel sorry for the Pakistani people – they have been as cruelly used by Western countries pre and post 1948 as they have by their own leaders: 1940s -present: Proxies against India and particularly Indian communists. 1950s > Cheap labour in UK. 70s > target practice for cops and skinheads. 90s > scapegoats for Jihadism and now proxies for the TQI brigade and their far left fellow travellers. I write from a town where Urdu is the most common language and Pakistani the largest of our population groups by ethnic origin. I think it’s their strong work ethic, natural honesty and Chinese levels of respect for Family above all that causes envy, which breeds spite, which breeds lies and so on. What do the leftists in UK (or Cannes) care for gay or trans people who may get battered in Islamabad because of their virtue signalling? The same SFA that Mountbatten cared when Hindu gangs burned Moslems alive on trains in 1948. (Not that he cared anymore for Indians killed in that conflict). A late friend of mine who came over as a child in 1950 remarked when the leftist/al qaeda/grooming gang axis was forming in the 90s: “My father brought us 5000 miles from Port Qasim to escape these primitives and now they are following us!”