Tuesday, 15 December 2015

Caitlyn Jenner Apologises To Trans Community


Following statements made in an interview with Time Magazine, where she urged transgender women not to look like a 'man in a dress' as it makes people uncomfortable, Caitlyn Jenner has written an article for The Huffington Post in which she apologises for any offense she may have caused.

'I think I caused a lot of hurt with this comment, and I'm truly sorry.'

'What I was trying to say is that the world really is still a binary one, and that people who look 'visibly transgender' sometimes can struggle for acceptance and may be treated poorly by others.  And while this may be true, it's also something that needs to change.'

'Some people look gender non-conforming because they want to look that way - they don't want to conform to society's expectations.  Those people have every right to look and present how they choose.  And then there are people who don't have the resources to access the medical procedures that would help them look the way they would like to look.  Procedures, incidentally, that most health insurance plans refuse to cover.  All of these people are my brothers and sisters, and I am fighting alongside them too.'

'My comments probably made it seem like all I care about is fashion, or makeup or appearance.  I can tell you I really enjoy all of that - it's who I am.  It's the world I come from, and as a person in the media I have certain expectations for myself.  But I am only one person.  There are lots of way of being trans.  And I want to help create a world in which people are able to express their gender in any way that is true and authentic to them.  And most importantly - a world in which how a trans person is treated isn't dependant on how they look.'

'I am guessing that this is probably not the last time I will say the wrong thing, or say something the wrong way.  I promise to keep learning, and to try to be more articulate in the future.  We have a lot of hard work to do.  I am looking forward to doing it together.'

Caitlyn has acknowledged what she said was wrong, and has given a public statement of apology.  She has tried to explain what she says she meant in that one statement.

 One thing that confuses me though, is if when she said 'If you are out there and, to be honest with you, you look like a man in a dress, it makes people uncomfortable' was supposed to mean that whole long statement about the world being binary, and wanting to get rid of a world like that, I fail to see how those two are the same.

Yes, she has apologised, but I personally feel that the follow up statement is perhaps more an attempt to explain away saying something stupid, rather than clearing up some kind of misunderstanding about what she 'was trying to say'.

Whether you believe what she is saying or not, whether you like her or respect her or not, please, please don't engage in transphobic messages when talking about her.  One of the things I've seen in abundance over the last day is a lot of people, including trans people, saying that she looks like a man, that she sounds like a man.

It might feel good to strike back at her like that, to respond to her comments with an attack, and you have every right to express yourself that way, but please do it without making those kind of comments.  By turning around and countering her 'man in a dress' statement by saying that's what she is, is only doing you a disservice.  Engage in criticising her by all means, but do it as the bigger person.  Do it without using transphobic language.

Amy.
xx

Monday, 14 December 2015

Seven Sisters Festival To Exclude Trans Women


As with other feminist gatherings in the past the Seven Sisters Festival in Australia has this year chosen that transgender women will not be welcome at their three day event, and have even gone on to ban any mention of it from their Facebook page, deleting any comment that mentions it.

The festival is a feminist retreat that they say is to 'empower women who are real, women who are powerful, women who want to be the best version of themselves'.

A prospective attendee, Caitlin Therese Sullivan posted a message to the festivals Facebook page, asking 'Is your festival trans inclusive?  I'd very much like to know as this will mean either my attendance or non attendance.  I know other people feel the same.'


After four days the festival organisers responded by saying, 'As we have advertised the festival as a sacred women's only space - having individuals on site who are physically men would be breaking the trust of many women.  We are however open to transgender women who have undertaken all operative measures to become a woman to come and take part in the festival.'

The comments ignited a debate on the festivals Facebook wall, with some people who were expressing interest in attending the event saying that they were 'extremely dissapointed' with the decision to exclude trans women who had not undergone a certain level of surgical procedures.

The festival branded the comments being made as 'a provocative transgender campaign', and have since banned all discussion on their stance of exclusion on its Facebook page.

In an official statement the festival released on Monday they said, 'Since its beginning, Seven Sisters Festival has had a policy of inclusion.  We recognise that the identity of 'woman' is a unique lived experience to each individual.  On Sunday 13th December a provocative transgender campaign was elicited on our Facebook page.  We are currently investigating this.'

'Whilst we value the opinion of ALL people and are sympathetic to this cause, we do not condone abusive and inflammatory words, nor do we tolerate the use of forceful language to push unsubstantiated views onto others.  As such we are deleting all content relating to this issue from our festival pages as it is not the appropriate forum and we wish to prevent further perpetuation of bullying and violent language.'

'We apologise for any undue stress this situation has caused to everyone involved.'

'As an organisation, we strive to engage in respectful dialogue, which involves everyone.  To be clear, Seven Sisters have at no time expressed any official statement regarding our position on trans inclusivity, but we are now seeking legal advice on this matter, hearing the voices of our patrons as well as engaging in dialogue with the transgender community.'

'Therefor, as part of maintaining the integrity of our community, in the next month, we will be sending a confidential survey to our fellow sisters who have and will be attending next years festival so they can share their opinions without fear of bullying.'

'We believe this issue needs to be heard and we need to listen to every woman who has made Seven Sisters their sanctuary and home over the past four years.'

 'Our policy and festival content will be reviewed based on the responses to this survey and publicly posted to our website.  Suggestions on how to improve Seven Sisters festival are welcome through this medium.'

'As always we strive to co-create the best Seven Sisters possible.  We look forward to hearing your voice from a place of compassion, balance and honour.'



As at this time there is no indication of how the results this survey influence the decision by the event organisers, and due to the organisers censoring of comments on their Facebook page it has become very hard to see the entire picture.

What is still available on the pages, here and here, though are comments made on the above statement.  For the most part their is a healthy, and more importantly respectful, discussion going on between the opposing sides.  However, their is the use of harsh and insulting language, from supporters of the exclusion towards members of the transgender community.  I would encourage people to go to their pages and see for themselves how people are commenting on this and the views being expressed.

Seven Sisters have yet to release any of the 'bullying' messages that they claim to have deleted made by members of the transgender community, so as of the time of the posting of this article the 'abusive and inflammatory' words seem to only be coming from those who wish to exclude transgender women from the festival.

Hopefully after speaking with their attendees the festival will realise that they cannot maintain a culture of acceptance and inclusion when discriminating against a certain group of women, and they will reverse their decision and allow ALL women to attend, as they have done in the past.

Or maybe we should just have it renamed the Seven Cis-ters Festival instead?

Amy.
xx

Caitlyn Jenner: Don't Look Like 'A Man In A Dress'


In an interview with Time Magazine it would appear that Caitlyn Jenner has once again gone and upset certain parts of the transgender community by making some pretty ill thought out and insulting comments about the physical appearances of trans women.

In the interview Caitlyn talks about projecting a 'good image for this community', referring to the transgender community.  The interviewer asks her 'And what is a good image?', giving Caitlyn the opening to make her comment that has upset many people.

'One thing that has always been important for me, and it may seem very self-absorbed or whatever, is first of all your presentation of who you are.  I think that it is much easier for trans women or trans men who authentically kind of looks and plays the role.  So what I call presentation.  I try to take that seriously.  I think it puts people at ease.  If you're out there and, to be honest with you, if you look like a man in a dress, it makes people uncomfortable.  So the first thing I can do is try to present myself well.  I want to dress well.  I want to look good.  When I go out, Kim says, got to rock it because the paparazzi will be there.  The second thing I want to do in living my life authentically is be intelligent on the subject.  Hopefully as time goes on I'll learn more and more and more and get better at that.'

Now, some of you may have noticed one or two things in that one response that highlight a number of concerns, I know many other people have.

First and most obvious, Caitlyn makes the comment about some trans women looking like a 'man in a dress', and the fact that it 'makes people uncomfortable'.  This one tiny statement is so insulting and damaging it's shocking that it's coming from another trans woman.  Then again, I'm sure some people in the trans community are actually very familiar with this kind of thing.

Something that not many cis people will realise is that there is actually a lot of transphobia within the trans community itself.  It's not a pleasant thing, and it's not something that the trans community likes to highlight, as it will give our haters something else to latch onto, but it is very real.  Trans-on-trans transphobia is quite simply when one trans person judges or makes comment on another trans person's identity or physical appearance in order to make that person appear less valid, to put them down, to insult them and exclude them.  All this is usually done in an attempt to make the person doing it feel better about themselves.

Whilst some of you might be reading that and thinking that it's ridiculous and that it couldn't possibly happen, well, just ask people in the transgender community about it.  Chances are if they haven't experienced it themselves they've seen it happen to someone they know.  I have, more times that I'd like.  I've even been on the receiving end of it.  I've seen people who are worried about their physical appearance find trans women to abuse for 'not looking feminine enough', purely so that it will boost their confidence as to how feminine they themselves look.  A 'well, I don't look that bad so I must be okay' approach to dealing with their own fears and insecurities.

Caitlyn is essentially doing this.  Yes, it might not be targeted at any one person in particular, but that just makes it worse.  She's making broad sweeping statements that can effect many members of the transgender, and gender non-conforming, community that can cause damage.

Cailyn is saying that if you don't fit into the very rigid 'rules' of  the cis-normative standards of beauty then you 'make people uncomfortable'.  She's saying if you don't 'authentically' look male or female then people will make an issue of it.  She's reinforcing every fear that someone who doesn't stick to these cis standards that they will be treated badly, that they will get mocked and harassed, that their lives could be put in danger, because they don't look 'real' enough.

What's worse, is that she's telling cis people that it's okay to think this way too.  Earlier in the same interview she spoke out against the notion that she's a 'spokesperson' for the trans community, saying 'I am not a spokesperson for the trans community, I am not.  The media kind of projects me as being the spokesperson, but from my standpoint, I am not.  I am a spokesperson for my story and that's all I can tell.'  She's making it clear that she doesn't want to be the trans spokesperson, but she also acknowledges that a lot of people view her that way.  With the amount of media attention she receives, and her prominence in the international community she has to realise that even if she does not want that title, a lot of people will always see her as having it.  Because of that, she should really consider her words a lot more carefully.

She may not want to be seen as the figurehead for the trans community, and pretty much every other trans person is against that idea too, but she should have that in the back of her mind when speaking about the trans community.  The things she says will be seen as speaking for every trans person by certain people, and if she's putting across the view that the only 'authentic' trans people are the ones who don't look like a 'man in a dress', then that's giving cis people the all clear to discriminate against those trans people they don't feel meet their cis standards of beauty.

Not everyone in the trans community wants to meet these standards Caitlyn.  Not every trans woman wants long flowing hair and an hourglass figure.  Not every trans man wants a big beard and a six pack.  Some people just want to live how they feel comfortable, whether it fits into the world view as being 'authentic' or not.  Some people don't want to live as either male or female, and their validity as a person should not rest on whether you feel they look 'authentic' or not.

You're a rich person Caitlyn, a very rich person.  You probably use more money in a day then I do in a year.  Many, many members of the trans community are far from your level of wealth.  A lot of members of the trans community would technically be 'poor'.  We cannot afford the best clothes, the best makeup, feminisation surgery or stylists.  We don't have the money to be able to dress exactly how we would like all the time.  Many of us have to make do.

The level of poverty in the trans community is high, one of the highest in any minority group, we can't go out and throw money at our appearance just to not make people feel uncomfortable.  Some of us are happy with the way we look and present, some of us aren't, but can't do anything about it because we don't have money like you do.  Should these trans people never go out into the world because they might make cis people feel uncomfortable?

The message being sent in this interview is a bad one.  Caitlyn is basking in her achievements and throwing the rest of the trans community under the bus, and not for the first time.  She says that she doesn't want to be a spokesperson for the transgender community, but in the same interview says that 'In doing what I do it will be more of a leadership role'.  She's full on contradictions and mixed messages.  She wants to be seen as a great leader of the trans community, to be praised for how 'authentic' she is as a woman, but will gladly throw other members of the transgender community into the firing line to do so.

To me this just looks like another case of trans-on-trans transphobia, where someone in the community is looking down on others to make themselves feel better about their own fears and insecurities.  Unfortunately, it coming from such a prominent and public figure means that her words and actions will cause a lot of damage.

Amy.
xx

Friday, 11 December 2015

Oklahoma City Cop Guilty of Multiple Rape Charges


At first I was surprised to discover that I had not heard anything about the case of Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holtzclaw being on trial for the rape and sexual assault of more than a dozen women.  How could something like that not be major news?  Then I started looking into the trial and I discovered that the women Holtzclaw has been found guilty of abusing were women of colour, women with troubled histories, women whose characters could be called into question, and suddenly it made sense as to why there had been very little media attention given to the case.

Sexual assault is one of those crimes we all know is massively under reported, where victims are often blamed, or made to feel guilty because of what happened to them.  The system is built against the victims of rape, whatever their gender.  Unfortunately, when the victims of rape are women of colour who are targeted precisely because their credibility can be so easily attacked it becomes so much harder for them.

Daniel Holtzclaw used his position as a police officer to perform background checks on the women that he assaulted.  Police investigators discovered that Holtzclaw targeted black women with criminal records, with a history of drug use or sex work.  He targeted these women specifically because he believed that their accusations would be ignored, that their 'character' would instantly dismiss their accusations.  Sadly, because of who he targeted a lot of media outlets carried little coverage of the case.

That very lack of support was even evident in court proceedings as when the trial began in November many local Oklahoma activists were shocked to find the courtroom almost empty, with many women's groups who have supported the accusers of rape in other trials absent.  A local news reporter for FOX25, Tom George went on to express his surprise when he went to cover the case.  'The first week, it was almost empty.  I think there was an assumption that it would be packed.'

These sentiments of surprise were also echoed by Grace Franklin, co-founder of the community organisation OKC Artists For Justice, who said that since the news of the case broke about a year ago have reached out to many larger national groups (who they have chosen not to name) about joining their protest movement around the case,  Unfortunately they received very little response to their requests.

'It kind of fuels the feeling of separation between black so-called feminists and white feminists.' Franklin said.  'Why aren't there more women out here of all shades, of all backgrounds for these women?  Why are we doing this alone?'

This apparent lack of support for these victims, or lack of people wishing to be seen visibly standing with them, was something that Holtzclaw was banking on when he selected his victims.  He was hoping that no one would believe them, that they would be given little to no attention and that they would be seen as the kinds of women not to be trusted.

Those views were evident as the defence attorney, Scott Addams, questioned the accusers in what has been described as an 'aggressive' manner.  The women who came forward to report their sexual assault were questioned about their marijuana use, their drinking habits, their criminal histories and in some cases suspended drivers licenses in an attempt to undermine their credibility.

Dianne Wetendorf, who runs a counselling group in Chicago for women who have been the victims of police abuse spoke out about the way the victims of Holtzclaw's crimes were painted as untrustworthy in court.  'Officers count on no one believing the victim if she reports it.  And they know that the word of a woman of colour is likely to be worth even less than the word of a white woman to those who matter in the criminal justice system.'

Despite the attempts to discredit the women accusing Holtzclaw of sexual assault, all thirteen women gave powerful witness statements that formed a consistent story about how Holtzclaw isolated them, assaulted them and terrorised them into remaining silent.

Holtzclaws crimes took place over the course of seven months in 2013 and 2014, during which time he assaulted women ranging in age from seventeen to fifty seven whilst working the 4pm to 2am patrol shift.

During the court proceedings one of his victims accused Holtzclaw of driving her to a field in the back of his squad car, raped her in the backseats and then proceeded to leave her there.  'There was nothing that I could do,' she testified, 'he was a police officer and I was a woman.'

Another victim, a young girl of only 17, testified that Holtzclaw raped her on her mothers front porch.  She told the court that he threatened her with an outstanding warrant for trespassing.  'What am I going to do?'  She asked.  'Call the cops?  He was a cop.'  The jury convicted Holtzclaw of ever charge relating to her assault.

Another victim, who the defence attorney tried to discredit by claiming that she did not admit to having PCP on her when an initial arrested resulted in her being in hospital, told the court that Holtzclaw coerced her into performing acts of oral sex on him while she was shackled to a hospital bed.  The woman testified that Holtzclaw claimed that if she cooperated with him he would have the charges against her dropped.

It was only after a report was made to the Oklahoma City sex crimes division was made by a woman who testified that Holtzclaw pulled her over and molested her during a traffic stop, forcing her to perform oral sex on him that his crimes began to come to light.

Holtzclaw was arrested on 18th June 2014 and, following more victims coming forward to testify and evidence from his patrol car GPS that place him at the alleged crimes, fired in January 2015.

During the trial Holtzclaw did not attempt to dispute the evidence collected from his vehicle GPS, that placed him at the crime scenes at the times his accusers stated, but maintained his innocence throughout the case, denying any sexual misconduct or violence.


Holtzclaw was the recipient of an outpouring of online support from people who believed his innocence, who shared their belief that he was falsely accused, even going so far as to produce t-shirts and used the hashtag #FreeTheClaw.

The defence called just one witness during the trial, an ex-girlfriend of his who testified that Holtzclaw read her Bible scriptures and that she never noticed any unusual or sexually aggressive behaviour.

Fortunately a defence that rested on attacking the characters of the victims and used an ex-girlfriend as the sole witness to try and show he was a 'nice guy' failed, and after 45 hours deliberation the jury found Holtzclaw guilty of a number of the charges made against him, including five counts of rape and thirteen other counts of sexual assault.

The court has recommended that Holtzclaw be sentenced to a total of 263 years in prison.  District Attorney David Prater spoke about the sentencing, saying 'We're going to ask the judge to make sure that this defendant never sees the light of day, and we're going to ask him to run consecutive, every count.'

Daniel Holtzclaw openly wept in court as the verdict was read out.  As an added bonus, or act of justice, the final day of the court proceedings, where he cried in court as he found out he would spend the rest of his life in prison was his 29th birthday.

Amy.
xx

Thursday, 10 December 2015

Cincinnati Passes Conversion Therapy Ban


Despite vocal opposition in the Cincinnati Council Chambers from more than two dozen members of the church and the public,the Cincinnati council voted 7-2 to ban the use of conversion therapies on LGBT+ children.

The council passed the new law which prohibits the use of any kind of therapy designed to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of minors.  The new law would make the practice illegal, and could also result in a $200 a day fine for anyone found violating the law.

Cincinnati follows the four states of California, Illinois, New Jersey and Oregon, along with the District of Columbia in banning the practice, and becomes the first city outside of Washington D.C. to do so.

Chris Seelbach, who was instrumental in the efforts to passing the law spoke passionately about it, shutting down opposition views, 'This is about saving the lives of LGBT people.'  He mentioned Leelah Alcorn, a transgender teenager who took her own life last December following her parents attempts to 'cure' her with conversion therapy.

Seelbach mentioned Leelah directly, saying 'she challenged us to make her death matter, and we're going just that.'

The comment was made in reference to Leelah's suicide note, a note that not only asked people to try and make her death have meaning, but directly linked her taking her own life to her parents forcing her into Christian conversion therapy.

'My mom started taking me to a therapist, but would only take me to Christian therapists, (who were all very biased) so I never actually got the therapy I needed to cure me of my depression.  I only got more Christians telling me that I was selfish and wrong and that I should look to God for help.'


Despite the fact that protecting vulnerable children from damaging abuse that has proven links to depression, self harm and suicide twenty one people spoke out against the ban during the Council's comment period.  Those that spoke out against the new law, mostly religious leaders, called the ban on conversion therapies as an assault on free speech and the freedom of religion.

Dr. Dan Ferrell, a pastor, said 'I believe the city should stay out of this.  It says something about you.  Maybe other cities have better sense.'

'This Council will create another type of bondage for something people themselves have a right to seek liberty from,' said Bishop Victor Cousins.  Edward Hyde added, 'I want government to stay out of the bedroom.'

A rather ironic statement as Mr Hyde feels that the government has no place in the bedroom, but the church clearly does.  I guess democratically elected officials that represent diverse views and opinions can't be trusted to decide what's safe over members of a religion that has hardly changed in two thousand years.

A local civil rights lawyer and gay rights activist, Scott Greenwood, said 'The people who refer to this as free speech or freedom of religion are misguided because it's therapy, then it's medical therapy.  By definition, that is not speech and not free exercise of religion.  So there is no problem regulating this.  There is no First Amendment angle to this.  It is misguided to favour this totally debunked junk science and claim that it is somehow protected as religious expression.'

Most mental-health professional organisations such as the American Psychological Organisation have publicly spoken out against religious conversion therapies, describing them as being completely useless in their ability to change sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as extremely harmful to those undergoing the treatment.

The two council members who voted against the ban, who wish to continue to allow LGBT+ youth to suffer and die are Amy Murray and Charlie Winburn.  If you wish to contact these two council members and express displeasure at their voting against the ban you can do so by clicking bellow.

Amy Murray Email

Charlie Winburn Email

Amy.
xx

Wednesday, 9 December 2015

Doctor Who 'Hell Bent' Review


After the wonderful episode that was 'Heaven Sent', 'Hell Bent' feels like something of a let down.  If you take the last three episodes of the season as one story, the second part was definitely the strongest.  That doesn't mean, however, that there weren't a few moments of greatness in the series finale.

The Doctor's back on Gallifrey.  After believing it lost in the Time War, then saving it but not knowing where it is The Doctor is finally home.  And what does he do once he's home?  Well, he takes over the planet without having to even do anything.

In a sequence that's a moment of pure genius The Doctor returns to the barn seen in 'The Day of The Doctor' and 'Listen', that has a connection to where he grew up, and immediately attracts a crowd of Time Lords who seem to hang on his every action.  Rassilon, last seen in 'The End of Time' played by Timothy Dalton, now regenerated to Donald Sumpter, sends out a gunship to bring The Doctor to the capital.

The Doctor simply ignores the ship, so Rassilon sends The General and a squad of soldiers, who he ignores.  Next it's the High Council, who he again ignores.  Finally Rassilon himself must face The Doctor, and it's clear that the two Time Lords hate each other.  Rassilon orders the soldiers with him to gun The Doctor down, yet none of them do it, instead switching sides and joining The Doctor.


The Doctor has effectively deposed Rassilon and taken over as the ruler of Gallifrey, and he didn't even have to lift a finger to do it.  It's because not only is Rassilon a major douchebag with questionable morals, but because even on Gallifrey The Doctor has become something from legend.  The soldiers sent to face him are in awe of him, they know what he's done in his life, and in the Time War, and they know he's without a doubt the wrong person to ever cross.

Watching The Doctor become the ruler of his people, again, without having to do anything is brilliant.  It shows just how amazing the character is.  Everything he's done, everything that makes him who he is makes him a figure to be feared, respected and almost even worshipped even by the most powerful race in the universe.

From here the episode takes an interesting and unexpected turn, as the whole issue of the Hybrid is thrown aside as it's revealed that the only thing The Doctor actually intended to do by becoming the Lord President of Gallifrey was using Time Lord technology to try and save Clara, something he knew they'd never allow him to do.

The Doctor finally has his home back, he's respected and revered by his people and he can do whatever he wants, and he's willing to throw all of that away just to save his friend.

The scene in which The Doctor saves Clara from the moment just before her death is one that is sure to be well remembered for two reasons.  The first is that The Doctor shot and killed someone.  Yes, that person is a Time Lord and has the ability to regenerate, but regeneration is something a Time Lord has to consciously do, there was no guarantee that The General was going to be able to regenerate in time before he died.  Also, when a Time Lord regenerates they do in a way die and become a new person, The Doctor has even said that himself.  This is a scene that does away with the modern 'no guns, no killing' Doctor and starts to bring back an aspect of the classic series, that if the stakes are high enough The Doctor will commit murder.


The second thing that this scene will be remembered for is the reinforcement of the rules of regeneration.  We've known that Time Lords can change gender when they regenerate, the concept was brought up in 'The Doctor's Wife' and made very clear when The Master became Missy.  We know that Time Lords can change ethnicity, we saw that in 'Let's Kill Hitler' when Mels regenerated into River Song.  But this episode erases any doubt or argument when The General regenerates from a middle aged white man into a young black woman.  As when Missy was first introduced, this is surely a way of guaging public reaction to Time Lords changing in such a way, possibly in anticipation of something similar one day happening to The Doctor.

From here the episode became all about The Doctor trying to save Clara, and actually failing to do so.  Despite how the episode ends, with The Doctor having mostly forgotten Clara, Clara still technically not being alive as she's frozen in time, with Clara and Ashildr/Me flying off into space and time in their own Tardis Clara is still eventually going to have to return to the trap street and face the raven.

It's made very clear that Clara isn't off the hook, she will eventually have to go back to Gallifrey and be sent back to the moment of her death, but she;s been given an extremely long stay of execution, essentially able to spend an eternity with another undying woman having adventures in space and time.  After how the death of Clara was handled in 'Face The Raven', and the fall out of that event in 'Heaven Sent' this feels like a cheap way out.  Moffat has killed the character, but still gets to give her an ending that will keep Clara fans happy.  It just feels like a bit of a cheat to those that liked the way she died.


One thing that absolutely has to be spoken about though is the inclusion of the original Tardis interior.  In a moment of pure fan service, that makes a hell of a lot of sense in the context of the show's universe, The Doctor steals another Tardis, one that has the same control room as the original William Hartnell Tardis.

Yes, this is quite obviously a little treat for fans of the show, it's nostalgia and fan service, but it also adds something to the show.  It's saying that the original Tardis interior wasn't something that The Doctor chose, like he has done in later incarnations, but is the standard default control room that all Tardis' have.


The episode ends with Clara and Ashildr/Me off to have adventures in their own American Diner shaped Tardis (why that of all things?) and The Doctor ready to continue on, to find a new companion and keep on being The Doctor.  He dons his velvet jacket, grabs his new Sonic Screwdriver (which is a thing of beauty), snaps his fingers to close the Tardis door and head off to even more edventures.

Amy.
xx

Zoolander 2 Writer 'Hurt' By Transphobia Accusations


When the trailer for comedy film 'Zoolander 2' was released it was met with some criticism when some people felt that the depiction of the androgynous character played by Benedict Cumberbatch.

The scene features Cumberbatch playing an androgynous model called All, who is introduced to the film's protagonists Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson.  Stiller asks, 'Are you a male or female model?'  To which Cumberbatch replies, 'All is all.'  Owen Wilson quickly jumps in to ask, 'I think he's asking if you have a hotdog or a bun?'

Some members of the LGBT+ community were quick to condemn the joke, claiming it to be awful and unfunny, stating that it pokes fun at the increasing amount of androgynous, transgender and non-binary models.

Following these accusations, and the launch of a petition to boycott the film, which is close to reaching it's 25,000 target, the films writer, Justin Theroux has spoken out.

Theroux has insisted that he intended no offense towards the transgender community by including Cumberbatch's androgynous character.  'Our target is not, and never was to disenfranchise anyone,' he said in an interview with The Wrap.


'I don't know what to make of it, because it hurts my feelings in a way.  I take great care in the jokes that I write, and the umbrage being taken is out of the context of the scene.  I wish people would see the movie first.  Satire is a thing that points out the idiots, and we went through it on 'Tropic Thunder' with the 'R word'.'

Theroux also wrote the script for the film 'Tropic Thunder', that received criticism not only for having a character in blackface for the majority of the film, but for the use of the word 'retard'.  Whilst both of these issues were raised as concerns at the airing of the trailer for 'Tropic Thunder', as like 'Zoolander 2', they were still hotly debated as being offensive after people had seen the film itself.

Talking about the 'Tropic Thunder' controversy, Theroux said; 'The goal is not to mock or be cruel to the mentally challenged, but exalt in the stupidity of people who use the word.  I'm all for letting words be ugly when the target is correct.  With social media and all the rest of it, people's issues need to be heard...at the end of the day people are looking for bandwidth.  People are looking for places to inject their voice.  But our target is not, and never was, to disenfranchise anyone.'

The petition against the film not only slams the jokes used as being offensive, but also points out that if the creators of the film wished to make a commentary on the presence of androgynous, transgender and non-binary people in the fashion industry they could have approached some of these real life models, such as Andreja Pejic, rather than cast a cis man in the role.

'Zoolander 2' is set for release in February 2016.


Amy.
xx

Flash/Arrow 'Legends of Today/Legends of Yesterday' Crossover Review


Last year The Flash and Arrow gave us a fairly standard television crossover, where Team Arrow visited the Flash, and the Flash hopped over to Starling City to guest star on Arrow.  It was okay, but it wasn't anything special, especially as the two characters appeared on each others show again towards the end of the seasons.

This year, however, CW has given us an actual crossover event.  Gone was the idea of having two separate episodes that feature the Flash and Green Arrow on each other's show and in it's place was one cohesive story that spanned both shows and involved the whole cast of both Flash and Arrow.

The crossover event, 'Legends of Today/Legends of Yesterday', as the name suggest is not just a crossover event, but acts as a partial set up to the CW's new series 'Legends of Tomorrow'.  Legends of Tomorrow will feature both Hawkman and Hawkgirl (introduced in this crossover) and Vandal Savage (also introduced in the crossover).

Whilst some might complain about the show being used to set up another spin-off it works well enough in the world of Flash and Arrow, especially given that so much of Arrow's season is being used to introduce the mystic element of the CW's universe.  Having reincarnated Egyptian's and an immortal with a magic staff fitted into that well, without feeling too sudden or forced.



The evolution of Kendra into Hawkgirl is given enough time over the two hour event without it feeling overly quick or it outstaying it's welcome, and serves as a good contrast to Hawkman, who enters the show with a crash.  Some people have complained that the Hawks costumes are too dull and not bright enough, but when standing next to Flash, Green Arrow or the rest of the heroes they definitely stand out and look unique.

Whilst the two episodes built up the Hawks and Vandal Savage they also took the time to add a little something to each series ongoing story.  In Central City, Patty discovers the existence of Harry and shoots him, believing him to be the Earth One version of Harrison Wells, leading to Jay Garrick using a chemical to regain limited use of the Speed Force in order to save Harry life.  There's no way Patty finding out about Harry is going to be forgotten about, and the idea of the chemical that can induce the Speed Force raises some very interesting possibilities.  Will it be used to make Barry fast enough to take on Zoom?  Will it be used to give Jay back his powers so we can have a Flash/Flash team up?  Is Jessie Quick or Wally West going to become a speedster?  It certainly seems likely that one or more of these is going to happen some point down the line.

On the Arrow side of things the show picks up a story thread that I actually forgot about, Ollie's son.  Back in season two of Arrow it was revealed to the audience that long before Ollie was marooned on the island he got a girl pregnant, who moved away to Central City to have their child in secret.  Due to some terrible timing Ollie sees his ex and their child and realises that he has a son.  Ollie manages to get permission to build a relationship with his son, on the condition that he tells no one about it.  Now, due to some time travel shenanigans we get to see how Ollie hiding this from Felicity leads to the end of their relationship, but thanks to Barry giving the gang a do over this doesn't happen again, but Ollie still hides it from Felicity, meaning that there could be some drama on the horizon for the two of them.


Whilst the episode gave us plenty of action, humour and drama all whilst establishing a whole new group of characters there is one small complaint I have.  Vandal Savage.  I like Vandal Savage in the comics, I think he's a very interesting, scary and powerful villain, and was super excited when they said he was going to be the villain in Legends of Tomorrow.  Who else would be good to use in a time travel series than an immortal villain?

The only problem is, this isn't Vandal Savage.  At least, not really.  In the comics Vandal Savage has existed since the stone age.  He was a cave man who became irradiated by a meteor and became immortal.  In the CW universe he's been given Hath-Set's origin story.  Whilst that might not seem like a big change it really goes chance what the character is about.  He's tied to Hawkman and Hawkgirl, he's got different motivations and his abilities came from a different place.  It might seem like a small gripe, but it really spoilt something about the CW version of the character for me.

Amy.
xx

Monday, 7 December 2015

Final Fantasy 7 Remake To Be Released Episodically


If you're into video games and have the Internet then the chances are very good that you'll be aware of the long called for remake of the Playstation classic, Final Fantasy 7.  Over the weekend Square Enix released the first gameplay trailer of the new game, that left many fans stunned at just how good it looked.  Shortly after this, though, they released further information, that the remake would be released in parts, rather than as a whole game.

In an interview for website Gematsu, the game's director Tetsuya Nomura spoke briefly about the decision split the game down.

'If we dedicated our time to a single release , parts of it would be summarised.  We'd have to cut some parts, and additional parts would come in few, so rather than remake the game as a full volume, we decided to do multiple parts.'


In the same interview the producer, Yoshinori Kitase also spoke about the choice to release the game in parts rather than as a single release, as well as maintaining mystique around how the game will be released.

'The idea that a remake of Final Fantasy VII would not fit into a single release was there from the very beginning.  We still can't share more information about it's multiple parts, but please look forward to future announcements.

'As you can see from the trailer, we showed Sector 1 and Sector 8, but those areas alone, I think you see a lot of density.  When you're remaking the entirety of the original version in that quality, it's not possible to fit it all in one release.'

As yet it is unclear how the game will be released, whether as downloads similar to Telltale's 'The Walking Dead' or 'Life Is Strange', or as individual retail games.  Either way, with the level of excitement around the project it's sure to sell well regardless.

Amy.
xx

Friday, 4 December 2015

Transphobic Caitlyn Jenner Billboad Removed Following Complaints


Cranium, a signage company in Auckland, New Zealand, has faced severe criticism from the LGBT+ community and their supporters following what has been described as a transphobic and tasteless billboard that appeared to mock both Caitlyn Jenner, and the transgender community as a whole.

The billboard featured the Vanity Fair cover image of Caitlyn Jenner, photoshopped to have her wearing a Santa hat, with the slogan 'I hope your sack is fuller than mine this Christmas.  Merry Christmas from Cranium.'

The advertisement received hundreds of complaints within hours, and has been reported on globally, leading the company to censor the image.

Phillip Garratt from Cranium has apologised on Facebook for any offense caused, saying that the billboard was 'poor judgement' on Cranium's part.  He added that 'Cait is welcome at my house with my family any time.'

Cranium attempted to appease those who had taken offense at the advert by donating $1,000 to the LGBT+ organisation Rainbow Youth.

Rainbow Youth welcomed the donation, but warned that 'jokes' about the transgender community are not only insulting, but dangerous.  A spokesperson for the group commented that 'jokes' such as this will only further marginalise the transgender community, and encourage others not to take transgender issues seriously.

Some people have publicly ridiculed both the apology and the donation, saying that the donation is simply an attempt to 'buy off' the LGBT+ community and an attempt to save face and lessen the damage to the company’s reputation.


Cranium may be facing more than just public criticism, however, as it transpires that Cranium did not obtain permission to use the copyrighted image of Caitlyn Jenner, and that the billboard breaches copyright law.  It may also fall under the Fair Trade Act, as it could be seen as misleading people into thinking that Caitlyn Jenner authorised and endorsed the advert when she did not.


Amy.
xx