A couple of weeks ago I asked this question, and promised to collate the answers

Here are the recommendations (strictly speaking they are not all on Netflix…)


  • Ex Machina
  • Uncut Gems
  • Dolemite Is My Name
  • Contagion
  • What We Do In The Shadows
  • Fucking Åmål
  • The Grand Budapest Hotel
  • Defending your life
  • What We Did On Our Holiday
  • Coming to America
  • Everything Studio Ghibli
  • Aeronauts
  • Leap Year
  • Space Jam
  • Insidious
  • The Conjouring Universe
  • The Big Lebowski
  • Shaun the sheep
  • Boys Don’t Cry
  • Phantom Thread
  • Okja
  • Green Book
  • Bombshell
  • Bicycle Thieves
  • The Balloonatic
  • Duck Soup
  • Citizen Kane
  • I Am Not An Easy Man
  • Midnight Run
  • Tootsie
  • True Romance
  • Mrs Lowry & Son
  • The Escape Room
  • Horse Girl
  • Pain and Glory
  • A Good Year
  • About Time
  • Life of Pi
  • The King
  • Julie & Julia
  • The Big Short
  • The King’s Speech
  • Life of Brian
  • What women want?
  • The Hateful Eight
  • The Red Sea Diving Resort
  • Paris Texas
  • Constant Gardener
  • Fast Color
  • The Two Popes
  • The Irishman
  • Mrs Doubtfire
  • Eaten by Lions
  • Operation Odessa
  • I Am Mother
  • Girl Interrupted
  • Victor Victoria
  • Mumbai Central
  • I Don’t Feel At Home In This World Anymore
  • Get Smart
  • Pixels
  • Burlesque
  • Rango
  • The maze runner
  • Forces of Nature
  • Instant Family

  • Anna
  • Point break
  • Drive
  • Polar
  • Bokhe
  • Miss Virgina
  • Baby Driver
  • Once Upon A Time In The West
  • The Witch
  • Hidden Figures
  • Mother
  • The Waling
  • The Imposers
  • Call My Agent



  • Tell Me Who I am
  • ZZ Top: That Little Ol’ Band from Texas
  • Three Perfect Strangers
  • Cheer
  • The Kominsky Method
  • Face Places
  • Wild Wild Country
  • McQueen
  • McMillions
  • The Staircase


  • Russian Doll
  • After Life
  • Mindhunters
  • Babylon Berlin
  • Grace and Frankie
  • Still Game
  • Maniac
  • Good Girls
  • Unbelievable
  • Dark
  • Last Tango in Halifax
  • Flowers
  • Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt
  • Please Like Me
  • Norsemen

Every time Labour leadership candidate, Lisa Nandy has been asked for her view on the Gender Recognition Act and gender self ID in the last few weeks she tells a story about a young person in her constituency . Here are a couple of versions of that story

“I have a young person who is going through the Gender Recognition Act process at the moment. Watching what she and her family have had to go through has driven me on,  despite the level of anger and hatred and abuse that I’ve had in the last few seeks for standing up on this issue, it has given me a very small taste of what this what her and her family have had to put up with over the past few years, going through this lengthy, awful process. There is no supportThe waiting times are horrendous. The stigma is terrible. It is not a psychological condition, to be trans and we should not stigmatise people . That is why I don’t agree that the Gender Recognition Act was a step forward because I think it was something that was meant to provide support and help and in fact has become one of the problems for trans people.  One of the reasons why they are stigmatised, bullied and discriminated against and why we’ve now got a situation that we should be ashamed of in this country where  Trans peoples suicide rates are sky high and mental health is at rock bottom. “

“The Gender Recognition Act which was designed to try and help & support people going through the trans process has become something that is part of the problem with very very lengthy delays. So I have got a young girl in my constituency who has been going through the process at the moment she has been waiting years without support. She has been bullied at school. She is having a hard time at school. Her family is having a hard time. It is a very long processes without support but also it’s a very stigmatising process and that is why I believe self identifying is a really important part of the fundamental right of  people saying I know better than any psychiatric assessment could determine who I am and what I’m about. “

What on earth is she talking about?

Continue reading ‘What on earth is Lisa Nandy talking about?’

I spoke at the excellent Woman’s Place UK conference  at University College London on 1 Febuary 2020  — in the opening plenary with Pragna Patel of Southall Black Sisters and Joanna Cherry QC MP, Chaired by Professor Sophie Scott.


Wow! This is going to be an  be an amazing conference.

I am overwhelmed to be here on a panel with Pragna and Joanna.  It is an unexpected turn in my life

  • I am not an academic feminist
  • or professional feminist.
  • I am not a radical feminist.
  • I am not a socialist feminist,

I am just a feminist

I am an ordinary woman who knows what a woman is and who refused to shut up about it. 

Screen Shot 2020-02-02 at 19.50.47

Continue reading ‘Women’s Liberation 2020: My Speech’

I spoke at the Women’s Place UK meeting in London on May 20th, as a last minute stand in alongside Julie Bindel, Selina Todd and Meghan Murphy. It was a brilliant night.

Helen Lewis wrote in the New Statesman: “The packed hall felt like the birth, or rebirth, of something. A feminism unafraid to talk about the female body. A rejection of the extremes of identity politics. And – just as radically – a movement that happens in the real world rather than purely online.”

Continue reading ‘Sex, gender and development’

Screen Shot 2019-04-24 at 14.57.19

The United Nations Economic Commission for Africa report on Fiscal Policy for Financing Sustainable Development is a serious piece of work.  But it contains the latest in a long series of silly numbers which inflate perceptions of the scale of revenue at stake from multinational corporate tax avoidance.

It says tackling  base erosion and profit shifting by major multinationals in Africa could boost tax revenue by an estimated additional 2.7 per cent of GDP.  That works out at around $60 billion, bigger still than  Kofi Annan’s much repeated big number from 2013 (which was based on a misunderstanding of a whole different set of numbers)  and more than current levels of  annual inward FDI.

Where does this number come from? Is there any reason to think its the right number now? And if not why does nobody notice?

Continue reading ‘2.7% of GDP: another big number to take with a huge pinch of salt on multinational tax avoidance in Africa’

[Revised version – thanks to Lucia Cizmaziova for pointing that I had mistyped the ICIJ data for the UK and Denmark – my spreadsheet is here]

Three years ago the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) revealed that 11.5 million documents had been leaked from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca. Recently they toted up the numbers from 22 countries on revenues recovered.

The total comes to $1.2 billion. This figure will include tax settlements covering several years as well as penalties. Currently it amounts to 0.01% of GDP of those countries. There will be other cases still unsettled, so more money will come in. And of course these figures only includes the direct revenues collected as the result of investigations. There are also likely to be additional revenue resulting from broader behaviour changes by taxpayers and from policy changes brought in the wake of the scandal.

Continue reading ‘How much money has been recovered as a result of the Panama Papers?’

In response to joint statement on trans-solidarity on behalf of feminists for fiscal justice, tax and economic policies.

Dear Kate, Chiara, David, Liz, Fariya, Caroline, Neelanaja, Yamini, Ana, and Roosje

We all agree that no one should have their right to liberty, security or life violated by violence. People should not face discrimination in access to healthcare, work or housing because of the way they dress, because they have a health condition, because they may have had plastic surgery or take medication or because they believe, or disbelieve, in the idea of innate gender identity. 

But I disagree with your statement that the class of people with the type of body that has the capacity* to produce ova and to gestate a foetus does not need a name, nor any analysis or political movement, or specific protection for their rights. 

I still find it flabbergasting that this is promoted and accepted (by some) as a feminist idea.

I am talking about the half of the population who will menstruate, and therefore need access to privacy and sanitation in order to complete school and to travel beyond their homes, who need access to contraception and abortion, healthcare in pregnancy and birth, support and accommodation for breastfeeding.  This is the class of people who are most often victims of sexual assault, which is carried out in the vast majority of cases by people with the other type of body (and which brings with it risk of pregnancy). 

People with this type of body are on average, and at the extremes, less strong, less fast and smaller than the other type of human and thus face specific risks, have different capacities in relation to sport and need (but often do not get) specific consideration in design of safety equipment and medicine.

In lower income countries children with this type of body are less likely to complete primary or secondary education, and with each year of education missed they are more likely to give birth while still children themselves. Early childbearing, higher total fertility and lower educational attainment reduce their earning power, and this in turn affects their power and voice within households.

Around the world this class of people undertake the majority work in raising children. Their working lives outside the home and their financial welfare are disproportionately impacted by parenthood and care. Historically they have been considered second class citizens; wards of their father and then of their husband, not fully legally or financially autonomous.  If they do not or cannot fulfil this social role they face censure that is specific to people with this body type.  In some countries they are still legally excluded from passing citizenship on to their children, from driving, from inheriting property. They are restricted by religious codes and by laws. Here is a map of when they got the right to vote.


As feminists you say that this class of people no longer needs a  name?

You say that we should ignore the ““biological” sex binary” because it “bears no relation to gendered patterns of economic, social and political exclusion”.

You say that there is no need for an analysis which focuses on the specific risks and issues that affect the half the world that has this type of body, (and their relation with the other half) because you say any such analysis “bears no relation to modern scientific understandings of the expression of sexual differentiation”.

I find these statements impossible to agree with (and I find it hard to believe that you really believe in them).

Why are you discarding the evidence of the masses of studies (including by your own organisations) which look at binary, sex differentiated data and find that people with the ova-producing type of body are disadvantaged in society, and have different outcomes from those with the sperm producing type of body – in education, employment, crime, health, access to finance, economic welfare? Why are you discarding analysis which considers the power structures that have developed to secure paternity by controlling the lives of people with the ova-producing types of body? Why is it not important to notice that people with the sperm producing type of bodies remain disproportionately represented in the upper echelons of politics, business, government, religion and every institution of power, and people with the ova-producing type of bodies are disproportionately represented in the low-paid jobs of cleaning, catering and care?

Without words or analysis how can we talk about this?  How is it feminist not to talk about this? I think you have given away too much in the name of solidarity.

[* If all things are working  -none of this excludes from this sex category people with this body type who have disorders of sexual development, or who are infertile, or have had organs removed, or who are pre-pubescent or post-menopausal]