David Aaronovitch Review of Helen Joyce's Book

2. Control meaning. Do this by purging ambiguity

3. The truth is out there – make sure facts are checked and that your sources are reliable

tbh, I think we'd have to refrain from shedding grateful tears if more of them did this. I remember @LadyPrincesexual (Jane Clare Jones) describing a young student who'd been tasked with coming up with material for the Trans Day of Remembrance. He was completely baffled that he couldn't find any evidence of murdered trans women in the UK for the specified time period.

He was genuinely perplexed that he'd consulted all of the official sources and scouted round and couldn't find any. As JCJ said, he was so close to realising something but just seemed unable to take that final step. (Possibly because he sensed the consequences for his reputation in some senses even if it left his reputation for scholarship somewhat tarnished.)

I don't know if the tactics here have more than a faint whiff of desperation about them (people thinking clever and careful wording will allow them to pass adverse comments about Helen Joyce) - however, it would be interesting to see how much careful crafting is involved:

Lots of people are worried about getting sued for defamation or libel for criticising people online, so I wanted to share the golden rules for minimising the risks...

archive.is/HLbXZ

With self-appointed leaders with a self-identified professional interest in EDI stepping in to guide the strategy on how to be discourteous and not engage with ideas, we may be seeing a very odd democratisation and adaptation of Dentons. I'm interested in seeing where it will lead.

It's a pity it was there though, as you say - partly because it's an error also and I think only found in sources quite hostile to Soros. So it gives the impression of some contamination. Still, Joyce stays out of more troubled waters insofar as she doesn't consider the possible motivations of Soros et al. If she'd been arguing that Soros was particularly exercised about trans issues, her argument would be weakened by the error - 100 million dollars seems far more than he has actually given to trans causes. But she is arguing that trans rights movements / activism draws on funding from particular billionaires and hasn't come from the grassroots - that remains very relevant once you fix the error with HRC/W.

It does seem to be an error. Fixing it wouldn't detract from the argument - which is that Soros is one of a group of billionaires who have funded transactivism. You could excise the sentence and make no further edits. The rest of Soros's donations carry the argument.

Michael Biggs has pointed out that Soros's OSFs don't or didn't when he wrote contribute that high a proportion of their income to trans issues. But he goes on to say that a low proportion of Soros's philanthropy is still enough to be a major funder compared with other sources: 4thwavenow.com/2018/05/25/the-open-society-foundations-the-transgender-movement/

Is anyone able to comment on how significant the HRW/HRC error is, assuming it is an error? It feels a bit of a shame if that's snuck through, especially as it's connected to the contentious Soros mention.

Three of them were only put on today so maybe there'll be more in a couple of days. We'll probably buy more when the paperback comes out anyway.

It is a nice job but I do try and be objective about it. You don't know when you're doing an advance purchase whether the book is going to stay in a GC bubble or whether it's going to break out. And that obviously affects the number of people who are going to take it off the shelves.

It's out of stock in so many places.

Either booksellers didn't realise how popular it would be
or they didn't want it to be popular. Or both. It's so strange, any other book would have a great big pile on a table near the door.

Helen said on twitter her publishers have plenty of copies and are restocking as fast as they can.

Of course it's a shame because it affects how quickly it climbs up the bestseller list.

Oh wow HPFA that's awesome (& you may have my dream job!!!)

Anyone local you could nudge to reserve a copy?

In my professional life I found myself choosing how many copies of the title would be purchased by a library service. I did my best to make a professional judgement and opted for three copies.

So far there are eight reservations - two more will trigger the purchasing of another copy.

I'm pleased - I did worry whether I was being biased but so far my judgement is about right!

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/08/cologne-attacks-hard-questions-new-years-eve

Gaby Hinsliff is the writer who made me stop reading the Guardian with her disingenuous apologist take on the New Year sexual assaults in Cologne.

She is the perfect example of someone holding a crony belief. She even alludes to it in the review: 'She sees support for the idea that individuals can change biological sex as a “crony belief”, one people mostly hold to look good in front of others, and that may be dropped quite easily if enough of those others start publicly challenging it.'

Perhaps it's the fact that she recognises herself in that sentence that has made her so dismissive of the book's arguments. Truth hurts.

Hinsliff says of Joyce’s book

it would have benefited from fewer pages of highly contentious speculation about what makes people trans

She misses the point that this is not speculation about what the one thing that would make somebody trans, but observation of the many groups of people included in the idea of ‘trans’. None are genuinely contentious unless you seek to objectively exclude particular groups from the trans umbrella.

I wonder if it’s just easier for Hinsliff to construct her own fiction if she excludes them?

Gaby Hinsliff is the writer who made me stop reading the Guardian with her disingenuous apologist take on the New Year sexual assaults in Cologne.

Have just realised there's a separate thread on the Hinsliff review - sorry. So far there have been reviews in the Evening Standard, The Times, Daily Telegraph and the Observer - anywhere else? I'd have expected reviews in the Sunday Times and the Spectator, at least.

Gaby Hinsliff has reviewed Helen Joyce's book along with Kathleen Stock's book for the Observer:

www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jul/18/trans-by-helen-joyce-material-girls-by-kathleen-stock-reviews

She seems to miss the point of Joyce's book by a country mile, but pretty much what I've come to expect.

People are assuming that the word trans actually means some sort of physical transition (surgery) has taken place and they have very little idea that in reality all that's happened is someone has just said some words and is now presenting an unchanged body to anyone they feel like showing it to.

If the only thing keeping males on the TRA side is sympathy for anyone so distressed they want to get their genitalia cut off, they are in for a shock when they discover that most male born with a GRC don't do it. That is what peaked me as a woman.

As it looks like an error, I should think that both HJ and the publishers would include it in an erratum list (I like it when these are online rather than waiting to attend lectures where they're given out on paper slips) ahead of any second edition.

Yes, that’s what I think too - from its annual reports, HRC annual revenues are generally in the region of $30 - $40 million.

Unless I am mistaken (easily possible), it does look as though the figure of $100 million to HRC must be an error.

HRC had far less than $100 million in total in either 2010 or 2011.

https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/HRCAnnuall_Report2010.pdf??_ga=2.8484277.1851203648.1626598731-1159091512.1626598731

https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/AnnualReport2011.pdf??_ga=2.71873939.1851203648.1626598731-1159091512.1626598731

Links from here

www.hrc.org/about/annual-reports

Excellent review by Kathleen Stock (whose book 'Material Girls' is equally brilliant IMHO)
www.pressreader.com/uk/the-daily-telegraph-review/20210717/281754157334563

Oops sorry, missed that. Thanks.

Just in the interests of accuracy, can someone with the book quote the section where Soros is mentioned?

Dickhead.

twitter.com/KatyMontgomerie/status/1416568804730183681?s=20