David Aaronovitch Review of Helen Joyce's Book

I bought the book on kindle today after reading his review. So far it’s excellent - clear, sensible, compassionate and yes, Soros is mentioned once almost in passing. Highly recommend it.

I'd laugh my arse off if Helen Joyce sued Katy Montgomerie for libel.

archive.is/2hW0n

Thanks to the wonders of technology I can tell you all that Soros is only mentioned once in the entire book. The only point made is that he is one of a number of billionaires who have made large donations to groups like HRC (American equivalent of Stonewall) which are therefore well funded. Given that his donations are quite open this is hardly an allegation that he is involved in a conspiracy.

Separately, it is noted that some campaigners have had a deliberate policy of maintaining a low profile, but again, this is well documented, and it is not in any away linked to Soros.

I’m not 100% sure but he listens to a lot of talk radio

I'm about a third of the way through the book and my word it's good. it's telling me stuff I already know but seeing it all laid out so clearly is brilliant

Trued to share this article to my Facebook but the share token isn't working. I'm a subscriber and went via the website and clicked on share to Facebook. Can anyone help me out with how to get the share token on there?

Also, one thing troubling me. Why is the race of the teen 'trans girl' athlete in the US relevant?

Agree @where.

In addition, from the many online interactions I've seen, I think some men reflexively say twaw because they are sexually attracted to them (porn) and cannot handle that it makes them not heterosexual. If the people they're attracted to are women, then their heterosexuality can remain in tact. Another homophobic strand to trans activism

Interestingly of course OJ’s comments to DA in the tweets above - where he tells him he has no authority on matters of bigotry - is an actual example of straightforward anti-Semitism. Exactly the stuff Baddiel wrote about in his book.

How strange the faithful don’t seem to mind that though! No cancellation for Saint O!

[quote MegCleary]@FightingtheFoo do you mean Empire of Pain?[/quote]
Yup

Two paragraphs in David's article stood out to me

"In her book, Helen Joyce, an editor at The Economist, sums up what was my understanding of the subject: “Most people thought, and many still do — that transness meant ‘transsexuality’: such a deep discomfort with one’s sexed body and strong identification with the opposite sex that only surgery to reshape the body to the extent possible could bring a measure of peace."

"That certainly seemed to be the story of those magazine features and Channel 4 documentaries about (mostly) people trapped in men’s bodies, driven to despair by prejudice and hopelessness until liberated. Having semiconsciously harboured for many years the natal male’s fear of castration (and doesn’t this subject quickly become personal?) I realised I had been one of those closet “transphobes” repulsed by the thought of sex-change and so was newly anxious at the very least to be sympathetic to the cause."

That was definitely my starting position all those years ago - that it was all about a tiny number of men (always men, never women back then) crippled by dysphoria, aww, we must be kind to those poor souls. And this is definitely the image fostered by those documentaries, or of boys, so even less threatening and more likely to attract sympathy. So this paragraph and a half reminded me of where I once was and where the majority of people still will be, largely because that's all they hear from out captured, IPSOS-bound, media.

Then he talks about something I, since I am a woman, have never and could never have - "the natal male’s fear of castration", and how that could shape how a man would view a TW. "I realised I had been one of those closet “transphobes” repulsed by the thought of sex-change and so was newly anxious at the very least to be sympathetic to the cause."

And that is what has to be overcome. I've always thought that men don't have skin in the game so happily give women's rights to other men. But maybe they do have skin in the game (reflex reaction to castration), and backing TW is their very own BeKind burden. And so maybe the best way to counter it is to hammer home that there are no castrations happening boys, so uncross your legs and use your eyes and your logic. No castration, no sex change happening so no, you're not a closet transphobe; so now you know these intact males are inserting themselves into women's spaces, do you still feel the need to back them?

Buy here for £12.35 with free delivery and they make a small donation to your local bookshop of choice

www.hive.co.uk/Product/Helen-Joyce/Trans--When-Ideology-Meets-Reality/25774311

It's the silent majority that has to be reached. Like David himself, who admits in the article that he is now off the fence. And tweets "Person with testicles comes off the fence." It's all those fence-sitters, keeping quiet and keeping their heads down, that must be reached. They are the ones who must be persuaded that they are actually the majority, that they don't have to keep their opinions to themselves, that they can ask questions and say that the answers they're being given by TRAs are nonsense. That's who need to be reached.

Shared in on Facebook earlier. My husband "liked" it. Tried to discuss it and found that he hadn't even read it and had not idea what I was talking about. And I thought he was an ally... :(

It will be joining 'Invisible Women's and 'Material Girls' on the feminism shelf in my school library. Have to confess, I'm a bit nervous, but prepared to defend my decisions

There is no possible book that Joyce, or anyone else for the matter, could have written which would have chipped away at the faith of the faithful.

This is absolutely true of course. It's like arguing with Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. They are in thrall to a completely irrational ideology, which is impervious to rational argument.

ovahere
'Not only is her book antisemitic, her anti-Soros obsession clearly illustrates Joyce's wish to marry Viktor Orban'

I have bought the book but not had chance to start it yet. But I've heard good things and this thread has backed those things up. It should be a good addition to my ever-growing library on this subject. I liked the comment above about donating a copy. I might do the same.

The anti-Semitism accusations are straw-clutching. They have nothing they can pin on Helen so they invent anti-Semitism. With other women, it's racism, or "weaponising their trauma" or various other unsubstantiated and absurd criticisms. It's because they haven't got a single rational argument with which to answer her - and they know it. Theirs is an ideology that is completely vacuous, both morally and intellectually.

They are, they had to find something to use that would cause shock among people who will probably never read it or fact-check, and this is what they chose. With JKR they invented a ridiculous story about how her Robert Galbraith pen name was because she admired a pioneer of gay conversion therapy. With no actual evidence apart from pure speculation.

One TRA appears to be inciting violence towards Helen

So, that person believes that Helen's book will get someone killed and that she should be held responsible for it.

Do they ever think for themselves? I and others on a thread recently were told by two males that we also should shoulder our share of blame for violence, this time violence from extremist groups toward each other. And that the woman who recorded the reporting of the WiSpa incident was directly responsible for those injuries.

Women speaking out in carefully moderated language are being threatened in this way simply for one reason. To shut them up. To silence the dissension to males getting their way.

plus ca change

I've read the book. Helen is remarkably measured and calm, just as she always is on Twitter. To call her writing angry is absurd. Unfortunately any woman who voices an opinion an anything is perceived by men as angry, aggressive and so on, just by virtue of expressing an opinion.

The anti-Semitism accusations are straw-clutching. They have nothing they can pin on Helen so they invent anti-Semitism. With other women, it's racism, or "weaponising their trauma" or various other unsubstantiated and absurd criticisms. It's because they haven't got a single rational argument with which to answer her - and they know it. Theirs is an ideology that is completely vacuous, both morally and intellectually.

Has Dawkins copped any more flack from the Twitter gender warriors? His glowing endorsement takes pride of place on the front cover.