So disgusted tonight

In that case, if the individual does not need any medical intervention they they must reconciled with their biological sex. If they do not need any legal accommodations, then they must be reconciled with their legal sex.

Which is exactly what Helen was talking about…

You had to read the larger piece to know that Helen Joyce wasn't advocating genocide? Do women often advocate for genocide? Is that a thing?

How, if that definition is accurate, is the current medical model not gross malpractice?

So, after watching Matt Walsh's piece ( a few obvious flaws otherwise chilling - Scott newgent was brilliant.) and then reading Malcom Clark's evidence and then learning more about the John money / Kinsey links, and exactly what Kinsey did (paid pedophiles to do his sexology research) yes the only conclusions are that this (as in the concept and medicalisation approaches) is all gross malpractice with very many links to very worrying aspects of abuse.

I think the wording is unfortunate as it will be used to play into the TRA wailing narrative of "evil terfs want to wipe us out of existence". Reading the larger piece it is clear that she was not advocating genocide and what she said was coming from a place of concern and compassion, but I am afraid the GC side are going to have these words thrown back at us for a long time.

I don't see the point in all the hand-wringing over this, I agree with what Helen said (however anyone wishes to interpret it) and just want to get back to a sane world where sex is real.

Like Posie Parker said in her Piers Morgan interview, if that makes me transphobic then yes, I'm transphobic.

‘Transition doesn't need too mean all that. It would be perfectly possible to transition from man to transwoman, woman to transman, with very few, if any, accommodations needed.’

Please explain how this would work. I am generally in favour of autonomy provided it doesn’t demand too much of others. I would happily support trans rights if it meant people being able to change things for themselves (physically and socially) as long as single sex spaces weren’t affected, nobody was compelled to say anything they didn’t believe, nobody was harassed for their lack of belief, and children (probably under the age of 16) were not transitioning (obviously medically but also socially).

The GRA was passed with the expectation of accommodating fewer than 5000 people and the protected characteristic in the EA2010 was based on that. Limited numbers was built in. Now we have middle-class non-binary and pronoun havers expecting to be included in protective legislation they don't need and that was only ever intended and designed to cover a small group. Joyce is completely correct.

I don't understand why someone like Jones is still given a platform, he doesn't have ant insight or added value and it's far from the first time he's whipped up the hate crowd resulting in horrific threats and abuse for his victims. Prior's threats require police investigation imo.

Transition doesn't need too mean all that. It would be perfectly possible to transition from man to transwoman, woman to transman, with very few, if any, accommodations needed.

Also, how does this fit with the concept of ‘trans children’? How can a child of four or five hate their sexed body or ‘explore their gender identity’, of being trans is about poor body image? How can anyone imagine that the fact that adults sometimes hate their bodies and kids copy them justifies social transition or puberty blockers, or double mastectomy for adolescent girls, or sex reassignment for 18 year olds?

How, if that definition is accurate, is the current medical model not gross malpractice?

But no one is saying that people expressing a their identity is a problem in society are they?!

But to transition means accommodation as a society. Accommodation of their health needs, legal requirements, the prison needs, sports needs, and so on. The more people who think - or are told - that medical transition is the answer, rather than accepting their sex, the more accommodation is needed. The more people say they’re trans, the more legal accommodation is looked for: this is the entire self ID debate.

This is what accommodation means, not the ridiculous hyperbolic suggestions of some fascist proposition that the loons on Twitter claim.

Obviously it’s clear this definition doesn’t touch the sides of the philosophical claims being made by activists. Only this morning I’ve seen someone taking issue with the statement that a person can’t change sex. I’ve seen someone pointing out that nobody (rational) would argue that another person pointing out that obesity is a social problem would also be implying that the number of fat people should reduced through killing them. The answer given to them was, ‘But do you think obesity is the same as being trans?’

But by the definition above, it’s a question of personal body image and nothing more.

Clearly the claims of the trans lobby far outstrip ‘not liking your body and want to change it’, or what are all the death threats about when someone doesn’t agree that they were ‘born in the wrong body’ or that they’ve changed sex?

But for anyone following this logic: I’ve been told now that ‘trans’ means poor body image.

That’s fine with me as a definition. Just don’t ask me to do anything I wouldn’t normally do.

‘It just means feeling deeply unhappy and uncomfortable with your body. No, we can’t define what feeling female is in an objective sense but the whole point is that someone who is not female can’t imagine what it is like.’

This is absolutely not what is being said when people say ‘transgender’. This is not the same claim that demands I call a person ‘she’ when they were born male, or that I allow a male to examine me as if he were a female, or that a lesbian should consider sex with males, or that anyone who doesn’t ‘recognise’ someone’s inner gendered essence is a Nazi. Nope.

But yes, lots of people are deeply unhappy with their bodies. What is the basis for the claim that this makes them any different from anyone else, such that the above accommodations should be made, or that anyone pointing out that they are not actually the opposite sex is engaging in hate speech and ‘conversion therapy’?

(It’s also clear from that very reductive wording ‘unhappy with their body’ - although I probably agree with it in essence - that ‘trans’ must therefore be an acquired, not innate state of being. Nobody is born unhappy. And therefore by your own logic, even though I would agree with you also that we can’t stop people transitioning, Joyce is right that this is probably fixable. Self-hatred isn’t a stable condition.)

It just means feeling deeply unhappy and uncomfortable with your body. No, we can’t define what feeling female is in an objective sense but the whole point is that someone who is not female can’t imagine what it is like. And equally, I can’t imagine what it’s like feeling that I can only be happy if I take cross-sex hormones, or how it would feel if I were to be stopped from doing so. For that reason I can’t say it’s no biggie for people to be prevented from doing that or from expressing themselves how they want. They’re adults - they have to be able to make that choice for themselves and shouldn’t face discrimination because of it.

But there is zero chance that elective cosmetic surgery will be banned and while you say you think it should be banned, many many disagree. There are many unscrupulous private doctors who take advantage of all sorts of patients, not just trans ones. The anti ageing industry is worth billions for instance and involves altering the body to fit an ideal and fighting against nature.
Also, isn’t the issue that very few trans people actually undergo a full medical transition? While some trans males may take estrogen (not great for the body but if they give informed consent, okay), the majority are fully intact so it’s not even the case that they are mutilating their bodies beyond recognition. It’s much more about the social aspects of it and if we draw a distinction between those born female and those who are not in sports, prisons etc, I really don’t see why someone expressing their identity is a problem for society

‘If you're not trans though, how do you have any idea what it's like?’

I’ll agree with this (just as nobody who isn’t female can know what it’s like) just as soon as someone provides me with a coherent definition of the word trans, and some explanation of how this state of being is objectively verifiable.

I’ll wait.

Well all of those examples don’t match do they?

If doctors were partaking in helping you eat your way to 24 stone, or supplying you with cigarettes leading to cardiovascular risk - like hormones - then it might be the same. The plastic surgery is a better analogy and I think that is also problematic. A fake set of JJ boobs isn’t healthy and it’s telling that the only doctors willing to undertake such a procedure on consenting adults are unscrupulous private surgeons happy to take people’s money. There’s a very good case for banning such surgeries, and also things like butt lifts etc which can lead to death. We don’t let adults do whatever they want, whenever they want just because they’re consenting. How do you protect trans patients from exploitation from surgeons who don’t care about their mental health?

Some people get relief from gender dysphoria but some don’t and the published evidence says overall there’s no great help, and there’s no way of knowing who is going to be helped. Therefore there needs to be discussion because it’s a problem for society if there’s an expectation that this is all done with public money.

We don’t police other potentially harmful behaviour. I could eat my way to 24 stone and require lots of major medical interventions and increase my disease risk big time and nobody is allowed to stop me. Ditto smoking, drinking, performing extreme sports. There is of course also the similarity to radical plastic surgery which is not banned either. If I want JJ boobs and can pay for them, I don’t see people banning me, despite me ‘mutilating’ my healthy body.
Some people with gender dysphoria get relief from transitioning. It’s a shame that there are some that regret what they did but if they were adults with mental capacity when making that decision, they will have to live with that.
I have an issue with allowing males into female spaces and stopping women from talking about our experiences. I do not have an issue with what grown adults do to their bodies. I wouldn’t dream of saying that someone is a problem for society because of what they choose to do with their bodies because they are not.

Because the harm is objectively measurable. A male on oestrogen has risk of harm from increased risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and autoimmune disease. A female on testosterone has risks of disease also, but different. Both have risks of unknown complications. Surgery adds a whole new level to that. A “neovagina” has risks and so on.

“Something it isn’t” is hormones levels hugely out of the normal range for that person’s sex. “Something it isn’t” means a wound in the perineum constantly trying to close.

It’s not fitting my ideals. It’s fitting the essentials of biology and the principles of medicine. What my ideal, or a trans person’s ideal of what their body should be, matters not for the facts.

It makes no difference whatsoever if the trans person themselves does not perceive any of this as harm: it still is from a medical perspective and has to be managed accordingly. And given it’s done without strong evidence base, and implications around consent and healthcare resources, it needs to be discussed.

You may quibble about “harm” but taking a physically healthy body and altering it to something it isn’t requiring lifelong specialist medical monitoring
If you're not trans though, how do you have any idea what it's like?
You can't just come out and say "'something it isn't'' as you're then fitting your ideals of what a person's body should or shouldn't be.

Grown adults can’t all do what they want just because they’re grown adults though, can they?

There’s a difference between trans people transitioning, and society including doctors partaking in medical transition for trans people when the evidence is scant that it helps and incontrovertibly causes harm. You may quibble about “harm” but taking a physically healthy body and altering it to something it isn’t requiring lifelong specialist medical monitoring is certainly under the umbrella of iatrogenic disease.

Want to transition? Go for your life. Want the medical profession to help you along with that? It’s in your best interests that questions are asked and evidence is sought. Because if not, the cowboy doctors who would do anything for a dollar will inevitably ruin some people’s lives. I find it remarkable that any doctor or surgeon would partake in any form of affirmative gender medicine; at the very least they should have their consent process absolutely water tight making it clear to the patient that they’re operating in an evidence-free zone.

And no, “look at all the happy trans people on Twitter” is not evidence.

here is Helen on tape saying that they are a problem for a sane society. Whatever good explanations there are for saying it (I’m not convinced at all actually if we’re talking about adults
Exactly - saying they are a problem for a sane society.
Talking about adults, it doesn't become about concerns for children, or respecting spaces (as you say third spaces) it becomes so much more.
It suddenly becomes about trans people being "allowed" to be trans or to be forced into being something they're not. Ie forced to not transition as you "don't believe they should."
Grown adults.

Not sure what difference it makes if random TRAs are jumping up and down. They're not exactly known for their discerning remarks on gender critical narratives.

Anyone who can froth at what JKR said about her assault or refer to dictionary definitions as 'transphobic dog whistles' isn't really demonstrating much credibility.

And whatever people's individual thoughts are about the issue, Helen Joyce has at least got the conversation going.

The different reasons and motivations for transition needs addressing. Teens, homosexuals, ROGD, AGP - none of this is the same thing. It can only be healthy and beneficial to unpick it.

Not a great thing to say tbh, even if she thinks she’s coming from a place of compassion. The argument from TRAs all along has been that GC people want to eliminate them and bingo here is Helen on tape saying that they are a problem for a sane society. Whatever good explanations there are for saying it (I’m not convinced at all actually if we’re talking about adults - and we have third spaces etc), it could have been foreseen that they would jump on this.

Any answers to my questions?

Would those who are outraged by Helen's sentiments ever like to see a cure for gender dysphoria?

Apart from homophobia, sexism/AGP or trauma what other reasons can people give for transition? An answer to that would be rather useful in moving the conversation forward, (in terms of addressing the morality of reducing numbers).