So disgusted tonight

What an utterly ridiculous interpretation of what I said. The law is the law. No-one is suggesting removing protection from discrimination for those who claim the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment". Such people are wholly different from those whose protected characteristic is sex [defined in this law as woman: a female of any age; man: a male of any age].

That difference is why the two protected characteristics exist separately:

From the Equality Act 2010:

Chapter 1 Protected characteristics

4.The protected characteristics

5.Age
6.Disability
7.Gender reassignment
8.Marriage and civil partnership
9.Race
10.Religion or belief
11.Sex
12.Sexual orientation

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

Read, mark and inwardly digest, perhaps?

No answer to this then? What a surprise…

Some of the tweets etc. on terfisaslur site can be read as recommending the mass murder of gender critical people

Some of the tweets in response to this same video can be.

Isn’t 12 to 14 a really specific number that suggests someone has been thinking about this a lot?

I believe that gender critical activists are held to much higher ethical and moral and linguistic standards than trans activists.

This may partly be because trans activists regard almost any questioning or disagreement or even nasty comments as what they call literal genocide. It's rarer for the gender critical side to catastrophise the many nasty online comments which could be interpreted as promoting violence against the so-called TERFs.

To put this thread into the online ecosystem on trans issues, here's a sampling of some of the anti-GC things I found by Googling this afternoon:

This is an interesting clip, and quite recent.

In several of the protests some trans activists shouted 'cis scum' (and there is the 'die cis scum' meme) and, of course, there is the terfisaslur website.

A reporter, Ana Valens, who is a trans woman, once tweeted this:

the yr is 2028. the united soviets of america have emerged, run by groups of 12 to 14 trans women who all initiate breeding facilities where we hive five each other while spitroasting cis women. we call it the gender crit wet p*y carousel (now with less respectability politics)

Shon Faye, an author who is a trans woman, once tweeted to a gender critical feminist (whose handle is Lavender Blume on Twitter): "im a woman because I say I am sorry you've lost - even law says so - enjoy ur erasure."

Some of the tweets etc. on terfisaslur site can be read as recommending the mass murder of gender critical people, but the gender critical side does not, on the whole, raise similar uproars to the one discussed in this thread about the slurs and threats they get.

I think the point is that anger expressed as aggression or violence is very much a male response, given the extent of male aggression and violence there is in this world.

This.

Wonderful, new TRA slogan, anyone, 'Statistics are stereotyping'?

Yes, how can anyone advocate for any social justice at all? "It's just stereotyping that black/gay/disabled people are discriminated against"!

That conversation occurred well over a week ago and it is only now that a very malicious person has chosen to make an edit of a tiny part of the whole discussion, to create an intended distortion and use it to stir up hatred and fear.

I think maybe to distract from the Matt Walsh documentary coming out.

No, it would not be fair at all, and is a particular reach. Give it up, the usual suspects are outraged, who the hell cares what Owen Jones, Laurie Penny et al think. HJ is coming from the place of compassion and harm prevention. Some people are very keen to misrepresent and discredit her. Fuck off with your purity spirals, she's entitled to her perfectly legal and reasonable opinion.

So it would be fair to assume that Joyce would support removing protections against gender reassigned individuals from the Equality Act since they most especially require too many accommodations?

Let me see if I have this right.

Some people are (bizarrely but innocently) mistaken about what sex they are. Others tell lies about what sex they are. These mistakes and lies, it turns out, have bad societal effects, amongst which causing harm to children. An author points this out and draws the (natural) conclusion that we would be better off with fewer such mistaken people and/or liars. The author is pilloried for expressing this view because its expression may upset the innocently mistaken, who, after all, do no deliberate wrong.

Is that about it?

Helen Joyce? Good on her. I recommend buying and reading her book.

[I said something about the Owen Jones canard of assimilating trans with gay in an earlier post. I will not repeat.]

@idlemuse "This can apply to many types of disabled people or people with various health conditions."

Disabled people are covered by the law related to discrimination of disabled people. Reasonable adjustments are required by law. [Some health conditions fall within this category.]

The Equality Act 2010 is about one thing and one thing only: discrimination against anyone who falls within the 9 protected characteristics.

Sex is one protected characteristic. Gender reassignment [which is about people who are dissociated from their natural sex] is another separate protected characteristic.

Accommodations are required for each of those two PCs separately in a way that avoids discrimination and or conflict of rights in either category.

This can apply to many types of disabled people or people with various health conditions.

On a larger scale people who are dissociate from their natural sex are difficult to accommodate in that it means that the whole of society now has make serious adjustments and to find the money to provide separate spaces and services across the board, so as not to have any adverse impact on anyone who is not dissociated from their natural sex.

She also did imply they were burdensome and I accept that she did. But when the ‘burden’ is (for example) the demand that males race against females, or the disregard of a woman who wants a female police officer to strip search her, it’s not unreasonable to push back against that burden. Not all accommodations are reasonable.

‘Unfortunately, her main explanation of her reasoning was not that transition caused suffering for transitioners, or that some transitions were unnecessary, but that they were difficult to accommodate.’

That’s misleading. She did say they would need ‘accommodations’ throughout their lives but she was (as I read it) also commenting on the difficulty of those accommodations for them. So a person who medically transitions at (say) 18 will one day be a seventy year old, and we really don’t know what they will need.

Yes, it's a "burden on society" take.

Unfortunately, her main explanation of her reasoning was not that transition caused suffering for transitioners, or that some transitions were unnecessary, but that they were difficult to accommodate. That's a bad take.

'some view them as a 'legitimate population' and thus reducing them is bigotry, others view it as more of a pathogen/cancer and thus reducing them is entirely moral' is your misrepresentation of the argument. And wtf is 'legitimate population'? Is it like a 'gendered soul'?

Should we encourage or discourage medical transition, particularly in children? That is the question HJ is discussing. And being a fascist bigot she thinks we should discourage the increase in medicalised people who dissociate from their sex. Honestly, how dare she have a fucking opinion about the massive and unprecedented increase in children and young adults thinking they are a wrong/no sex, and demanding surgery and drugs to 'cure' their perfectly healthy bodies. Luckily, Laurie Penny, of 'it's rude to stare when confronted with cock in the women-only spa section' has piped in to disapprove and show us all how to be a new 'they' feminist

The problem is they just don't understand the point. GC means gender doesn't exist, you have a body and you have a personality. You do not need to be masculine or feminine. Therefore transitioning is just mutilation as gender isn't real and sex is just your body not stereotypes about behaviour.
Until they understand what GC think gender is we are talking at cross purposes. ShinyRainbow doesn't get it.

As far as I am concerned, there is no mixed message. As I said earlier, that clip does not represent the sum total of Helen Joyce's views on the issue of people who become dissociated from their natural sex.

The clip is an edit from a one hour long conversation that was made with malice and distributed with a deliberately malicious interpretation to try to create the impression that this is the sum total of her views. Such people trying to use this malicious interpretation of that edit to promote the position that Helen's views amount to attempted genocide and fascism are malicious and wrong.

It is not the sum total of her views. [Many of us want to see fewer people engaging in a largely fruitless and very harmful process that is called "transitioning" by some because it cannot achieve what they have been deceived to think it can achieve.] Listening to the whole conversation reveals that. Listening to her other conversations reveals that. Reading her book reveals that.

Wow... you're really on board with "no debate" aren't you...

I don’t think she is misrepresented when people say she would like to see fewer transitioners. She clearly does say that. She’s misrepresented when people call her a fascist or a genocidal whatever.

Again, there's many mixed messages here. The OP and others say Helen's views were misrepresented and that they have to buy her book and listen to 50 podcasts to truly understand, while others are saying that actually she's completely right and reasonable etc.

The summary of the segment seems to be "We need to reduce the number of trans people/people who transition". This statement can be interpreted multiple ways depending on how one views trans people - some view them as a 'legitimate population' and thus reducing them is bigotry, others view it as more of a pathogen/cancer and thus reducing them is entirely moral. But the general statement is entirely in line with what she seems to believe - justifying the statement by saying why she's right to say that doesn't change the original statements. The original video seems to have represented her and her fans views fairly. The commentary might be extreme either way however.