So disgusted tonight

She's talking about getting rid of the ability to alleviate it by transitioning

Is she? Or is she talking about ensuring that any intervention goes further than unquestioning affirmation? Which, as we can all plainly see, causes all sorts of issues for a significant number of trans people of all ages.

I say that as one who doesn't ignore the words of detransitioners. Their experiences absolutely must inform all medical routes to transition. Something the loudest of naysayers ignore.

‘She's talking about getting rid of the ability to alleviate it by transitioning.’

She seemed to me to be saying that being ‘trans’ may be a form of dissociation, and suggesting reducing the current level of dissociation to no dissociation.

She's not talking about getting rid of dysphoria.

She's talking about getting rid of the ability to alleviate it by transitioning.

Those saying that women need to watch their words so closely, would you prefer no one spoke unless they were reading from a script and had had PR approval of the leading feminists.

This is getting ridiculous.

The conditions you have chosen are not just imperfect comparators. They are not comparable at all.
please leave people with conditions such as these out of your discussion, especially as you clearly don’t understand them very well.

I'm still in a silent space, do you have a direct quote? I do at least recognise your username :)

It was a terrible analogy, I'm not going to defend it.

The fewer people with cancer the better.

Sounds great to me!

The fewer people with dysphoria the better.

Also, great. Why would we want more people to be in such utter pain that they want to cut perfectly healthy body parts off?

‘This is the same debate.’

It’s not. If Joyce were saying, ‘There’s a test for transness. Let’s apply it to unborn children and make sure they are never born,’ that would be comparable to trying to eliminate hereditary conditions (I am not expressing an opinion on the latter).

What Joyce is saying is that she thinks people who go on to transition are unwell, and helping them with an alternative outcome for their distress would be better.

Like it, dislike it, she is not suggesting what you claim she is suggesting.

Not quite the same debate, as I'm choosing conditions that are present at conception. It's hard to get perfect comparitors as we really don't know the mechanisms at play.

Well, yes. I do agree with the snippets that have been posted here.

Trans ideology is causing all sorts of issues in real life. From the bastardisation if laws to the increased danger if violence to women in single sex spaces. All documented, measurable, real issues.

Plus the issues caused to young people displaying confusion re their sexuality, identity etc. Some of the experiences those who have detransitioned or experienced a wide range of physical, sexual and mental.issues because of the lack of information regarding their health care.

Nobody can deny that the current situation is sustainable, is right. There has to be a change and one of them is reducing the number of young people who, when they express identity or sexual confusion, are encouraged, affirmed, in being trans when a more considered approach would have done a few things: given them time and space to explore their feelings; given them a lot more accurate and appropriate information on the realities of a medicalised transition and offered alternatives in short, medium and long term options.

That's far less dangerous than the "affirmation without question" model.

I suggest anyone choosing to interpret what was said from the edited clip should watch it in context of what she says directly after. If people are making judgements based on a clipped version, why?

She is talking about stopping transitioning (and I interpreted this as being aimed at young people) until after the medical treatments have been better assessed. She even discusses how two of the three Dutch specialists who were responsible for the Dutch protocol acknowledge that that protocol is a last resort for people who are likely to have significantly poor outcomes of not medically transitioning.

I think a great larger conversation has been cut down to remove the context.

Those saying that women need to watch their words so closely, would you prefer no one spoke unless they were reading from a script and had had PR approval of the leading feminists.

This is getting ridiculous.

Some people think that if we could eradicate hereditary diseases that would be perfect. Others think that any form of selection at any stage is wrong, and will list various people who would never have been born.
This is the same debate. Neither side is demonstrably wrong.

That is NOT what she is saying at all. Joyce is saying there needs to be intervention and support for those who become dissociated from their natural sex so that they don't go as far as "transitioning"; that we need to treat such dissociated people, specifically children, with compassion and help them come to terms with their natural sex. So, yes, the fewer people who are dissociated from their natural sex the better. Being dissociated from the natural sex of your own body is surely not a mentally or physically healthy way to live a life?

That is precisely what you did suggest, by saying that autism is a “comparator” to the state of being trans. It is not.
I won’t hold my breath for the apology, but I’d hope you’d reflect on the thoughtlessness of your comparison.

Isn't Prior just your common or garden acronym that-dare-not-speak-its-name?

Anyone who thinks anything said here is ok, is supporting an ideology that history has proven to be not just a bad idea, but actually evil.
Readit, and then apply what she said to another demographic - one you can bring yourself to think of as human. She is talking about the eradication of trans people from society because their existence is "a huge problem" "a difficulty".The fewer of those people there are, the better."
Yes, but people are still saying it's a mis step, she didn't mean what she clearly said, it's like a fearful teacher in school having a whoops moment -, desperate to minimise away or gaslight no it didn't mean that 🙄
What does it actually take for some to see?!
Unless you actually agree with her and that's why you can't or won't.

But that is because it definitely isn’t a belief. We know autism is a state of being. We know people are born into that state of being. We don’t know that about transgenderism.

For me, that doesn’t mean trans identities are bad. But I wouldn’t apologise for not pretending to think they are innate. I don’t have any reason to think that.

Here's the two just on JP's timeline - there's another with JK Rowling hugging Helen Joyce added to it that was on 150k this morning which if it has increased at the same rate puts it over 1m, apparently it's on Insta and Facebook as well so who knows what the true total is.

Had I at any point suggested that autism was a belief, I would apologise.

@LemonPalmTree "So you don’t believe in anyone censoring themselves to not cause offence unless it’s someone you disagree with. Those ones are the “lying gobshites”.

On Free Speech
Lord Justice Sir Stephen Sedley said in a 1999 ruling:

“Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having”.

So, no, self-censorship is not necessary. What is necessary for free speech to succeed for everyone is disagreement rationally expressed.

None of the conditions you mention are comparators to being trans. At all. Bring trans, hard as it is to define, is ultimately a question of feelings and beliefs about oneself. None of the conditions you mention are that and as the parent of an autistic child I find the suggestion they are also quite offensive.

I think Joyce can handle the heat. In her shoes I wouldn’t have said what she said. My position is different to hers in that I don’t believe in a sex-incongruent gender identity as an innate attribute and certainly won’t be compelled to say I do, but I don’t think every trans person has been harmed. Some of them seem very happy and good for them.

I can't imagine how many times worse it must be being on such a public stage. Joyce is a very brave woman.

Anyone who thinks anything said here is ok, is supporting an ideology that history has proven to be not just a bad idea, but actually evil.

Read it, and then apply what she said to another demographic - one you can bring yourself to think of as human. She is talking about the eradication of trans people from society because their existence is "a huge problem" "a difficulty".

"The fewer of those people there are, the better."