So disgusted tonight

The point she was making is that the people who have been led down the path of believing they could change their sex will need to be accommodated by society in some way.

I don't recall it. I saw a clip of it on Twitter before this thread came up and thought, my god, that's horrible optics.
As I said, I don't think Joyce is transphobic. I agree that if you took things I've said, you could find something offensive in them. But this was a total home goal, because it genuinely is very poorly worded and offensive.
We think it's obvious that Joyce isn't suggesting a genocide. However, given the current climate, I think it's equally obvious that thousands of people will interpret her words in exactly that way.

I think it has been misinterpreted, however in my opinion its a clear own goal.

The words that were used have allowed it to be misinterpreted.

Joyce and to a lesser extent Stanisland (who did nothing to counter) have given lots of ammunition and to an outsider looking in, the words were disturbing to say the least.

Helen S. doubling down on it today and yesterday is just making it even worse.

That is what she did say, but used different words to say it. It shows that you understood what she said because, with the benefit of hindsight, you have been able to rephrase it.

Personally, I want far fewer people, especially children, in every and any group that is led into self-harm in any way.

Didn't she? Is there a transcription of what she did say? I'm in a silent space and would like to see what she actually said.

But she didn't.

Could people who dislike you look at everything you have ever said and pick something out of the whole that taken out of context might sound dismissive or callous? I'd bet my house they could.

‘The thing is, there are people who are parts of those groups, and saying we want less of them is absolutely hurtful.’

But the interpretation people are putting on that (that it’s ‘genocidal’) is absurd. She isn’t saying she wants fewer of them as in she wants those people not to exist.

‘Had she said, in the future, we would like to create conditions under which fewer people would feel the necessity to transition, that would have been fine.’

You don’t think she would have been accused of bigotry if she had said this?

Exactly so. The malice and misogyny is palpable, isn't it?

All Helen is saying is about harm reduction for the wellbeing of children; she specifically refers to children. That qualification is being ignored by most.

We can choose many comparitors, and it doesn't matter how they stand up. The thing is, there are people who are parts of those groups, and saying we want less of them is absolutely hurtful.

Had she said, in the future, we would like to create conditions under which fewer people would feel the necessity to transition, that would have been fine.

But she didn't.

It is not our place to judge the worth or cost of different aspects of peoples personalities. Things that cause unhappiness in one part of our lives can be the source of other types of fulfilment or inspiration in others.

Yes, and I think it would help if we openly acknowledged that this is a personality issue, not a wrong sex issue.

‘It is not our place to judge the worth or cost of different aspects of peoples personalities.’

So it’s an attribute of personality?

‘It doesn't '' must mean'' anything as how would she know what being trans is like, or how happy and unhappy they are?’

Obviously she doesn’t ‘know’. She is interested. That still isn’t bigotry.

But it’s interesting to hear something from this ‘closer knowledge loop’ perspective. How would someone male know what it means to be female? And vice versa? They don’t.

Either way, there is nothing bigoted about what she is suggesting: that if being trans is (as is often claimed) dangerous, marginalising and distressing for so many people, and if it isn’t innate (which she seems to believe), then isn’t it better for people not to enter that state of mind?

(I’m not saying I believe this myself. I don’t know enough to say what it is for certain.)

Yes. The depth of malice in the person who edited that short clip from the whole of that part of the conversation to create such a distortion of what Helen is actually saying is unfathomable.

It is not our place to judge the worth or cost of different aspects of peoples personalities. Things that cause unhappiness in one part of our lives can be the source of other types of fulfilment or inspiration in others.

Can we say that we'd like to have fewer people with anorexia?

It's just someone not trans telling them how to live and how they must feel.

Odd that you point that out about a woman discussing ways to make health care for transpeople safer, more effective.

But nobody ever points it out when it is a man parodying women, using all of the stereotypes, and insisting he is a woman. Not in business. Not in cycling. Not in academia. Not in university alumni. Not in any walk of life, it seems.

But a woman 'forgetting' to sugar coat the realities of a dysphoria? Have at her, ensure she knows her transgression has been noted. Threaten to kill her in myriad ways!

Transgender if it means anything at all means people who are unhappy with their sex. Obviously it’s better when people are happy than unhappy.

And it’s better when people are healthy than unhealthy, and trans medical interventions even in the best of cases make people unhealthier than they would have been.

This isn’t even complex.

What I think trans means has nothing to do with anything. Saying that in a sane world, we want to have as few people as possible with X is very likely to be offensive to all people with X. We can substitute all kinds of comparitors: Tourettes, autism, Down`s Syndrome. None of them would be okay, particularly from the mouth of someone that the vast majority of that group feel is hostile to them in the first place.

I was very uncomfortable hearing what Joyce had to say.

I think it has been misinterpreted, however in my opinion its a clear own goal.

The words that were used have allowed it to be misinterpreted.

Joyce and to a lesser extent Stanisland (who did nothing to counter) have given lots of ammunition and to an outsider looking in, the words were disturbing to say the least.

It's just someone not trans telling them how to live and how they must feel.

She's not, she's saying what she thinks about it. We all have views on what we perceive that other people believe.

For me, if Joyce thinks people aren’t innately ‘transgender’, that must mean they at some point move from a position of being happy with their sex to being very unhappy with it
If Joyce isn't trans though, why does it must mean trans people move from being happy to very unhappy?
It doesn't '' must mean'' anything as how would she know what being trans is like, or how happy and unhappy they are?
It's just someone not trans telling them how to live and how they must feel.

For me, if Joyce thinks people aren’t innately ‘transgender’, that must mean they at some point move from a position of being happy with their sex to being very unhappy with it. As harsh as it might sound for her to be so blunt about it, if she is saying it would be better if people didn’t enter this state (of unhappiness) then that is a coherent point. It’s not bigotry.

That's exactly how I heard it, and I have now watched the full episode. There is compassion for people and how they can be accommodated. It's worth watching the whole hour long conversation.

Absolutely agree

For me, if Joyce thinks people aren’t innately ‘transgender’, that must mean they at some point move from a position of being happy with their sex to being very unhappy with it. As harsh as it might sound for her to be so blunt about it, if she is saying it would be better if people didn’t enter this state (of unhappiness) then that is a coherent point. It’s not bigotry.

I think it was incredibly poorly expressed and should be explained much more clearly.
It said what it said, though.
Very clearly.
I understand the explanations being given here, but I believe her wording was deeply offensive.
You say it was deeply offensive, you disagree with her.
Despite some posts twisting themselves into knots trying to say she didn't mean what she actually said or it actually meant something else, you heard for yourself and can take away from that for yourself what you will - what you think of what she actually said, not others interpretations.