Helen Joyce/Helen Staniland "Trans Elimination" video

And if there was the courage to LOOK at these issues, address them, find solutions that work for everyone...?

No one would be looking bad, or frantically trying to shut everyone else up all the time. And we could (for the love of Mike, please) go do something else with our time instead of trying to hurl womens rights, gay rights and child safeguarding back into the 19th century.

I think the narrative is switching from 'it doesn't happen (in my personal reality)'

to 'ok it happens, but it's kind to pretend it doesn't because it makes TQ+ people look bad'.

The batteries on that deflector shield have failed there too.

Demanding that everyone participates in gaslighting to their own disadvantage is not going to work on 99% of the population. It really isn't. No matter how much you shout 'be kind'.

twitter.com/tullipr/status/1536422533230206976?s=21&t=Ye_g2NjhlIVg7OrYv4DgtA

This is a tweet thread from Tulip. He has now detransitioned after what seems to be a long transition. I am not sure it will last on twitter, because it is so raw that I am sure someone will try to have it deleted.

In it Tulip describes the neo vagina operation that was considered a success.

Including the fact that the stub of the penis can not be removed in these operations so it twitches sporadically. Something he was not told.

And the fact his urethra is so destroyed he cannot toilet properly and leaks all the time.

We are led to believe forming neo / replicated vaginas have a high rate of success. What is the truth really? According to Tulip, there are so many lies around this operation and people who have it don’t necessarily publish the truth.

We know phalloplasty has appalling rates of success.

We have seen Yt videos of male transitioners complaining about their unsuccessful and painful larynx operations.

We KNOW the damage to female bodies of puberty blockers that may not come to light for a decade or more .

We KNOW the life limiting and potentially shortening damage to the female body that testosterone can cause. Including the potential for early ovary removal and the risk then of dementia by 40s.

We also know from detransitioners that any issues are either silenced or rarely discussed on fear of ostracisation from sometimes the only support they have left. (Partly from leaving behind their families and becoming isolated)

And yet, we seem to have some posters remonstrating us, monstering Helen Joyce, for saying that damage is caused to bodies.

Is it because they don’t know the side-effects of these drugs or operations? Is it because they have been told that the side effects never happen and have been wildly exaggerated? Is it because the trans people are simply not telling others about it?

Or will Tulip’s account of the damage to his body be dismissed as ‘weaponisation’ by the self proclaimed social media influencers who rely on the golden view of transition success to keep their own platform and success? And will posters quibbling about ‘language’, just double down and not own up to the truth of the situation?

From what I can see the quibbling is about use of words ‘damage’ and being ‘problems for sane society’.

I am going to flip this to any poster who has an issue with the language, convince us that what is happening is not damaging bodies and even exacerbating poor mental health, and is not presenting problems for society to address when considering males in female prisons and sports.

Quite. It proves the point.

These things need to be talked about and looked into instead of stuffed under a rug on the grounds of 'but that's horrid!'. It's past time everyone started to work on being able to behave like rational grown ups about this.

There seems little rationality in the arguments we are seeing presented.

The extreme polarised thinking it takes to equate 'a problem for a sane society' to 'genocide' is rather worrisome.

The very fact that by doing this, it shows just how much of a problem it is for a society who is trying to make decisions that allow all impacted groups to have their needs met, is rather lost on many of those who seem to have outsourced their critical thinking to self-proclaimed social media influencers.

It is glaringly obvious how the reaction actually proved the truth of the statement.

"I like trans people", what the hell does that even mean?

The only thing trans people have in common is that they believe - or say they believe - they have a gender identity which doesn't match their sex.

"Trans people" includes older people who have suffered with gender dysphoria for their entire lives and had sex reassignment surgery 30 years ago, middle aged men with autogynephilia, little boys who like to play with dolls, and teenage girls who have been sexually abused and want to opt out of womanhood.

It includes people as diverse as Karen White, Lia Thomas, Emily Bridges, Katy Montgomery, Buck Angel, Debbie Hayton and Caitlyn Jenner.

It also includes the former university mate of mine who is married with primary school age children and "came out" over the weekend by changing their name to Rose on Facebook and posting a picture of themselves looking identical to before except with nail varnish on.

How can you say you "like trans people"? It's a pretty diverse group of people and you know almost none of them.

She is saying horrible things about trans people

I like trans people

Look this is really naively simplistic. How do you know you like all trans people? Have you met them all? Are you a fan of Barbie Kardashian and Karen White for example? Isn't this really rather patronising and superior? We're talking about people like any other people, the equals of all other people, not a bunch of pet kittens. This is in the realms of 'I love children' and 'I love animals'. Some will be fabulous. Some will not be. Unless it's the characteristic of trans you like and not actually a whole, real person, and if you said for example 'I like disabled people' it would be a bit weird and about you, and what saying that made you feel and how you felt it made you appear, not about any sincere engagement with the group.

In the same vein: no, no one is saying 'horrible things' about an entire population, they are raising concerns with a political agenda and a viewpoint on some potentially very serious problems. These things need to be talked about and looked into instead of stuffed under a rug on the grounds of 'but that's horrid!'. It's past time everyone started to work on being able to behave like rational grown ups about this.

Hearach15 · 11/06/2022 16:40

Of course I am prejudiced against Joyce. She goes around saying horrible things about trans people and I like trans people.

First, a definition - "prejudice - a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." One of the following things is true, which one?

(1) That you don't even know what prejudice is, making your claims to be an arbiter of anything to do with misogyny or transphobia utterly irrelevant.

or

(2) That you are admitting that you have no evidence of whether Joyce says "horrible things about trans people" and that your negative opinion is based on nothing.

Yes. The only reason anyone thinks it's okay for a male to compete in female sports is because male feelings will be hurt otherwise. There is no other reason.

Helleofabore

It seems that like the IOC’s acknowledgement that they know males in female sport categories is unfair but it should be all about feelings, opened the gates again to attempting to force the majority to accept incoherent arguments for the sake of feelings.

What bugs me about this, is that it's so obvious that it's male feelings that are routinely prioritised over female feelings.

Yes, it's nice to accommodate someone's feelings, especially if they are distressed. But in the example of a biological male in women's sport - why is the male persons feelings more important than the female competitors who are losing out? Don't their feelings matter too? I'm sure many of them are feeling pretty hard done by, but they don't really count.

Not when a super special male has come along who needs his feelings validated. Competitive sport should not be a validation excercise.

Helleofabore
I do have a laugh when the constant ‘you are all right wing, look who you support’ threads come up. It is ridiculous to think this many left wing feminists became ‘right wing’ or ‘conservatives’ over the past few years .

Yes, it does smack of 'shoot the messenger' rather than engage with the actual message. This idea that you have to agree with everything a person says is tedious. I can agree with one thing Tucker Carlson says/ does and profoundly disagree with something else.

I also agree that it's quite astounding how many people are so ready to believe that a bunch of left wing liberal women suddenly turned into hateful bigots overnight. Actually, I would say that women were (and still are) far more accommodating and accepting of gender non conforming men (it used to be mostly men) than men were.

So what changed? Well, the law for one - Self ID law which states that somehow men can become women with just a piece of paper, and this gives them automatic access to women's spaces.
Women know and understand the inherent problems with this. So we pushed back against it, knowing that this legal fiction has implications for women and girls. And suddenly we are the hateful ones. For wanting to acknowledge biological reality is very important in certain circumstances.

I guess that makes us all horrible bitches eh?

I have found the simplistic language to match the simplistic and un-nuanced thinking of those who seem to be fully engaged and unwavering in their support of extreme activist thinking.

‘I like’, ‘I don’t like’, ‘anti-trans’ and analogies that simply don’t work and the focus on them as false ‘gotcha’s’, further shows the lack of coherence in the arguments put forward. The lack of coherence and the reliance on emotional manipulation.

It is not just on this thread, but it is across FWR and the rest of social media too.

The thing that keeps me going though is the knowledge that the majority of the population are being to voice their discomfort too, once they start to unpick it all. I remember the constant ‘FWR are the minority view’ until the past few months when activists realised just how dishonest that was and how easy it was to disprove.

It seems that like the IOC’s acknowledgement that they know males in female sport categories is unfair but it should be all about feelings, opened the gates again to attempting to force the majority to accept incoherent arguments for the sake of feelings.

Well, many feminists want kids and usually they want them to be with their partners not some random.

@Hearach15 What exactly is it that makes transwomen women? And potentially attractive to heterosexual males or homosexual females?

The gender-critical position is fairly clear: "woman" designates an adult human female, and the female of any mammalian species is defined by the reproductive pathway that produces large gametes, has the potential to bear young etc. It's a position that's grounded in biology and evolution but with zero implication that women must fulfill that pathway. What is your definition of woman? What is it that a person with the small gametes, penis and prostate pathway, has in common with a female?

Hagiography

yes Hagio, I do suspect that the particular poster was taking an opportunistic sledge where they could.

I do have a laugh when the constant ‘you are all right wing, look who you support’ threads come up. It is ridiculous to think this many left wing feminists became ‘right wing’ or ‘conservatives’ over the past few years . But it does suit some people to try to put others in boxes labelled to suit their own political views.

Most of the posts on the threads about male presenters are usually posts telling others to fuck off with attempting to use extremist activist tactics to shape where regular posters get their information and what they make any positive comment .

I expect that some posters who have their own prejudices about FWR regular posters, will take any opportunity to attribute whatever asinine view they choose on that day. This was just a drive by plop I guess.

JAduchey was presumably just hopping on to fling some mud in the vague hope it might stick. I doubt he or she will be back, as these non-sequiturs don't really amount to much more than casual (presumed) insults.

(They are presumed to be insults because the fact is that most feminists veer left. On the topic of gender and sex, however, women (and men) from all over the political spectrum are in accord. The large majority agree with the women of FWR, whatever their political leanings.)

Ok, that quoting went a bit wrong!
Try again 😁

you people = the one's who try to claim sex isn't a thing
Don't know if you're mixing me up with someone else, but I've never tried to claim sex isn't a thing.

Your body could not have made a baby without the introduction of sperm
Yes, I know this. I know how babies are made.

no transman could provide that for you

Yes, also well aware of that.

So is it the links, or is it the talking points? If it's the talking points, aside from gender identity, what is the overlap?

When I see links to the likes of Matt Walsh, Tucker Carlson etc, there are endless discussion about their politics and view points and whether or not it's appropriate to connect with their criticisms of gender ideology given their other beliefs/positions.

Plus discussion about how the "no debate" culture of the centre and left wing press makes it almost impossible for any discussion of the clash between gender identity and women's rights.

you people = the one's who try to claim sex isn't a thing

your body could not have made a baby without the introduction of sperm
Yes, I know this. I know how babies are made.

Don't know if you're mixing me up with someone else, but I've never tried to claim sex isn't a thing.
no transman could provide that for you
Yes, also well aware of that.

yup, I agree with you there, although generally the regulars (or the ones that haven't been banned yet) pop up to point out that just because someone understands what man and woman means, it's doesn't mean they care about women.

In fact, in general those people thoroughly believe in gender. they just believe that only female bodied people can have a feminine gender, and only male bodied people a masculine one. I clutch my forehead every time someone tries to imply that Jordan Peterson is a friend to women.

I quite enjoy the conversations though

I don't think noting that gametes are required from both a man and a woman to make a baby puts me quite in that camp though

you people = the one's who try to claim sex isn't a thing

your body could not have made a baby without the introduction of sperm

no transman could provide that for you

honestly, it's like all you people have forgotten how babies are made
"You people?" 😕
I know perfectly well how babies are made, this body has made more than one

Very much this. ^^

It is rather dog in the manger and reminiscent of Sarah's case regarding rape crisis:

There is no reason to try to deny women same sex hcps other than not wanting women to be allowed to say no to gender identity. For someone who wishes this (looks hard at SNP) there is a preference that women are left without services, even essential and life threatening services, rather than that behind closed doors somewhere where they are bothering no TQ+ person, a woman is allowed to have her sex based needs met. In Helen's case, no female only women's group could be permitted to exist even in a separate building or different part of town, as it would be too repugnant for people following this ideology to tolerate knowing it was out there. That somewhere, rape victims were receiving care in the only way they could access.

These are the harms that people like Helen Joyce are pointing out. They need pointing out and properly discussing.

Can you give an example of what makes you say that @JAduchey? Perhaps you have also misunderstood what posters have been saying.