Helen Joyce/Helen Staniland "Trans Elimination" video

It's all so utterly tedious. The characteristic response of trans activists to gender-critical arguments is one or all of the following:

1. You are literally killing us with your words.
2. Your words are inciting people to kill trans people.
3. Your words are causing trans people to kill themselves.
4. You are just like Hitler and the Nazis.
5. You are inciting genocide.

This, but also, most societies put limits on what people can do with their bodies to protect people with disordered thinking from themselves. I haven't quoted it all, but thanks for that excellent post Gasp.

Owen and Pink News could have invited either Helen along for a discussion about what they meant.

But that would mean talking to women (bleurh). And they don't do that sort of thing unless they have t-shirts on regarding situations in which the women suck cocks for.

And so it goes.

This, but also, most societies put limits on what people can do with their bodies to protect people with disordered thinking from themselves. In the UK we don't allow people to sell their organs for transplant purposes and surgeons aren't allowed to do amputations on request from people with body dysmorphia. We have age limits below which people can't have tattoos or intimate body piercings. We have case law which says people engaged in BDSM activities can't kill or maim each other with impunity even where they can prove the person maimed or killed was asking for it to be done (at least, I think that's what I remember of a tricky case from a few years back). We have very tight restrictions on testing medicines for safety and the most dangerous ones can only be prescribed by a doctor.

Why would it be any different for medicines and surgical procedures carried out on request by people with gender issues? Why would we give HCPs a free pass to do whatever their patients want without any attempt to look at the evidence base and see if these people's health is actually going to be better or worse after the procedure? This is especially important in the UK because the NHS, and therefore all of us as taxpayers, is going to be picking up the tab for any remedial treatments needed later on.

If they find what HJ and HS were saying problematic then there's every opportunity to take that up with them as grown adults, rather than this sinister performative dehumanising of two normal women that has raised quite a frightening mob of angry pitchforks.

Exactly. Anyone who defends this is the one who should be fucking ashamed of themselves.

You lot do like to take it to extremes. It’s possible to understand that the Helens didn’t mean actual concentration camps and genocide of trans people while still finding their words problematic in the way it was phrased in a live, unedited video.

My point was - quick look at Twitter shows nothing but that kind of language from TRAs. Exactly that language, I wasn't making it up for effect.

If they find what HJ and HS were saying problematic then there's every opportunity to take that up with them as grown adults, rather than this sinister performative dehumanising of two normal women that has raised quite a frightening mob of angry pitchforks.

Us ‘lot’?

What about those who don’t medically transition?

Well, good that they don’t become lifelong patients in need of further surgeries and drugs to cope with the reactions of their initial medical transition.

Are they still demanding for males to be prioritised ahead of females where sex matters?

Because that still counts as issues that a ‘sane’ society has to find solutions for that prioritises those that need it despite the demands from others that they be included as well. And based on what evidence for that inclusion in the solution?

So, yes? What about non-medical transitioned males?

It's going to go on getting bigger: both in the demands, the push back and the extremist response of 'we insist on interpreting it like this, so look what you made us do! You may not say those words, mention that fact, hold that opinion, express any other belief'.

Yes. It's all about power and control. It's worth reading about narcissistic supply and narcissistic rage.

You lot do like to take it to extremes.

Er, go and look at the frothing on Twitter, that's exactly what is being suggested by TRAs and their supporters, some with big platforms.

It's the same basic problem that keeps coming round again and again, getting bigger each time.

Political lobby: Everyone, if you dare say x, we will insist on interpreting it as y and rush around making z threats of self harm, endangerment, and various means of punishment to others and escalating it as high as we can. So don't ever say x.

It's worked in small increments for quite a long time on some.

However we're reaching the point of many people saying: If you choose to interpret x as y this is not our problem, and z is inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour in a civilised society regardless of your reasons. And should be treated in the same way as any other person or group doing z.

It's going to go on getting bigger: both in the demands, the push back and the extremist response of 'we insist on interpreting it like this, so look what you made us do! You may not say those words, mention that fact, hold that opinion, express any other belief'.

It's never going to work. It really is never going to work. Not all truths will ever be silenced, not all people will ever agree to shut up and obey and comply permanently, there is no other way to achieve this save by endless whackamole and increasing and upping the z anti. Those busy whipping up a lot of vulnerable young people have a great deal to answer for.

What about them? They are perfectly entitled to live a fantasy. But the rest of us should be under no obligation to indulge it. But companies and public bodies are under immense pressure and relentless lobbying to change their rules and policies to prop up the fantasy.

This. And it was made perfectly clear, you would think, for the hard of thinking, that the "sane world" referred to a world where the truth of sex was acknowledged. They specifically said those words.

I want to be a conscientious objector to gender identity ideology. I don't believe it or agree with it. It's harmful and regressive. It's a problem for me if I can't say this, like it would be a problem for an atheist to have to pretend god exists.

I mean we've been asking for a definition of way trans actually means for years now, but we're the ones taking it to extremes?

If not everyone transitions, what makes them 'trans' when apparently saying 'im trans' is all it needs....so therefore that means they have already started a process of transitioning?

Quite the conundrum.

Lots of trans people don’t medically transition. What about them?

They weren't mentioned in the clip being shared. Indeed "trans people" was never used at all. So why start talking about "trans people" who were not the subject of that segment?

What about them? They are perfectly entitled to live a fantasy. But the rest of us should be under no obligation to indulge it. But companies and public bodies are under immense pressure and relentless lobbying to change their rules and policies to prop up the fantasy.

And that's a problem for those of us who don't want to join in.

You're far more optimistic than I am that MPie's comprehension of videos is better than MP's comprehension of text, as demonstrated on many occasions on FWR. That even includes links that MP introduces as a 'gotcha' that tend to painfully reveal that MP either didn't read the link (kindest interpretation) or didn't understand it.

Treatment that can lead to someone in their 20s and 30s having spinal fractures as their bones disintegrate?
People in their 20s and 30s are ADULTS.
Grown adults.
All medication can come with side effects, surely?

This is where we see an outstanding example of understanding broader context. I understood the comment about the bones and spinal fractures to be referring to people who had initiated treatment at a young age (including as teenagers) and who had developed the osteoporotic bone structure over time.

Yes, medication typically has side effects. That's why it needs to be taken as a risk v benefit proposition and to be in the context of a shared decision-making discussion and informed consent of a full understanding of side effects and their frequency.

You lot do like to take it to extremes. It’s possible to understand that the Helens didn’t mean actual concentration camps and genocide of trans people while still finding their words problematic in the way it was phrased in a live, unedited video.

Lots of trans people don’t medically transition. What about them?

See the issue is the idle doesn’t even have the confidence to really discuss the issues.

Please idle, tell us your interpretation of the words you have plopped down. Have a go at framing it they way you want to interpret the ‘thousand words’.

Or are you just taking your cues from twitter on a truncated transcript. One that cuts off the further explanatory discussion.

Because it is context. Because it further explains the use of blunt words.

Is it the blunt words that you’d like to have taken out of context? Or do you have something else? Anything?

Because from here you seem to gleefully plop down a cropped transcript and you don’t even have anything else to say? What are YOU accusing her of?

And by the way, here are some questions to answer if you?

Medical drug treatment causes side effects, which is damage to the body?

yes or no?

Is trans a health issue that requires medical drug treatment ?

yes or no?

Has this treatment been properly researched in light of current cohort of young transitioners?

yes or no?

(hint read Dr Cass’s interim report)

Have trans groups demanded male priority over females in some instances where sex matters?

yes or no?

Is this something a ‘sane society’ should countenance immediately or have many, many debates and studies before making such decisions?

yes or no?

Funnily enough, just caught this thread about this. Don't know anything about Heterodorx but at least someone is saying it out there:

twitter.com/heterodorx/status/1533263959641448448?s=20&t=EmpkOwbXkxIPJH7TJJ29rA

So wanting people to be happy and healthy and not subject to distress that leaves them sterilised and crippled and on lifelong drugs is now 'elimination'?

No.

The reason they take absolutely every thing out of context and hype people up into a frenzy is specifically to stop anyone saying anything in case they get piled on by frenzied often quite violent activists. This isn't a flaw in the system, it is the system

This. I haven't seen one curious or good faith take on this from the TRA side (although admittedly am mostly seeing this through what the Helens quote tweet). It's a blood in the water thing. No one asking for clarification or any kind of intelligent discussion.

Just, literally, "they said ACCOMMODATION they mean CONCENTRATION CAMPS they are NAZIS they WANT TO KILL US ALL this is THEIR PLAN". They leap straight to death threats and mocking up Hitler moustaches on HS.

And nobody has the slightest curiosity to even think 'how likely is that, really''?

There is something deeply troubling about the reaction to this.

All this fuss about a quote completely taken out of context and deliberately twisted but not a word about the death threats.

As ever. Funny that the trans lobby's "optics" aren't terrible, isn't it?

All this fuss about a quote completely taken out of context and deliberately twisted but not a word about the death threats. It's a TRA tune and we're dancing to it. Condemn Prior's napalm posts then get back to me.

Sorry, I was interrupted by the first phone call of the day. Mentioning lobotomy as a clear parallel to transitioning. A fashionable treatment that 50 years later looks barbaric and left more than 20,000 people in the US irretrievably damaged.