Helen Joyce/Helen Staniland "Trans Elimination" video

I saw a You Tube documentary about lobotomy a while ago. A miracle cure for mental illness. It was used as a 'cure' for homosexuality among other things. Basically it involved sticking an ice pick into the brain and moving it around.

www.thevintagenews.com/2017/01/14/walter-freeman-who-championed-lobotomy-in-the-us-was-touring-with-his-lobotomobile-demonstrating-the-procedure/?safari=1

Can't seem to find the documentary itself right now but will continue looking for it.

This kind of behaviour just reminds me of a group of very unpleasant girls at primary school who used to pick on some unfortunate and follow them around for hours, chanting "Your mum got your skirt from Oxfam" like a pack of little hyenas. Nothing said would shut them up, there was no answer that could change the chant, until eventually the fed up victim would snarl "ok, whatever, my mum got my skirt from Oxfam".

Cue cries of glee and more tromping around at the next level, shouting "she SAYS her mum got her skirt from Oxfam...."

I mean that's sad enough in a bunch of ten year olds.

Why be upset at "cropped transcripts" of thousands of words of text when you agree with the words either way?

This is beyond lazy.

You could crop and mess with videos of the queen's speeches until they said something truly stupid and misleading and then claim 'but you agree with the queen's speech so you agree when (we made it say) I eat hamsters'.

Get a grip for goodness sake.

The next section where she talks about the homophobia at the Tavistock and more widely within the trans movement is interesting. Has anyone transcribed that?

Not seen it posted anywhere, OldCrone.

The next section where she talks about the homophobia at the Tavistock and more widely within the trans movement is interesting. Has anyone transcribed that?

Why be upset at "cropped transcripts" of thousands of words of text when you agree with the words either way?

Yes. We’ve seen the deliberately cropped videos and the transcripts.

Maybe you’d like to add something to the discussion rather than post the transcript yet again? Maybe you’d like to transcribe the next minutes even that expand on what she has said?

The medical system is a not a menu service. There is a reason that medications, for example, are prescribed rather than having people just go and ask for what they want. And that it is an offence for doctors to give them out just because.

They are correct that there is a cost to society to transition. Medically, but also things like change rooms or prisons that need third spaces. It's not that society should balk at people who really need extra resources. But it looks a bit different when we are suddenly talking in terms of adults'choices to do what they want with their bodies. Because it does not involve just an individualistic outcome.

You're missing the point, Janet. They're "in their 20s and 30s having spinal fractures as their bones disintegrate" as a result of treatment they received before they were adults.

There's a lot of "She's being taken entirely out of context, but she's also entirely right" comments here so I think it would be fair to just post the transcript here:

"We can't win this by saying there's 60 million people in this country and we've got to persuade all of them or a great majority of them, we've got to get through to the decision makers. And in the meantime, while we're trying to get through to the decision makers, we have to try to limit the harm, and that means reducing or keeping down the number of people who transition.

And that's for two reasons: one of them is that every one of those people is a person who's been damaged, but the second one is every one of those people is, basically - you know, a huge problem to the sane world, if you've got people, whether they're transitioned whether they're happily transitioned, whether they're unhappily transitioned, whether they're detransitioned, if you've got these people who've dissociated from their sex in some way, every one of those people is someone who needs special accommodation in a sane world where we re-acknowledge the truth of sex.

The people who've been damaged by it, the children have been put through this, those people deserve every accommodation we can possibly make, but every one of them is a difficulty. And I know that sounds heartless, I'm trying to say exactly the opposite of sounding heartless, I'm saying every one of those people for 50, 60, 70 years, is going to need things that the rest of us just don't need, because the rest of us are just our sex. So the fewer of those people there are, the better in the sane world that I hope we will reach."

Oh dear pie, perhaps you should go to Helen Stanisland’s YouTube channel and listen to the first 30 minutes for yourself.

"Eliminate" transpeople how exactly?

If there have been threats of violence then a report needs to be made to the police?

That only works as a comparison if you think trans people can and should be "cured", that they're just suffering from an illness. Hmm

What's always confused me is that TRAs say trans isn't an illness, yet they require medical intervention, medications and surgeries. Human conditions that require all three above typically indicate a person has an illness or injury. The only exception I can think is childbirth, which is not injury or illness, but even that isn't a good comparison because many births do not need intervention, medication nor surgery, only those that are at risk or for women who choose to have some medication to ease what is the natural and expected pain of childbirth.

So if being trans isn't an illness, injury or disease, is it a mental health pathology? I've heard that people don't want it classified as that. But why is there a fear of suicide?

If there's no need for a cure, why is there a need for medical/mental health interventions?

But the treatment proposed has a low evidence base for safety or effectiveness - it seems probable no one should be getting these treatments, regardless of age. It’s not infantilisation, it’s safeguarding.

so why does it need medication then?

oohhh. The mystical question. Or is it the Million Dollar question?

That only works as a comparison if you think trans people can and should be "cured", that they're just suffering from an illness

OK, so it's not an illness.

All medication can come with side effects, surely?
Where do you stop with that line of thinking - stop 20 and 30 year olds from having treatment if you don't agree with them having it?

... so why does it need medication then?

She is right. I have a chronic pain condition; if someone said the goal is to have fewer people with chronic pain, i wouldn't jump to the frankly ludicrous conclusion that she wants to erase/eradicate me.
Well no, because you presumably would want to be cured and not be in chronic pain anymore.

I would conclude that she understands that chronic pain is awful, and we should seek to cure people who suffer it.
That only works as a comparison if you think trans people can and should be "cured", that they're just suffering from an illness.

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?
Where do you stop with that line of thinking - stop 20 and 30 year olds from having treatment if you don't agree with them having it?
When people talk about "children" on here - people in their 20s and 30s (thirties, for crying out loud!) are not kids, they're adults.
Serious infantalising going on here.

I am apparently classified as ‘GC’ too and I share your concern that GC people come to MN to announce they are GC while telling everyone how shocking it is that another person who they classify as GC has the gall to say something that could be construed as being too direct or too forthright and it is appalling to say the quiet bit out loud!

Fuck, how mean is that! To say it as it is and to stop giving a shit about sugar coating reality!

Outrageous that any GC woman has not run it past the GC approval panel of approved feminists first!!! Let alone not running it past the panel of approved right-thinkers!

Women making their own decisions and talking while drinking wine! What on earth will come next?

You would know real concern from faux concern because people wouldn't jump up and down and one sentence or a couple of words, but would listen to the whole argument.

They never argue the arguments, but rather want to argue about the person making the arguments.

In my dealings with TRAs they always seek a gotcha moment. They're seeking one word or sentence just to invalidate an entire argument (or lifetime's worth of work). And with that attitude it's not surprising they've made software like Shinigami Eyes.

This could rapidly become turtles all the way down but I share your meta-concern, @NecessaryScene and could readily add some additional seams of concern if this were a mine of meta-concerns about GC people.

I wonder how recently to the fray some of these newly arrived GC people are. The recent tranche seems unaware of the basics of the history of this board, the evolution of gender critical concerns, development of language and shift of policy-making up to and beyond the GRA 2004 and the more recent attempts to extend it, plus the disturbing details uncovered about the Webberley clinic's treatment of young people etc.

I mention this because in addition to the video being a short clip from a conversation that is more than an hour long, the conversation itself needs to be placed in the context of the wider background that is known to the 2 Helens.

It's the invasion of the Dolores Umbridges - loads of them in recent weeks with their faux "concerns" hiding their deep rooted intolerance and disdain for women and women's rights.

I'm GC and am very concerned about other GC people endlessly coming onto GC forums to tell people they're GC and concerned about what other GC people are doing.

First post on MN. I predict there will be a lot of these “I’m concerned” threads. It will make a change from being about Posie Parker anyway.

I wonder if there's enough data for this yet,

It would probably be based on the Cass Review. But, whatever systematic review or meta-analysis they produce as part of that, it's plausibly feasible for a health economist to make an indicative analysis based on that. A health economist could probably put together some vignettes that track different outcomes and do the analysis for those.