Helen Joyce/Helen Staniland "Trans Elimination" video

This! Thanks for putting it so well, Helleofabore

I think what they are saying essentially is that transition is actually not a very good treatment for sex dysphoria, or anything else. Either not for anyone, or only for a tiny sliver of people.

It's not an idea that is outside of medical history, there have been other treatments that people thought were a ood idea at one time but in the end, actually left all of most people subject to them worse off.

For transition specifically, there is plenty of reason to think that it may well leave the majority of people who undergo it, certainly in recent years, with serious ongoing medical complications, without helping their real problems or even making them worse.

It's important to remember that "being trans" is not an expression of some inner essence. It is a medical treatment or pathway and if it's ineffective, or being used inappropriatly, there is nothing problematic or "going to far" about reccomending that it is supplanted by better treatments.

Also Renee mentions a statistic whereby 50% of transitioned people attempt suicide after transition.

Not social influence. Not transphobia "Biological. Because you're messing with biology" - Renee's words.

Rest if population Renee says is 0.6 %. Lost many transexual friends (again, Renee's words.)

That was 2017 btw.

Renee says the "epidemic is set to double every year."

Some stats are given at the end. Would be interesting to compare what renee predicted with now.

I haven't watched it yet.

From descriptions it sounds no different to what transwoman Rene jax says in this.

"We have to stop the dam. We have to stop kids accessing pbs. My body is decaying after 40 years on this stuff."

Is it less blunt if a TW says it?

www.google.co.uk/search?q=rene+jax+youtube&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:37ea102f,vid:lN0sT6bHjR8,st:0

I watched the whole video the day it came out and the hot take couldn't be further from my understanding of what the Helens were saying. I can only think people saying these things either can't have watched the whole thing, or have an axe to grind.

Personally I like that Helen J has become less inclined to pussy foot around or sugar coat her words. 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. I would conclude that she understands that chronic pain is awful, and we should seek to cure people who suffer it. It's not rocket science, but if you (general you) want to make the least charitiable and most bad faith reading, I imagine it's quite easy.

This.

OP didn't come back. Looks like another attempt of those faux 'concerned GC' posters to come on and tell us all to behave. I used to be one of you but this is too far blah blah. How predictable.

Anyone who is familiar with this debate will know well that TRAs will use any and all dirty means to smear women who dare to talk openly and bluntly about this. It's the only tactic they have, as the truth is not on their side.

I watched the whole chat between the two Helen's a few days ago - before this blew up on twitter - and don't remember being outraged by anything she said. It's so obvious this just another attempt to discredit her.

Cut the crap and answer questions.

Yes please!

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

As a mom of teens, I've seen too many young women and young men who have been damaged because they think hormones, surgeries and certain clothing will make them happy, help them make friends, help them feel less awkward or fix their pain. It's a lie and I appreciate these feminists speaking the unvarnished truth. There will be a lot of unhappy adults in 10-20 years who have lost sexual functions and reproductive capabilities. Families have also been harmed because of this...I read PITTstack religiously and the stories from parents is really gut wrenching. If people in power had spoken so clearly like Joyce and Staniland, maybe we wouldn't be here.

I would like to see Helen Joyce in conversation with a health economist who can lay out the sort of assessment that NICE makes when approving a treatment intervention for NHS England and Wales or the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) for NHS Scotland.

I've no idea what the standard economic case would look like for evaluating the lifetime costs v. the QALY (the gains grounded in health related quality of life, known as quality adjusted life years) and the flip side of that, the detriments that accrue. (I don't think that they always do this because it must depend on what the proposed treatment is as to whether it reduces or increases the number of Disability Adjusted Life Years aka DALY.)

Those health agencies do it all the time. It must be possible to explore how many years of health are gained or lost through various levels of medical, surgical, non-pharmaceutical, and other interventions. For example, the gain in overall quality of life from being relieved of (some degree of) gender dysphoria (where present) and the loss of health-related quality of life associated with (say) early onset osteoporosis, or acquiring long-term bladder problems.

I watched the whole video the day it came out and the hot take couldn't be further from my understanding of what the Helens were saying. I can only think people saying these things either can't have watched the whole thing, or have an axe to grind.

Personally I like that Helen J has become less inclined to pussy foot around or sugar coat her words. 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. I would conclude that she understands that chronic pain is awful, and we should seek to cure people who suffer it. It's not rocket science, but if you (general you) want to make the least charitiable and most bad faith reading, I imagine it's quite easy.

No more chilling, surely, than what we're doing to children and young people? Treatment that can lead to someone in their 20s and 30s having spinal fractures as their bones disintegrate? People in the prime of their life having to use a walking frame because of the drugs they fought for?

There seems to be wholesale denial being sold here.

People are so concerned about the words used they ignore the truth of it.

Medical drug treatment causes side effects which is damage?

yes or no?

Is trans a health issue that requires medical drug treatment ? Has this 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?

Cut the crap and answer questions.

I see others have pointed out to you that the excerpt you've posted has been edited to make it look as if Helen is saying something she didn't. She was talking specifically about the physical and mental damage done to young people: the mastectomies, the drugs that leave young people with the bones of 80s year olds. Here's the evidence:
grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/new-swedish-documentary-exposes-the?s=r

Most people sail through their teens, 20s and 30s in good physical health, making relatively low demands on the system. But now we have a cohort of hundreds, maybe thousands (do we know how many young people the Webberley's prescribed for?) of young people who will have incurred damage to their bodies and minds and will require lifelong treatment. The NHS, social services, mental health services, housing services — they will all need to create special provision for this completely new phenomenon.

i watched a week or so ago and remember thinking they're not sugar coating anything. tough to hear some parts, but we need to hear.

Here's the full conversation: "Wine with Women ep. 4: Helen Joyce" m.youtube.com/watch?v=8_u1MQFjxvI

Absolutely!
We are telling children that if they don't get their way they’ll be suicidal. That if their parents won’t give in to their desire to take untested drugs and have their bodies surgically altered they are BAD parents and the children should DISOWN them - again, bullying / blackmailing tactics.
Its appalling

Joyce is right. There will be social , economic and medical repercussions and costs associated with the transition of children. To pretend there will not be would be irresponsible and almost unhinged. The fact that some people want us to remain silent about all this is what I find 'chilling'.

Blunt and correct IMV.

And to all those tone policing, yes… do go onto trans boards and trans tweeters and police their tone too!!

it is only fair and equal treatment after all.

Yes Samphire. That pretty much much sums it up.

She is saying there should be a minimization of medical transitioning for children until research comes through to support it, and particularly for young females.

She is saying that any medical treatment is damaging to the body.

She is saying that there are unrealistic accommodations being demanded of society.

To call it ‘chilling’ is a bad faith take. To draw your conclusions from a partial transcript or video clip and call it abhorrent is an indication you are not engaging with the substance of what she is saying and happily joining in tone policing.

She is blunt.

Those posters wishing to point their fingers to shame her, address the points. Specifically and one by one.

All the rest is virtue signaling distraction.

That's because it does not exist. If your "arguments" (sic) consisted entirely of lies, distortion, obfuscation and made up bullshit wouldn't you be a fan of "No debate?"

I have now seen the whole thing and yes, it is blunt, it lacks a lot of the usual sugar coating applied to anything trans. It is unapologetically matter if fact about the realities of a growing trans cohort that is being fuelled by all sorts of social influences, is not solely individuals with ago or dysphoria, is, in part, a youth trend.

From young people starting a medicines transition with scandalously little actual information, see the Weberleys, to women being raped by inmates in prison, there is a huge problem and lots of unacceptable costs to 'being trans' these days.

A sane society would halt all unproven medical interventions, would insist on fully informed treatment based in real science. Would abhor the idea of locking women into a cell with a male bodied person. Would look askance at men in women's sports, taking business awards for women, demanding to be treated as women.

We are measurably insane as a society. Saying that what either Helen said was tantamount to genocide is ludicrous, spreading that lie to discredit them and those demanding that the damage being done is stopped should be a criminal offence. I hope that the next tranche of those detransitioning name LOJ et Al as part of the unecessary web of deceit that got them into a position where they irrevocably changed their bodies whilst having been told that hormone intervention is wholly reversible.

I think it is plain that the clip on twitter was cut where it was to remove the context.

Oh.

So in fact had to be carefully doctored to make it look like it said something questionable, instead of in fact, being something that was questionable. So the critical understanding was there that it didn't in fact say this unless it was carefully edited to make it say it.

I feel so sorry for this political extremist lobby. They're forced to make their own screenshots and doctor stuff constantly to evidence their narrative. It's like if they didn't create it all themselves it wouldn't exist.