Webberly Vs Joyce

Reduxx have gone into the EA links in some detail. The EA itself, having been brought out of the shadows by WPATH & Gustavson, is now preparing to shutter.

She said at the start of the Julie Bindel one that she’s a mum.

No. That was Susie Green. Another monster.

I believe HW took her male born child to Thailand, for an operation the day he turned 16-this male child now has no penis......and Thailand have raised the age to 18 for this type of surgery.

I don’t believe so. In fact I don’t think that she has any kids. If she had kids she would be sure to talk about them.

She was ready with every trope. And when she wasn’t she fell back on the same dismissive model of ridicule, either “its one patient” narrative or “this isn’t progressive” It was all manipulative, dismissive, gaslighty or DARVRO

her weird TikToks also feel manufactured

I don’t think she’s had training. What you see is what she is. She’s immersed herself in her role and practised her spiel so often that it comes naturally and (to some) plausibly.
Julie Bindel is right to call her evil.

Oh yeah and the penny dropped that she’s transed her kid/s hasn’t she

I’ve heard both (well, most of the Bindel one) and I reckon she could be prosecuted by someone for something she said in either.

I also think she’s had intensive training for them; possibly used AI to summarise every single argument and come up with responses she could use. But as such they were pretty circular and frequently contradictory

Bindel used unusual approaches and it threw her.

The thing with prescribing medicines off licence is that you need to be even more careful to keep records of your decisions, the rationale and make sure you have documented the investigations you did to exclude any contraindications. Nothing to worry about then.

I'm not going to watch either of these, I have good medical reasons for avoiding the need for extra cortisol which my body no longer makes! I have just read Julie's piece on her substack and she says that Helen Joyce says that the only way out now is through. I rather think that is the case, and these two women have at the very least made a start, taken one for the team and got a bit of a handle on how she operates under these circumstances.

Julie also notes on X (I am a nitterer) that there has been nary a peep out of La Webberley, not a clip, not a link, not a word. Her PR team of apparently 5 doesn't seem keen to promote it, it's all such a puzzle.

Yes, because she says whatever she needs to in that moment to win the argument.

She doesnt deal in facts, only in targeted weapons.

HW has only three lines of argument:

Transpeople are whatever they think they are
I’m a doctor, so I’m right
Be kind

That’s it.

Well we know that even HW hasn’t met the thousands of trans people she claims. At a guess, I’d be thinking dozens and not even hundreds. Nor are there millions of trans people worldwide.

But I guess there is a community out there all to willing to believe they are part of a big important movement.

If you get Sex Matters emails, there is a good summary by Helen J about the “debate”. I don’t think it’s up on the website yet. Highlights include:

“With that in mind, I’ll just pick out three things from the infuriating mess to comment on here.

The first was that Webberley wildly misrepresented the law, saying that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment gives people the legal right to live in their “reassigned” gender, meaning they can use single-sex spaces for the opposite sex”

And:

“The second is what this reveals about what happens in the consulting room of the gender-affirming clinician. We have to presume that Webberley – and other “gender-affirming” clinicians – has told patients that they have the right to use spaces and services for their “affirmed gender”, and that anyone who doesn’t use their “preferred pronouns” risks prosecution. Knowing this makes it easier to understand why it’s proving so difficult to get the For Women Scotland judgment to stick. That patients are likely to have been given these false assurances also raises questions about whether their consent to hormones and surgeries, which they presumably regard as part of their journey to “changing gender”, is truly informed.

The third is that she revealed possibly more than she intended about how the hard core of gender-affirming clinicians are responding to the ban on puberty blockers (gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists; drugs that interrupt the hormonal signals that trigger puberty). She said other other drug protocols were replacing puberty blockers for use in young teenagers. Although she didn’t name them, an informed guess is that these clinicians are prescribing testosterone to girls around the onset of puberty, and a combination of spironolactone (a testosterone suppressor) and oestrogen to boys.

In other words, it seems that some clinicians are skipping the puberty-blocking pause with patients and proceeding straight to cross-sex hormones, which have irreversible effects, with patients who are likely to be no more than 12 or 13. This isn’t just shocking; it may be of interest to medical regulators.”

Yeah, I've seen her say that too.

But 8-9 years old would be too late for the majority of girls to not develop any breast tissue. Once again, her logic is completely non-sensical.

I saw someone write that everything she says has to be taken in isolation, if you start trying to make connections between all the things she's said, absolutely nothing makes sense.

She has been consistent in saying that to be effective they need to be given around 8-9 years old.

Then when she is questioned about treating children as young as 11 years old, she seems to have said recently that 11 year old don't 'need' medical treatment. I am reluctant to go back and fact check this, but it feels like she is not really coherent in her messaging.

Let's assume her logic here is right.

Breast tissue is usually one of the early signs of puberty. Mine started developing when I was around 7-8yo.

So, what age is she suggesting children should be given puberty blockers?

Has this been posted yet?

https://x.com/jonnywsbell/status/1991670229127004377?s=46

Webberley on video describing how puberty blockers for a female child would mean they would not have to have mastectomy scars as an adult?

WTAF!

And she did say in one of those ‘debates’ that an 11 year old girl wouldn’t need chemical treatments (unless I misunderstood her obfuscating language.

This should be considered advertising and should be made illegal.

Jaysus. Poor Julie. That's how I felt watching her interview (in fact, I couldn't look at HW and had to just mostly listen and focus on Julie Bindel).

'I felt blind rage and disgust throughout, but had to appear calm and measured (as far as I could) because the worst thing to do in such a situation is get rattled or show your emotions. She was manipulative, bullying, and tried every trick in the book to discredit me.'
I've had to deal with people like this too. The best thing I've found is to steer clear as much as possible. Julie Bindel was so brave to take on this debate and put herself through this.

You are just a mathematician Helen nobody should listen to you, you arent a doctor like me.

A 2 year old however, that's a different matter. They just know.

I know that my face gives away my thoughts, so I can forgive HJ. Also HJ was listening to utter nonsense, so being astonished at the nonsense is a normal reaction.

To a large extent the "debate", such as it was, was meaningless and pointless.

No-one is going to have changed their mind from HJs to HWs because HW had nothing that contradicted the good arguments we all know and that HJ was repeating. As we knew she wouldn't because we've all been waiting years for a hint of a good argument for sterilising kids or ending women's rights (some of us even believe that no-one can possibly argue for sterilising kids and ending women's rights, so are not even open to the possibility of a decent argument coming along!!!!)

Anyone who has pointedly ignored the evidence and thinks that we should believe what "trans kids" say is not going to have changed their mind.

I think that for those in between they perhaps needed the Times to be braver - a quick follow up programme making it explicitly clear that women's and LGB right simply cannot exist if men and stright people share them; there is no evidence that PBs are a good thing and lots that they are a very bad thing; no evidence that medical transition is beneficial (but lots of evidence of harmful side effects); HW's company is either breaking the law or exploiting a loophole or both. etc etc

https://juliebindel.substack.com/p/i-was-in-the-presence-of-evil

It's not Helen Joyce's way to make personal attacks on people or to get riled up.

This is what I mean - normal people are at a disadvantage when debating someone who is not concerned about lying or being consistent or truthful.