Triggernometry KJK vs Helen Webbererly

1. It's possible to say a woman is rude, aggressive or bullying without it being sexist – just as it's possible to say a black Cambridge professor is a serial fantasist and plagiarist without it being racist.

2. It's possible to admire what a public figure stands for, while at the same time wishing they didn't harm their own case by sounding rude and unhinged. What I've said about me going to KJK's meetings etc is true.

Nah KJK came across as challenging HW narrative of bullshit.

i personally think that women who challenge in an assertive way, being described as rude or a bully is just downright sexist.

i do not believe your narrative about who you are by the way.

Nah, her manner was incredulous and right on top of HW's ridiculous claims. HW came across as clueless and patronising - she might have got away with it a few years ago but people are much more aware of what puberty blockers actually mean for children, and they're horrified.

Just finished watching it. Thoroughly enjoyed it, if I'm honest 😄

KJK did the same thing that she did with Harrop, just sat back smiling and let HW bury herself.

I don't think Webberley realises how much more clued up people are about this now.

Trying to pretend that you go through the puberty of the opposite sex was very stupid.

People know you can't do that.

But, personally, I bet Webberley lost practically every single person watching that with the assertion that KJK misgendering an unnamed transwoman had committed a hate crime. And that really, anything of the same nature should be an imprisonable offence.

Including hosting her on the very programme that Webberley herself chose to be platformed 😄

Konstantin had a lot of fun with that one.

That's a problem when you're trying to convince a general public who pick up on vibes more than content.

Why would anyone watch a 1.5 hour debate and not listen to the content?

Maybe so. But the majority of the public pick up more on vibes than content, and I felt KJK came across in this debate as a bully.

I agree with what she says. I've attended her events in Hyde Park. I've been in the studio audience when she's been on Free Speech Nation. But her manner in this interview was rude and aggressive. That's a problem when you're trying to convince a general public who pick up on vibes more than content.

People who pick up on vibes and don’t notice content are shallow and haven’t learned to think or form their own opinions.

That's what she does. She picks up on some perceived lack of knowledge in her opponent and then rams it home time and time again, "you're not a doctor are you? Are you a doctor? Are you a medical doctor? No. So you have no right to make any assertions about this," and so on and so on. It is attack as the best form of defence.

Can you imagine HW counselling anybody about anything? She'd just get a bit of skin from your hip or something. Or someone else's hip.

It doesn't seem to matter to her. She seems utterly blind to her own woeful inadequacy in all areas. She must have ingested that quote about all publicity being good publicity, otherwise she wouldn't keep doing this kind of thing. I think she is pretty stupid but also cunning, and has no conscience.

I think it says more about Webbers’ feelings of inferiority

Indeed. I wonder if HW has ever has to counsel a client who has been unable to have penis surgery to create a quasi vaginal pouch only to be told that unfortunately because of the puberty blockers they took there is not enough penis for the procedure to work.

Yep, she's relying on an appeal to authority the whole time, which is weak as fuck. And to make it worse she's not even an authority.

Replying to my own post to answer my own question.

The chair of the medical tribunal was a genderist.

GP's online transgender clinic follow-up care criticised - BBC News

Tribunal chairman Angus Macpherson said: "The tribunal finds that the reluctance of the Endocrine Society and others to embrace enlightened views of transgenderism is symptomatic of the tendency in all professions to be slow to move with the times.

"This inertia in respect to medical attitudes to transgenderism mirrors past attitudes to homosexuality, which was classified by the APA as a mental illness until the 1973 edition of their DMS."

Mr Macpherson said Dr Webberley may have been considered as being "at the vanguard" of the evolving approach to transgender healthcare.

So a couple of months suspension and she was back to being 'at the vanguard' of the movement to sterilise children.

HW is very 2-dimensional. She sees no depth, no context, no nuance: gender incongruence → give drugs. No different to a proper GP seeing UTI → give antibiotics. Except that a real GP will check that she has given the correct antibiotics for the bacteria, and if a young person has repeated UTIs, this will rause a red flag for a real GP, who will check whether there is something else going on to cause the UTIs. Even UTIs have context and nuance.

HW says that non-medics should shut up (shades of 'no debate'...hmmm?). What about people experienced in child development, in safeguarding, in neurodivergence ? She thinks they, too should shut up? No doubt because she sees no nuance, no context. No concept that a child's gender issues might have a different cause.

She is a danger to children and to society.

Me too. But I don't think she really does believe this stuff. She is completely deranged.

I would LOVE to see Emma Hilton or Colin Wright vs Webberley.

However, during the Times Radio debate, we found out that when Helen Joyce worked for the Royal Statistical Society part of her job was to analyse and write about medical trials/stats, and Webberley refused to acknowledge Joyce's expertise in the area. She just pulled out the "I'm a medical doctor" card again.

Webberley behaves as though she's a (self-taught) expert when she's really a GP who doesn't have a licence to practice any more because of previous dodgy behaviour - the woman's shady as hell!

I don't think that really explains why a medical tribunal more or less let her off for her actions when they were prepared to strike off her husband for similar actions.

Medical tribunals shouldn't be basing their decisions on being terrified of TRAs when these rogue doctors are harming children.

Because the activists are more scarey than the police.

Anyone coming up against the GenderBorg was routinely harassed, threatened, possibly sacked, their family also and it was just so much easier to look the other way.

Neither her or her husband are qualified in the field of psychology, psychiatry or endocrinology, so she has a bare faced cheek to lecture PP on her lack of knowledge.

I find it hard to believe that someone with such a poor understanding of basic human biology can have qualified as a doctor.

Her husband was struck off in 2022 for amongst other crimes prescribing a near lethal dose of testosterone for a 12-year old girl.

HW was also temporarily suspended in 2022 for prescribing testosterone to girls aged 12 and 17 and puberty blockers to an 11-year-old girl.

Transgender children GP: Helen Webberley suspended for misconduct - BBC News

What I don't understand is why her treatment was so lenient. It just encouraged her to carry on when her suspension was lifted.

I was struck by this too. KJK was making the point that arresting puberty means those children won’t attain sexual maturity. HW insisted they will because they’ll go through the puberty of the opposite sex (by taking X sex hormones), and then banged on about secondary sex characteristics without once acknowledging that the whole aim of puberty is attaining sexual maturity, a process which is centred around the primary sex characteristics; ie ovaries releasing eggs and testicles producing sperm and semen.

I also noticed while they were discussing testosterone, that HW said: ‘If you haven’t got testicles, you can’t produce your own’. Well that’s not true either is it? Women DO produce their own testosterone in small amounts.

Perhaps PotteringP is one of the 'heat on both sides' types.

Throughout this period (of debating whether women and children are actual human beings deserving of equal rights and safeguarding) the rude and agressive ones have been the TRAs and their hangers-on. The moment a pro-women individual raises their voice or interrupts, this is painted as rude and agressive. Yet drowning out woman speakers, rape threats and piss protests are not.