So disgusted tonight

[Mollyollydolly]

Owen Jones and Pink News tweeted about the two Helens, Joyce and Staniland and their YouTube chat .. Jones taking what they said completely out of context it's resulted in some of the most vile abuse aimed at Helen Joyce in particular on twitter tonight. So many death threats.

I wish there was something we could do, it's so utterly vile, it's time they were held to account for their lies. It's really upsetting.

Owen Jones isn't fit to lace Helen's shoes, I cant believe The Guardian still employ him. I've seen threats to murder, throw napalm in their faces from Joss Prior and many many more. It's disgusting and all down to Owen.

How can this stand up to any level of journalistic ethics or integrity.

It's time we did something, some kind of collective action.

That is precisely what you did suggest, by saying that autism is a “comparator” to the state of being trans. It is not.
I won’t hold my breath for the apology, but I’d hope you’d reflect on the thoughtlessness of your comparison.

That is NOT what she is saying at all. Joyce is saying there needs to be intervention and support for those who become dissociated from their natural sex so that they don't go as far as "transitioning"; that we need to treat such dissociated people, specifically children, with compassion and help them come to terms with their natural sex. So, yes, the fewer people who are dissociated from their natural sex the better. Being dissociated from the natural sex of your own body is surely not a mentally or physically healthy way to live a life?

Some people think that if we could eradicate hereditary diseases that would be perfect. Others think that any form of selection at any stage is wrong, and will list various people who would never have been born.
This is the same debate. Neither side is demonstrably wrong.

I suggest anyone choosing to interpret what was said from the edited clip should watch it in context of what she says directly after. If people are making judgements based on a clipped version, why?

She is talking about stopping transitioning (and I interpreted this as being aimed at young people) until after the medical treatments have been better assessed. She even discusses how two of the three Dutch specialists who were responsible for the Dutch protocol acknowledge that that protocol is a last resort for people who are likely to have significantly poor outcomes of not medically transitioning.

I think a great larger conversation has been cut down to remove the context.

Those saying that women need to watch their words so closely, would you prefer no one spoke unless they were reading from a script and had had PR approval of the leading feminists.

This is getting ridiculous.

Well, yes. I do agree with the snippets that have been posted here.

Trans ideology is causing all sorts of issues in real life. From the bastardisation if laws to the increased danger if violence to women in single sex spaces. All documented, measurable, real issues.

Plus the issues caused to young people displaying confusion re their sexuality, identity etc. Some of the experiences those who have detransitioned or experienced a wide range of physical, sexual and mental.issues because of the lack of information regarding their health care.

Nobody can deny that the current situation is sustainable, is right. There has to be a change and one of them is reducing the number of young people who, when they express identity or sexual confusion, are encouraged, affirmed, in being trans when a more considered approach would have done a few things: given them time and space to explore their feelings; given them a lot more accurate and appropriate information on the realities of a medicalised transition and offered alternatives in short, medium and long term options.

That's far less dangerous than the "affirmation without question" model.

Not quite the same debate, as I'm choosing conditions that are present at conception. It's hard to get perfect comparitors as we really don't know the mechanisms at play.

‘This is the same debate.’

It’s not. If Joyce were saying, ‘There’s a test for transness. Let’s apply it to unborn children and make sure they are never born,’ that would be comparable to trying to eliminate hereditary conditions (I am not expressing an opinion on the latter).

What Joyce is saying is that she thinks people who go on to transition are unwell, and helping them with an alternative outcome for their distress would be better.

Like it, dislike it, she is not suggesting what you claim she is suggesting.

The fewer people with cancer the better.

Sounds great to me!

The fewer people with dysphoria the better.

Also, great. Why would we want more people to be in such utter pain that they want to cut perfectly healthy body parts off?

It was a terrible analogy, I'm not going to defend it.

I'm still in a silent space, do you have a direct quote? I do at least recognise your username :)

The conditions you have chosen are not just imperfect comparators. They are not comparable at all.
please leave people with conditions such as these out of your discussion, especially as you clearly don’t understand them very well.

Those saying that women need to watch their words so closely, would you prefer no one spoke unless they were reading from a script and had had PR approval of the leading feminists.

This is getting ridiculous.

She's not talking about getting rid of dysphoria.

She's talking about getting rid of the ability to alleviate it by transitioning.

‘She's talking about getting rid of the ability to alleviate it by transitioning.’

She seemed to me to be saying that being ‘trans’ may be a form of dissociation, and suggesting reducing the current level of dissociation to no dissociation.

She's talking about getting rid of the ability to alleviate it by transitioning

Is she? Or is she talking about ensuring that any intervention goes further than unquestioning affirmation? Which, as we can all plainly see, causes all sorts of issues for a significant number of trans people of all ages.

I say that as one who doesn't ignore the words of detransitioners. Their experiences absolutely must inform all medical routes to transition. Something the loudest of naysayers ignore.

As a parent, would you prefer that your child suffering with gender dysphoria a) reconciles to their sex b) cuts off their fully functioning body parts and becomes life-long medical patient? It is not transphobic to fervently wish, hope, and do everything in your power to achieve outcome a). It is not good or healthy for society to normalise dissociation from and hatred of your body, and to promote medical solutions for the resulting distress. If my disabled daughter's disability could be alleviated by therapy, I promise to you that I would not agree to an operation on a 4-week old, and numerous operations since

And of course we bloody try to minimise the amount of people born with life-threatening disabilities that would make them life-long patients, by giving women the right to choose to have children who've been diagnosed in-vitro or not. Should we stop that then, and make women have children with severe disabilities?

In truth, it is pathetic that someone chose to do this. Anyone who has read Helen's book knows her position, which is very far removed from the distortion that is being circulated.

The fact that some have pounced on that distortion with such aggression is intended to impede the free speech of others. The message is: "don't speak bluntly; only use words that we find acceptable or this is what happens to you".

TRAs hate her because she is such a rational, credible speaker on this issue. They very much want to discredit her. They first tried to claim she was an antisemite because she pointed out where the main funding comes from in the trans movement.

I've now gleaned that there isn't a full transcription of the conversation.

Beyond that, I have to acknowledge that Owen Jones has deployed a very successful strategy. Nobody is talking about his behaviour to his colleagues at the Guardian nor his offer to hear the 'other side of the story' from the young women in the recent story about the schoolgirl who was ostracised following her challenge to the Baroness who spoke at her school.

Someone regretting their choices doesn't mean everyone should be stripped of the ability to make those choices.

It's worth watching it all, they make some great points. If you watch it it's very clear that no one is advocating "genocide", and I agree with pp that that term should not be appropriated for hyperbole purposes.

Lots of parents out there who would "prefer" their child to be straight rather than gay too.

The parents' preferences don't matter.

Children aren't their parents' property, and they don't exist to fulfill their parents' wishes.

Someone regretting their choices doesn't mean everyone should be stripped of the ability to make those choices.

Which choices? Medical transition? Where is the evidence base that it works in the long term? If it's not a medical condition, why would it be covered by the NHS?

Someone regretting their choices doesn't mean everyone should be stripped of the ability to make those choices.

That isn't what I said, nor, from my knowledge of these two women, is it what they have said.

I included the words 'unquestioning affirmation' and the idea that those for whom treatment has not worked will provide good data for improving services. Just as they do in every other field of medicine.

Why do you think being trans is so different? Why don't normal rules, safety guidelines apply?

Hopefully this works

we.tl/t-fleI5h1eRp

I’ve just listened again and she is talking about very young transitioners, and the ‘things’ those people will need for the next sixty to seventy years of their lives: ie permanent medication and specialist care. I don’t think she is talking about forcibly preventing any adult from transitioning.

Whether or not that’s offensive to you depends on your philosophical standpoint with regards to gender, I guess. If you believe in gender identity it will be offensive. If you believe the young transitioners have been duped, the idea of turning them into lifelong medical patients is probably more offensive.