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.

So, we're saying that she doesn't want to eliminate trans people, she just doesn't want them to transition?

Sorry, *consider focusing. Wouldn't want to be prescriptive her on what you focus.

LK1972 I'm afraid you're trying to engage me in an argument I'm not willing to have about the reasoning behind the comments (I've tried before).

I popped on (or perhaps you'll say plopped on) to express frustration that the GC argument has been represented at its worst here. Doesn't matter how clever you tell me HJ is, that's how she'll be perceived by a large audience today.

Joyce didn't say anything about "until 18", she spoke of actively reducing the number of trans people as much as possible period.

It's only a matter of time before it turns into "until 25", and then not at all.

She wants to reduce the number of children and young children dissociating from their sex, necessitating a transition. Are you against this?

‘So, we're saying that she doesn't want to eliminate trans people, she just doesn't want them to transition?’

Cycle back a bit. What is a ‘trans person’ before they transition? What does it mean? I am genuinely not being antagonistic. I want to know what you believe distinguishes these people from people who would be better served by mental health support.

(Again, I am not expressing a firm opinion. Just asking you what you think.)

Mutilating children and lying to them is about as disgusting as it gets.

@Nellle "Maud, no I haven't read HJ's work and that's exactly the point I made earlier - The vast majority of people who hear the clip OJ's sharing also haven't read her work and won't care to now. She's doing you no favours."

Perhaps those people who take that clip at face value are those to whom we should express utter disinterest, since it says far too much about their lack of intellectual capacity?

Lol Shiny, isn't age just a stereotype?

I'm a bit confused, do people feel the video posted on twitter was unfairly misrepresenting Joyce's views through editing or showing it out of context, or do they agree with the segment and think it's represented fairly?

‘people feel the video posted on twitter was unfairly misrepresenting Joyce's views through editing or showing it out of context, or do they agree with the segment and think it's represented fairly?’

I think she said what she thinks.

I'm not trying to engage you in an argument @Nellle, I'm just pointing out that what you focus on is your choice. But your unwillingness to engage in a debate is giving away your disregard for opinions of others, who choose to focus on the meaning and reasons behind HJs words.

This is not how reasonable adult people conduct conversations, hence I shall disregard your doom-laden predictions about how this clip will be perceived by reasonable peopl.

I think it is better to listen to the whole conversation for the full context.

Anyone who attempts to claim that this clip, maliciously taken out of context of the whole conversation, is the sum total in terms of representing Helen's views on the issue of people who are dissociated from their natural sex, is grossly mistaken.

Go to You Tube and search for Helen Joyce's name and listen to all her other conversations on this issue and you will understand. Read her book and you will understand.

If you equate it with say, wanting to reduce the number of people with cancer. That doesn't mean killing them. But avoiding it in the first place, faster diagnosis or treating them better so that they recover. And are cancer free.

The people saying that wanting less people who end up on damaging drugs or with damaging surgeries is akin to genocide are completely misrepresenting them. Let alone looking at the mental health issues. There is no research is there that says transitioning is a solution due to the number of people still unhappy after transitioning. Plus the horrors of the botched surgeries that they are left with.

What I think she's saying is 'In the future, when we go back to pre-gender ideology ideas about sex, there will be lots of very unhappy transitioners, who will need a lot of support. Therefore, isn't it better that we reduce the number of people transitioning now to prevent future problems/unhappiness?'

Obviously TRAs have looked at an edited video and cried 'genocidal fascist'.

Again, there's many mixed messages here. The OP and others say Helen's views were misrepresented and that they have to buy her book and listen to 50 podcasts to truly understand, while others are saying that actually she's completely right and reasonable etc.

The summary of the segment seems to be "We need to reduce the number of trans people/people who transition". This statement can be interpreted multiple ways depending on how one views trans people - some view them as a 'legitimate population' and thus reducing them is bigotry, others view it as more of a pathogen/cancer and thus reducing them is entirely moral. But the general statement is entirely in line with what she seems to believe - justifying the statement by saying why she's right to say that doesn't change the original statements. The original video seems to have represented her and her fans views fairly. The commentary might be extreme either way however.

I don’t think she is misrepresented when people say she would like to see fewer transitioners. She clearly does say that. She’s misrepresented when people call her a fascist or a genocidal whatever.

Wow... you're really on board with "no debate" aren't you...

As far as I am concerned, there is no mixed message. As I said earlier, that clip does not represent the sum total of Helen Joyce's views on the issue of people who become dissociated from their natural sex.

The clip is an edit from a one hour long conversation that was made with malice and distributed with a deliberately malicious interpretation to try to create the impression that this is the sum total of her views. Such people trying to use this malicious interpretation of that edit to promote the position that Helen's views amount to attempted genocide and fascism are malicious and wrong.

It is not the sum total of her views. [Many of us want to see fewer people engaging in a largely fruitless and very harmful process that is called "transitioning" by some because it cannot achieve what they have been deceived to think it can achieve.] Listening to the whole conversation reveals that. Listening to her other conversations reveals that. Reading her book reveals that.

The problem is they just don't understand the point. GC means gender doesn't exist, you have a body and you have a personality. You do not need to be masculine or feminine. Therefore transitioning is just mutilation as gender isn't real and sex is just your body not stereotypes about behaviour.
Until they understand what GC think gender is we are talking at cross purposes. ShinyRainbow doesn't get it.

'some view them as a 'legitimate population' and thus reducing them is bigotry, others view it as more of a pathogen/cancer and thus reducing them is entirely moral' is your misrepresentation of the argument. And wtf is 'legitimate population'? Is it like a 'gendered soul'?

Should we encourage or discourage medical transition, particularly in children? That is the question HJ is discussing. And being a fascist bigot she thinks we should discourage the increase in medicalised people who dissociate from their sex. Honestly, how dare she have a fucking opinion about the massive and unprecedented increase in children and young adults thinking they are a wrong/no sex, and demanding surgery and drugs to 'cure' their perfectly healthy bodies. Luckily, Laurie Penny, of 'it's rude to stare when confronted with cock in the women-only spa section' has piped in to disapprove and show us all how to be a new 'they' feminist

Unfortunately, her main explanation of her reasoning was not that transition caused suffering for transitioners, or that some transitions were unnecessary, but that they were difficult to accommodate. That's a bad take.

Yes, it's a "burden on society" take.

‘Unfortunately, her main explanation of her reasoning was not that transition caused suffering for transitioners, or that some transitions were unnecessary, but that they were difficult to accommodate.’

That’s misleading. She did say they would need ‘accommodations’ throughout their lives but she was (as I read it) also commenting on the difficulty of those accommodations for them. So a person who medically transitions at (say) 18 will one day be a seventy year old, and we really don’t know what they will need.

She also did imply they were burdensome and I accept that she did. But when the ‘burden’ is (for example) the demand that males race against females, or the disregard of a woman who wants a female police officer to strip search her, it’s not unreasonable to push back against that burden. Not all accommodations are reasonable.