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.

But there is zero chance that elective cosmetic surgery will be banned and while you say you think it should be banned, many many disagree. There are many unscrupulous private doctors who take advantage of all sorts of patients, not just trans ones. The anti ageing industry is worth billions for instance and involves altering the body to fit an ideal and fighting against nature.
Also, isn’t the issue that very few trans people actually undergo a full medical transition? While some trans males may take estrogen (not great for the body but if they give informed consent, okay), the majority are fully intact so it’s not even the case that they are mutilating their bodies beyond recognition. It’s much more about the social aspects of it and if we draw a distinction between those born female and those who are not in sports, prisons etc, I really don’t see why someone expressing their identity is a problem for society

It just means feeling deeply unhappy and uncomfortable with your body. No, we can’t define what feeling female is in an objective sense but the whole point is that someone who is not female can’t imagine what it is like. And equally, I can’t imagine what it’s like feeling that I can only be happy if I take cross-sex hormones, or how it would feel if I were to be stopped from doing so. For that reason I can’t say it’s no biggie for people to be prevented from doing that or from expressing themselves how they want. They’re adults - they have to be able to make that choice for themselves and shouldn’t face discrimination because of it.

‘It just means feeling deeply unhappy and uncomfortable with your body. No, we can’t define what feeling female is in an objective sense but the whole point is that someone who is not female can’t imagine what it is like.’

This is absolutely not what is being said when people say ‘transgender’. This is not the same claim that demands I call a person ‘she’ when they were born male, or that I allow a male to examine me as if he were a female, or that a lesbian should consider sex with males, or that anyone who doesn’t ‘recognise’ someone’s inner gendered essence is a Nazi. Nope.

But yes, lots of people are deeply unhappy with their bodies. What is the basis for the claim that this makes them any different from anyone else, such that the above accommodations should be made, or that anyone pointing out that they are not actually the opposite sex is engaging in hate speech and ‘conversion therapy’?

(It’s also clear from that very reductive wording ‘unhappy with their body’ - although I probably agree with it in essence - that ‘trans’ must therefore be an acquired, not innate state of being. Nobody is born unhappy. And therefore by your own logic, even though I would agree with you also that we can’t stop people transitioning, Joyce is right that this is probably fixable. Self-hatred isn’t a stable condition.)

But for anyone following this logic: I’ve been told now that ‘trans’ means poor body image.

That’s fine with me as a definition. Just don’t ask me to do anything I wouldn’t normally do.

Obviously it’s clear this definition doesn’t touch the sides of the philosophical claims being made by activists. Only this morning I’ve seen someone taking issue with the statement that a person can’t change sex. I’ve seen someone pointing out that nobody (rational) would argue that another person pointing out that obesity is a social problem would also be implying that the number of fat people should reduced through killing them. The answer given to them was, ‘But do you think obesity is the same as being trans?’

But by the definition above, it’s a question of personal body image and nothing more.

Clearly the claims of the trans lobby far outstrip ‘not liking your body and want to change it’, or what are all the death threats about when someone doesn’t agree that they were ‘born in the wrong body’ or that they’ve changed sex?

But no one is saying that people expressing a their identity is a problem in society are they?!

But to transition means accommodation as a society. Accommodation of their health needs, legal requirements, the prison needs, sports needs, and so on. The more people who think - or are told - that medical transition is the answer, rather than accepting their sex, the more accommodation is needed. The more people say they’re trans, the more legal accommodation is looked for: this is the entire self ID debate.

This is what accommodation means, not the ridiculous hyperbolic suggestions of some fascist proposition that the loons on Twitter claim.

Also, how does this fit with the concept of ‘trans children’? How can a child of four or five hate their sexed body or ‘explore their gender identity’, of being trans is about poor body image? How can anyone imagine that the fact that adults sometimes hate their bodies and kids copy them justifies social transition or puberty blockers, or double mastectomy for adolescent girls, or sex reassignment for 18 year olds?

How, if that definition is accurate, is the current medical model not gross malpractice?

Transition doesn't need too mean all that. It would be perfectly possible to transition from man to transwoman, woman to transman, with very few, if any, accommodations needed.

The GRA was passed with the expectation of accommodating fewer than 5000 people and the protected characteristic in the EA2010 was based on that. Limited numbers was built in. Now we have middle-class non-binary and pronoun havers expecting to be included in protective legislation they don't need and that was only ever intended and designed to cover a small group. Joyce is completely correct.

I don't understand why someone like Jones is still given a platform, he doesn't have ant insight or added value and it's far from the first time he's whipped up the hate crowd resulting in horrific threats and abuse for his victims. Prior's threats require police investigation imo.

‘Transition doesn't need too mean all that. It would be perfectly possible to transition from man to transwoman, woman to transman, with very few, if any, accommodations needed.’

Please explain how this would work. I am generally in favour of autonomy provided it doesn’t demand too much of others. I would happily support trans rights if it meant people being able to change things for themselves (physically and socially) as long as single sex spaces weren’t affected, nobody was compelled to say anything they didn’t believe, nobody was harassed for their lack of belief, and children (probably under the age of 16) were not transitioning (obviously medically but also socially).

I don't see the point in all the hand-wringing over this, I agree with what Helen said (however anyone wishes to interpret it) and just want to get back to a sane world where sex is real.

Like Posie Parker said in her Piers Morgan interview, if that makes me transphobic then yes, I'm transphobic.

I think the wording is unfortunate as it will be used to play into the TRA wailing narrative of "evil terfs want to wipe us out of existence". Reading the larger piece it is clear that she was not advocating genocide and what she said was coming from a place of concern and compassion, but I am afraid the GC side are going to have these words thrown back at us for a long time.

How, if that definition is accurate, is the current medical model not gross malpractice?

So, after watching Matt Walsh's piece ( a few obvious flaws otherwise chilling - Scott newgent was brilliant.) and then reading Malcom Clark's evidence and then learning more about the John money / Kinsey links, and exactly what Kinsey did (paid pedophiles to do his sexology research) yes the only conclusions are that this (as in the concept and medicalisation approaches) is all gross malpractice with very many links to very worrying aspects of abuse.

You had to read the larger piece to know that Helen Joyce wasn't advocating genocide? Do women often advocate for genocide? Is that a thing?

In that case, if the individual does not need any medical intervention they they must reconciled with their biological sex. If they do not need any legal accommodations, then they must be reconciled with their legal sex.

Which is exactly what Helen was talking about…

The 'genocide' argument is pure hyperbole.

Absolutely no one on the gender critical side is calling for murder or violence - unlike their opponents.

It's certainly true that transition should be approached with extreme caution, given its irreversible effects and the fact that genderism is now a fad sweeping schools and universities, picking up vulnerable young people.

It's also true that if someone feels their brain is in the wrong body, and they need radical surgery to correct it, and the world needs to bend its own perspective to accommodate their personal reality - that person is damaged.

Personally I believe transition should go ahead in those rare cases where it's the only solution to this psychological condition. But while these people should be treated with kindness and tolerance, the rest of the world shouldn't be forced to deny reality at every turn, or warp itself to support magical thinking. That means it should always be possible, if needed, to point out a person's true sex, and treat people according to their sex, not 'gender identity '. For example in sports, crime reporting, prisons etc. And the teaching of genderism in schools must absolutely stop.

I think the answer was word salad.

I'm afraid this is far, far too logical.

Poor body image? That's not what we're being told.

That's why we are accommodating rapists in women's prisons? Because they have a poor body image?

I mean it's an answer to the question. Absolutely. What are the reasons people transition?

But it's pretty shocking, if that's the case, isn't it?

Changing laws, ruining women's sports, subjecting incarcerated women to sex offenders, censoring, cancelling and de-platforming people everywhere and controlling their language.

Purely because a handful of men have a poor body image?

@Datun

I can’t say you’re wrong. Because you’re not.

If you're not trans though, how do you have any idea what it's like?

Bingo House Eureka No Shit Sherlock!

How come that makes sense to you @GoodJanetBadJanet ? Because if we switched a single word you would be up in arms about transohobia, erasure, being mean etc

If you're not female though, how do you have any idea what it's like?

That's the whole fucking point!

Yes. But that isn’t what is happening though.

If I remember rightly Janet believes she and MTF trans people share an ineffable sense of womaniness that many posters doubt the existence of.

How they would know what feeling like a woman feels like as males has never been answered across many threads, but somehow they just do, like she just does.

I think we all know what ‘feels like a woman’ means really. It means desire to be a woman based on how some women look (let’s face it - they desire to be women tbeg find desirable). Which is fine. Except you can’t be a woman unless you’re female, and you can’t know how to be what you are not. You can speculate (just like I can speculate about what it might feel like to be a member of a different racial or ethnic group), but you can’t jump inside someone else’s mind and know what is like to be them. And I am not going to pretend anyone can.

What is sane about the fact that we now have MP’s like Nandy saying males should be accommodated in female prisons and males competing in female sports categories?

What is sane about authors of the Dutch Protocol saying ‘there is a problem with this treatment and the current cohort of young female transitioners’ and that author being ignored?

The fact there are issues and discussion around them is being called transphobic and hateful is a problem for sane society. Because society progresses through discussion and debate. All ‘no debate’ ever does is push the debate along the timeline.

These issues are serious enough that they will persist and ‘society’ will address it, eventually.

Look at France and laws passed there in the name of progression in the 70s and the harm it has done and that took 40-50 years to come to light due to power and fear. But the discussion was had and the laws were changed.

If I remember rightly Janet believes she and MTF trans people share an ineffable sense of womaniness that many posters doubt the existence of.

I’d like Janet to tell us how ‘sane society’ should accept males competing in female sports categories.