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.

Absolutely.

Public discourse, legislation and policy cannot be held hostage to threats.

We are discussing harm being done to children without solid evidence that it addresses the issue it purports to treat.

That's unacceptable, standoctor. Reported.

standoctor

Address the argument and not resort to direct personal attacks otherwise your posts will simply be deleted. I don’t know anyone who has love for Jones, but let’s stick to refuting what Jones says and does. That will be much more effective in the long run.

I wish Search worked...

But yes, @standoctor play the ball not the player.

Not only should blackmailing, borderline illegal behaviour of activists never be used to advocate further censorship, but I disagree entirely that what Helen Joyce has said is not beneficial to 'the movement'.

The outrage from the TRAs, determined to control the narrative, correlates directly to their fear over what is being listened to.

How many times have we heard, don't listen, shred those pamphlets, burn that book, shout over those women, shut down that venue?

Of course Helen Joyce is right to want to reduce the number of people who have irreversible surgeries that may be completely unnecessary.

And that is the conversation that is being had. Who's having the surgeries, how are they necessary, what are the implications? How is an ideology driving this?

I have zero problem with people disagreeing with anything that Helen Joyce says.

But to disagree with it, you've got to talk about it.

Helen Joyce wasn’t just talking about children, she was talking about every single person that transitioned. She basically said the world would be a better or more sane place without transitioned people.

Who else is it ok to say that about?

Psychopaths?

She basically said

There's no need to surmise what she said - we have transcripts on here.

No spin or interpretation needed.

‘Who else is it ok to say that about?’

Scientologists?

But seriously, would you object if someone said the world would be better without religion?

‘Who else is it ok to say that about?’

Scientologists?

But seriously, would you object if someone said the world would be better without religion?

Oh good grief! And, yet again, right back to step 1 we go!

No @Fieldofgreycorn If you took a moment to read any of the pages of replies in this thread alone you would see that you are repeating a trite, facile, blinkered view. One that has had quite a few reasonable, calm, detailed, evidenced words written in refutation.

Was there any point in anyone having typed any of the previous myriad responses? Because there always seems to be at least one who comes along and ignores everything that has been typed and tries to return the discussion right back to the beginning.

Oh! And TRAs, Stonewall in its current state.

She basically said the world would be a better or more sane place without transitioned people. Who else is it ok to say that about?

Slaves? Thalidomide victims? Castrati? Lobotomised people? Paraplegics from car accidents? People in poverty? Homeless people?

I can certainly imagine you and Jones arguing against abolition of slavery, ending use of thalidomide, stopping castrating boy singers, limiting lobotomies, enforcing seatbelt use, etc.

"Oh my god, she basically said the world would be a better place without slaves!"

We're talking about improving the situation of individuals here. If identity politics wasn't intended to rot people's brains, it's certainly very effective at it.

People with baseball bats covered in barbed wire who want to kill women who don't agree with them?

People who want napalm in the face of women who don't agree with them?

People who want to break through lesbians' knickers to force their penises into them?

People who rape girls in female toilets with their penises?

I mean, the responses write themselves when it comes to these extremists.

But seriously, would you object if someone said the world would be better without religion?

Would you object if someone said the world would be better without Christian’s or xxxxxxx?

Cross sex identity is a normal variation of human biology and behaviour. There’s evidence for it across time and cultures all over the world. Just as there are variations in sexuality. It’s not the same as Thalidomide, or lobotomies or Scientology or slavery or car accidents.

Cross sex identity is a normal variation of human biology and behaviour. There’s evidence for it across time and cultures all over the world. Just as there are variations in sexuality. It’s not the same as Thalidomide, or lobotomies or Scientology or slavery or car accidents.

Why are you talking about "cross sex identity"? Joyce wasn't. Why would she? She was talking about people undergoing physical transition.

Yes, there may be evidence for it across time and cultures all over the world. But did they subject them to surgery to try to "fix" them? We are proposing we should not be trying to surgically correct someone's "identity".

I'm sorry to possibly derail, but it always bemuses me when indigenous traditions allowing for the switch of gender roles are used as a proof of historical existence of trans people. I've double checked my memory on Balkan Sworn Virgins, and nowhere does it mention that they became the sworn virgins because they actually thought they were men/were confused about their sex. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanianswornn_virgins

However, the article above aptly demonstrates the conditions under which women are forced to live as men to be allowed basic freedoms.

Cross sex identity is a normal variation of human biology and behaviour.

What is a cross sex identity??

Honestly, the twittishness of this!!

Do you mean men wearing pink?

Cross sex identity is a normal variation of human biology and behaviour. There’s evidence for it across time and cultures all over the world.

Are you talking about intersex conditions? Because intersex people have repeatedly asked people to refrain from using them as a 'gotcha' in relation to trans issues, which are entirely unrelated to them.

Cross sex identity is a normal variation of human biology and behaviour

They used to give Lupron to 'homosexuals' to castrate them...and now the same organisations who got this stopped are the ones...promoting its use on kids.

Queen Victoria would not admit the existence of lesbians because she thought it wasn't possible to not want the penis. And now, progessives take the exact same approach. Indeed, Stonewall hired the man who used to run those workshops designed to strategise on how to get lesbians to accept the all new modern lady penis.

I do not think that we should use history to justify castrating kids personally. Surely things have moved on?

Yeah, this cross sex identity of Sworn virgins is totally normal and fully applicable to our society, when we will have this:'Women are treated like property of the family. Under the Kanun, women are stripped of many rights. They cannot smoke, wear a watch, or vote in local elections. They cannot buy land, and there are many jobs they are not permitted to hold. There are also establishments that they cannot enter.'

But they were definitely trans, right?

Cross sex identity is a normal variation of human biology and behaviour.

Explain what 'cross sex identity' means with absolutely no reference at all to stereotypes.

Cross sex identity is a normal variation of human biology and behaviour.

Like nailing blancmange to the ceiling.

Just when you think you have got it, it changes, wiggles away from you.

What are you talking about? Cross sex identity? What, specifically, are you talking about?

In fact, every single 'proof' of 'trans' people through history is a societally-approved ways of escaping over rigid gender roles. In none of them the equivalence is total. Hijra are not really treated as women, and Thai ladyboys fight men, not women, in martial arts. The Fa'ahafine also compete against men, and in fact it were the Pacific Islanders who were particularly outraged by inclusion of Laurel Hubbard in women's category.