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.

‘I have no desire to dissuade adults from transitioning to whatever degree makes them feel confortable. But I still believe that biological sex is real, and often more important than gender identity.’

Same, except I don’t believe in an objective or provable ‘gender identity’ at all. I also don’t believe transitioning should give people access to the few spaces put aside for the opposite sex, and I don’t believe people can be forced to use particular pronouns or express any belief they don’t personally agree with.

I do not understand why other adults allowing this will not see/accept what a massive safeguarding issue this is for our young children and the damage they are complicit it.

Owen Jones is a hateful dangerous man

It's all very difficult tabby and very complex.

It's a supposed medical, psychological and social condition, tied heavily to LGB now and so political. There are other serious issues also that get you deleted here if not careful, but are being increasingly evidenced.

Therefore all areas of society are affected by the idea of GD. It can't be "banned."

For children, education and social work is the biggest problem, along side social media.

And they're the ones complicit in how children can be abused by Gender Ideology.

I don't know, tabby, is providing a full list of 'gender affirming' surgery and life-long medication on NHS, pretty much on demand, a question of individual freedom and autonomy, or should it be considered in its impact on the wider society that will be footing the bill? Far higher percentages of teenagers and young adults identify as trans, and expect medical transition, on NHS, than ever before. It is not clear what could be causing this, bar social contagion.

And that is assuming we manage to somehow stand our ground on sex-based rights and keep the 'new kind of woman' to their correct, male, spaces.

@tabbycatstripy* same- I don't believe in "gender" at all really. But then again, I don't believe in God, but I have no issue with anyone describing themselves as a Christian. I don't even mind referring to a priest as "father" as a courtesy, but I reserve the right to point out that he's not my actual father.

foilball you are absolutely right, nobody should decide if someone transitions or not. Where others do have a say is when we the taxpayers have to fund the process. Change what you like but pay for it yourself.

That’s a fantastic way to explain it! Wholly agree

‘I don't know, tabby, is providing a full list of 'gender affirming' surgery and life-long medication on NHS, pretty much on demand, a question of individual freedom and autonomy, or should it be considered in its impact on the wider society that will be footing the bill?’

This brings us to pretty fundamental questions! The individual versus the collective etc.

I believe society could legitimately choose not to spend its resources on this. That’s democracy. I am not sure, in the case of people who have experienced sustained gender distress over many years, that it would be the right choice.

The nhs isn't funding support for detransitioners much though.

I know that people often say, when talking about this issue, the adults should be free to do what they want - within certain confines like legality. And obviously, I understand and agree with that sentiment entirely.

But transgenderism is different. The nature of transitioning means that you can opt into protected characteristics. The nature of the activism around it means that people are deliberately conflating different things.

Everyone understands that a young, possibly lesbian girl, who wants to present as a boy, is completely different from a male, middle-aged transitioner who has historically cross dressed.

Pretending that these things are the same and therefore should be subjected to the same checks, balances and rights, is causing a problem.

Who wouldn't want to see young girls not feel the need to transition because of sexism and homophobia?

Who wouldn't want to see young, effeminate men, reconcile that being male does not need to involve toxic masculinity. Or any masculinity.

Who wouldn't want to see the reasons for transition being addressed? And that's a genuine question, who doesn't want that?

We are told that transitioning is not something that is ever undertaken lightly, that it's often the ultimate, last ditch attempt to overcome gender dysphoria. Where has the gender dysphoria come from? And why can't we try and stop it?

I should add that if it is conclusively proven that there is little or no evidence base for benefit from physical transition, then no, the NHS shouldn’t fund it because then they would be funding harm.

There's a balance to be had between protecting children (which is absolutely vital- TRAs should not be given free rein to indoctrinate children and teenagers completely unopposed) and policing adults.

Super skinny/uber buff celebs are dangerous role models for young people. But we would never refuse them access to the gym, or say they shouldn't exist! We just open discussion with our young people, and we provide alternative role models and ways of thinking. The existence of (law abiding) trans people is not a threat to young people. "No debate" is the threat.

(for context, I'm a secondary school teacher)

Datun

I believe gender reassignment should continue to be a protected characteristic. I believe the circumstance in which a transitioned person should be able to claim sex discrimination is either if they are discriminated against because of their sex, or if they are discriminated against because of someone’s perception that they are the opposite sex to their own biological sex (so, if a transwoman is denied a pay rise because their boss hates women and thinks they are one). Otherwise there should be no ‘opt-in’.

The expansion of the trans umbrella to include transvestites as well as transsexuals was pushed for by Press for Change (people like Christine Burns and Stephen Whittle, who are both transsexuals).

See this post on a thread from last year.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4319779-fetishes-and-autogynephilia?reply=109850521

It's my understanding that traditionally, only those diagnosed with gender dysphoria could receive any kind of treatment on the NHS. And those with AGP were weeded out from the outset.

Activists making a mental health problem a civil rights issue put a stop to that.

The same way they want to eliminate gender dysphoria from being a criterion to get a GRC.

The post I just posted a link to is an excerpt from a longer piece about the trans umbrella and its origins.

womenspeakscotland.com/2021/06/23/the-trans-umbrella-is-older-than-you-think/

I wholly agree, but they did not say that.

Perhaps that is what they meant - in which case I think they need your assistance in respectful and clear communication! We could all use a Datun to aid our eloquence 😂

As it stand though just from that small snippet of transcript it’s really not a great look, and makes GC look like some unreasonable extremist position. It is harmful to our position. We hardly want to give bloody Owen something he’s actually right to call out.

‘The expansion of the trans umbrella to include transvestites as well as transsexuals was pushed for by Press for Change (people like Christine Burns and Stephen Whittle, who are both transsexuals).’

And went on and on until the ‘umbrella’ of ‘the most marginalised people in the world’ included male bankers who sometimes present as female in private and call themselves ‘they’.

Disastrous.

Own Jones and his cronies are vile. Medical transition is experimental, almost certainly damaging physically (and emotionally/mentally) to many people who undergo it, and a drain on the NHS. Women's fundamental sex-based rights are being hugely undermined to the detriment of more than half the population, and most major institutions are in thrall to powerful trans ideologists. And kids are being brainwashed, leading to an epidemic of "trans by contagion".

BUT.

This transcript makes me deeply unhappy. WHY do people give hostages to fortune like this? How is it in any way helpful to the cause of sanity (our cause, after all) to say things like ...

"every one of those people is a person who's been damaged".

"every one of those people is basically you know a huge problem to a sane world" (my emphasis).

"every one of them is a difficulty"

Is it any wonder that Jones and his ilk paint us as rabid transphobes? We are not actually trying to erase trans people from the face of the earth, are we? We simply have large-scale legitimate concerns. This stuff sets our cause back and provides free ammunition for the trans lobby to smear us with (if you'll excuse my mixed metaphor).

Or have I got this wrong - ARE we trying to eliminate trans people?

I agree. It is not what was said by the Helens that is the problem. The problem is that the people who disagree with them cannot do so without resorting to death threats and violence.

I think every word that comes out of Tommy Robinson's mouth is an offensive lie - but I wouldn't send him death threats or threats of violence or anything else.

It does seem that its time to designate TRAs as extremists and use the relevant laws to deal with them.

‘Or have I got this wrong - ARE we trying to eliminate trans people?’

No, I think HJ was speaking very much as she finds: she feels sympathy with trans people and views their condition (in the neutral sense) as a condition in the medical sense. That isn’t genocidal rage. That’s absurd. She just doesn’t agree with the philosophical claim that ‘transgender people’ are a coherent and innate class of people. And since the evidence doesn’t appear to prove that they are, this isn’t an irrational position. She didn’t say she wants to force people not to transition, either, just that she thinks it would be beneficial if they didn’t.

Or have I got this wrong - ARE we trying to eliminate trans people?

This, as a question doesn't make any sense. Are you talking about young lesbians who feel they must present as men, because society still doesn't like the concept of butch lesbians?

When you say eliminate what does that mean? I'd like to eliminate the sexism and homophobia that leads young lesbians to feel they must present as male.

TRAs tell me that's transphobic. Because there is some other bloody reason why they are presenting as male.

Well what is it?

(i'm not asking you personally).

What are the reasons why the transwidows partners transitioned? Fetishising women's oppression? Who wouldn't want that to stop?

@ChristabelHolloway

I'm GC, I'm concerned about the erasure of women's spaces and women's rights. I'm terrified by the concept of "no debate". I'm appalled that women have had their lives turned inside out for daring to speak scientific fact.

But I categorically do not want to eliminate trans people from society. And I think it's really important to say that "out loud" (even though I know it will never be screenshot and posted on twitter!)

Thanks for that, tabbycatstripy. But, surley by making these "every one of those people" statements she actually IS saying, or at least strongly implying that she sees them as "a coherent and innate class of people". If he doesn't think that then why is she saying this stuff?

This thread seems to be full of people trying to justify her words and make her position sound less transphobic. But as someone who is fairly new to this, it sounds terribly offensive to me. Imagine if she was saying that about disabled people for example, who also tend to cost the NHS a great deal of money and need special treatment in society.

Or have I got this wrong - ARE we trying to eliminate trans people?

We're not trying to eliminate the people, but eliminate, or find a cure for, what appears to be a damaging mental health condition for which the current 'treatment' is opposite sex hormones and surgery.

They are saying that gender dysphoria/being trans isn't a mental health condition, it's a normal part of the human experience, like being gay.

But being gay doesn't require any medical treatment, whereas gender dysphoria/being trans does.

If they could explain why gender dysphoria/being trans isn't a mental health condition yet requires surgical and hormonal interventions to relieve mental distress, perhaps we could find some agreement about how to help these people.

If trans people just wanted to dress and behave against gendered expectations, and fund their own cosmetic procedures, there would be no issue.