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.

Can we say that we'd like to have fewer people with anorexia?

It is not our place to judge the worth or cost of different aspects of peoples personalities. Things that cause unhappiness in one part of our lives can be the source of other types of fulfilment or inspiration in others.

Yes. The depth of malice in the person who edited that short clip from the whole of that part of the conversation to create such a distortion of what Helen is actually saying is unfathomable.

‘It doesn't '' must mean'' anything as how would she know what being trans is like, or how happy and unhappy they are?’

Obviously she doesn’t ‘know’. She is interested. That still isn’t bigotry.

But it’s interesting to hear something from this ‘closer knowledge loop’ perspective. How would someone male know what it means to be female? And vice versa? They don’t.

Either way, there is nothing bigoted about what she is suggesting: that if being trans is (as is often claimed) dangerous, marginalising and distressing for so many people, and if it isn’t innate (which she seems to believe), then isn’t it better for people not to enter that state of mind?

(I’m not saying I believe this myself. I don’t know enough to say what it is for certain.)

‘It is not our place to judge the worth or cost of different aspects of peoples personalities.’

So it’s an attribute of personality?

It is not our place to judge the worth or cost of different aspects of peoples personalities. Things that cause unhappiness in one part of our lives can be the source of other types of fulfilment or inspiration in others.

Yes, and I think it would help if we openly acknowledged that this is a personality issue, not a wrong sex issue.

We can choose many comparitors, and it doesn't matter how they stand up. The thing is, there are people who are parts of those groups, and saying we want less of them is absolutely hurtful.

Had she said, in the future, we would like to create conditions under which fewer people would feel the necessity to transition, that would have been fine.

But she didn't.

Exactly so. The malice and misogyny is palpable, isn't it?

All Helen is saying is about harm reduction for the wellbeing of children; she specifically refers to children. That qualification is being ignored by most.

‘The thing is, there are people who are parts of those groups, and saying we want less of them is absolutely hurtful.’

But the interpretation people are putting on that (that it’s ‘genocidal’) is absurd. She isn’t saying she wants fewer of them as in she wants those people not to exist.

‘Had she said, in the future, we would like to create conditions under which fewer people would feel the necessity to transition, that would have been fine.’

You don’t think she would have been accused of bigotry if she had said this?

But she didn't.

Could people who dislike you look at everything you have ever said and pick something out of the whole that taken out of context might sound dismissive or callous? I'd bet my house they could.

Didn't she? Is there a transcription of what she did say? I'm in a silent space and would like to see what she actually said.

That is what she did say, but used different words to say it. It shows that you understood what she said because, with the benefit of hindsight, you have been able to rephrase it.

Personally, I want far fewer people, especially children, in every and any group that is led into self-harm in any way.

I think it has been misinterpreted, however in my opinion its a clear own goal.

The words that were used have allowed it to be misinterpreted.

Joyce and to a lesser extent Stanisland (who did nothing to counter) have given lots of ammunition and to an outsider looking in, the words were disturbing to say the least.

Helen S. doubling down on it today and yesterday is just making it even worse.

I don't recall it. I saw a clip of it on Twitter before this thread came up and thought, my god, that's horrible optics.
As I said, I don't think Joyce is transphobic. I agree that if you took things I've said, you could find something offensive in them. But this was a total home goal, because it genuinely is very poorly worded and offensive.
We think it's obvious that Joyce isn't suggesting a genocide. However, given the current climate, I think it's equally obvious that thousands of people will interpret her words in exactly that way.

The point she was making is that the people who have been led down the path of believing they could change their sex will need to be accommodated by society in some way.

How doubling down?

And specifically on what?

Because all I have seen so far is an impassioned, blunt speech calling for better healthcare for trans people / kids.

Own goal. Had a pedal stool moment there.

‘We think it's obvious that Joyce isn't suggesting a genocide. However, given the current climate, I think it's equally obvious that thousands of people will interpret her words in exactly that way.’

Given the current climate, it’s obvious that some people think ‘chickens don’t commit suicide’ is a case-winning argument.

It ain’t. Genocide is murdering vast numbers of people in a systematic way for the purposes of eliminating a racial group from the gene pool. It is intensely offensive to compare Joyce’s argument that transition is harmful to the people transitioning to that.

It ain’t. Genocide is murdering vast numbers of people in a systematic way for the purposes of eliminating a racial group from the gene pool. It is intensely offensive to compare Joyce’s argument that transition is harmful to the people transitioning to that.

It really is. But no one ever pulls these people up on it.

Have you not heard of a 'soundbite'?

It's 2022, if people think they can just throw videos up on youtube without others going through them with a fine toothcomb looking for juicy bits then they're being incredibly naive. Helen S should have picked that up in the editing.

However, given the current climate, I think it's equally obvious that thousands of people will interpret her words in exactly that way.

The three main clips of it on twitter are on over one million views now.

Just one of the squillion ways to shut up an opinionated woman.

If she won't stop speaking bastardise her words.

Same old same old

That conversation occurred well over a week ago and it is only now that a very malicious person has chosen to make an edit of a tiny part of the whole discussion, to create an intended distortion and use it to stir up hatred and fear.

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".

I, for one, am not having it. Anyone who disagrees with the substance of what Helen said should argue their case in a rational manner. This is what free speech is about.

Or perhaps just be thoughtful when editing your videos.

Why hand it to them on a plate?

Which I am not doing.
I have crooked teeth. If someone said they thought that the world would be a better place with fewer people with crooked teeth in it, I personally would examine the context. But it's bloody obvious that lots of people with crooked teeth would think that was an offensive comment. It's obvious without saying it in the first place.
And I the context of Joyces statement it's obvious that the actors we know are involved will interpret this in the worst possible way. It was a mistake to say it, it has harmed her position with "floating voters" and given ammunition to her detractors.