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.

Saying that in a sane world, we want to have as few people as possible with X is very likely to be offensive to all people with X. We can substitute all kinds of comparitors: Tourettes, autism, Down`s Syndrome. None of them would be okay, particularly from the mouth of someone that the vast majority of that group feel is hostile to them in the first place.
This

@TheHeathers "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."

There's soundbites, which remain faithful to the context of what was said, and there is malice which distorts what was said by ignoring the context.

This is unadulterated malice.

‘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...’

But does it not depend at all whether they are suggesting violence towards people with crooked teeth, giving people with crooked teeth braces, or pulling the crooked teeth out?

Do you accept, GoodJanetBadJanet, that whilst worded offensively, this comment did not represent malice to anyone currently under the trans umbrella?

Or perhaps just be thoughtful when editing your videos.

Why hand it to them on a plate?

You can make the most sensible, carefully crafted, nuanced statement and the TRAs will twist it. Every single time without exception. I don't actually see the need to pussy-foot around with temperate language when a bad faith interpretation will be made regardless. Anything other than female silence is literal genocide, so you might as well speak without worrying how the TRAs will lie.

Because I don't think anyone, male or female, should self censor in order not offend those who take great pains to be offended.

Go rail at the lying gobshites who behave so poorly instead of suggesting women check their thinking, speaking, videoing!

Of course it does, Tabby. But that assumes people will hear more than the soundbite our have any inclination to explore the context, which was obviously never going to happen with thousands upon thousands of people. And even if they did, her words could still be offensive to many people, who are happy with the lives they have.

There will be people who would never have lived the lives they did, met the friends and lovers they have, had they not identified as trans. Saying they would be better off never having been trans is devaluing their current lives. Being trans for many people has not just been about suffering but about finding community.

Very well said, Bambino. 🙂

Just as I'd be better off never having heard that being ginger is offensive, ugly.

Or that freckles are ugly.

Or that a Scouse accent makes me sound thick as mince, or a natural thief.

Lots of shit is offensive. There is no right not to be offended. And sometimes offence can be manufactured when none was offered. Which we are sometimes, but not always, supposed to support the person expressing offense. Making offence just one of those amorphous things that cannot be legislated for

‘Being trans for many people has not just been about suffering but about finding community.’

I understand and, as I’ve already said, I disagree with her position. Some adults are going to be happier having transitioned, and whether I think their ideology is incoherent is irrelevant. With that said, if there is substantial evidence that physically transitioning harms the body or the mind in a great enough number of cases to give us concern, that becomes a society-level concern. Especially when many of the people assuming a trans identity are children. We really must ensure that we are giving people accurate information about what it is said to be.

But the point here is that I think Joyce is wrong on this, but I don’t think it is bigotry. I think it is disagreement.

So you don’t believe in anyone censoring themselves to not cause offence unless it’s someone you disagree with. Those ones are the “lying gobshites”

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."

There's soundbites, which remain faithful to the context of what was said, and there is malice which distorts what was said by ignoring the context.

This is unadulterated malice.

My understanding is that Wine with Women is a livestream and that the video stays up. I'd find it slightly more odd if the video were removed straight after and then posted after editing. Is that what other people do or only if they have Patreon sponsorship or similar?

Whether it's upthread here or somewhere on Twitter, I've seen the claim that the edited clips have >1M views. I'll observe that it seems there are currently <10.5K views of the original video. I

I looked on Twitter for a link to the full transcript and haven't found it.

Yeah! Cos that's precisely what I said!

Great example if the linguistic twist, the faux outrage if the deliberate misinterpretation 😁

Completely agree, Tabby. I also sympathise with Joyce right now. She made a mistake. I've done it myself as a school teacher, made some tiny comment that you can see some kid in the class get all gleeful over, because they know they can tell their parents that one comment out of context and get them to call the school to try to get you into trouble.

I think all teachers have that moment, total heart sink and not a little fear. I remember it well, even now, some 25 ish years later.

Anyone who thinks anything said here is ok, is supporting an ideology that history has proven to be not just a bad idea, but actually evil.

Read it, and then apply what she said to another demographic - one you can bring yourself to think of as human. She is talking about the eradication of trans people from society because their existence is "a huge problem" "a difficulty".

"The fewer of those people there are, the better."

I can't imagine how many times worse it must be being on such a public stage. Joyce is a very brave woman.

I think Joyce can handle the heat. In her shoes I wouldn’t have said what she said. My position is different to hers in that I don’t believe in a sex-incongruent gender identity as an innate attribute and certainly won’t be compelled to say I do, but I don’t think every trans person has been harmed. Some of them seem very happy and good for them.

None of the conditions you mention are comparators to being trans. At all. Bring trans, hard as it is to define, is ultimately a question of feelings and beliefs about oneself. None of the conditions you mention are that and as the parent of an autistic child I find the suggestion they are also quite offensive.

@LemonPalmTree "So you don’t believe in anyone censoring themselves to not cause offence unless it’s someone you disagree with. Those ones are the “lying gobshites”.

On Free Speech
Lord Justice Sir Stephen Sedley said in a 1999 ruling:

“Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having”.

So, no, self-censorship is not necessary. What is necessary for free speech to succeed for everyone is disagreement rationally expressed.

Had I at any point suggested that autism was a belief, I would apologise.

Here's the two just on JP's timeline - there's another with JK Rowling hugging Helen Joyce added to it that was on 150k this morning which if it has increased at the same rate puts it over 1m, apparently it's on Insta and Facebook as well so who knows what the true total is.

But that is because it definitely isn’t a belief. We know autism is a state of being. We know people are born into that state of being. We don’t know that about transgenderism.

For me, that doesn’t mean trans identities are bad. But I wouldn’t apologise for not pretending to think they are innate. I don’t have any reason to think that.

Anyone who thinks anything said here is ok, is supporting an ideology that history has proven to be not just a bad idea, but actually evil.
Readit, and then apply what she said to another demographic - one you can bring yourself to think of as human. She is talking about the eradication of trans people from society because their existence is "a huge problem" "a difficulty".The fewer of those people there are, the better."
Yes, but people are still saying it's a mis step, she didn't mean what she clearly said, it's like a fearful teacher in school having a whoops moment -, desperate to minimise away or gaslight no it didn't mean that 🙄
What does it actually take for some to see?!
Unless you actually agree with her and that's why you can't or won't.

Isn't Prior just your common or garden acronym that-dare-not-speak-its-name?