Helen Joyce/Helen Staniland "Trans Elimination" video

[momentsinthewind]

I've just seen a video on YouTube with HJ and HS and HJ is saying that we need to return to a sane world and everyone who has transitioned is damaged and will need special accommodation (detransition treatment?) in the future.

I'm GC and have many concerns about safe spaces and sport etc, but this just seems to be going too far.

I found it quite upsetting if I'm honest.

Hearach15 · 11/06/2022 16:40

Of course I am prejudiced against Joyce. She goes around saying horrible things about trans people and I like trans people.

First, a definition - "prejudice - a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." One of the following things is true, which one?

(1) That you don't even know what prejudice is, making your claims to be an arbiter of anything to do with misogyny or transphobia utterly irrelevant.

or

(2) That you are admitting that you have no evidence of whether Joyce says "horrible things about trans people" and that your negative opinion is based on nothing.

She is saying horrible things about trans people

I like trans people

Look this is really naively simplistic. How do you know you like all trans people? Have you met them all? Are you a fan of Barbie Kardashian and Karen White for example? Isn't this really rather patronising and superior? We're talking about people like any other people, the equals of all other people, not a bunch of pet kittens. This is in the realms of 'I love children' and 'I love animals'. Some will be fabulous. Some will not be. Unless it's the characteristic of trans you like and not actually a whole, real person, and if you said for example 'I like disabled people' it would be a bit weird and about you, and what saying that made you feel and how you felt it made you appear, not about any sincere engagement with the group.

In the same vein: no, no one is saying 'horrible things' about an entire population, they are raising concerns with a political agenda and a viewpoint on some potentially very serious problems. These things need to be talked about and looked into instead of stuffed under a rug on the grounds of 'but that's horrid!'. It's past time everyone started to work on being able to behave like rational grown ups about this.

"I like trans people", what the hell does that even mean?

The only thing trans people have in common is that they believe - or say they believe - they have a gender identity which doesn't match their sex.

"Trans people" includes older people who have suffered with gender dysphoria for their entire lives and had sex reassignment surgery 30 years ago, middle aged men with autogynephilia, little boys who like to play with dolls, and teenage girls who have been sexually abused and want to opt out of womanhood.

It includes people as diverse as Karen White, Lia Thomas, Emily Bridges, Katy Montgomery, Buck Angel, Debbie Hayton and Caitlyn Jenner.

It also includes the former university mate of mine who is married with primary school age children and "came out" over the weekend by changing their name to Rose on Facebook and posting a picture of themselves looking identical to before except with nail varnish on.

How can you say you "like trans people"? It's a pretty diverse group of people and you know almost none of them.

These things need to be talked about and looked into instead of stuffed under a rug on the grounds of 'but that's horrid!'. It's past time everyone started to work on being able to behave like rational grown ups about this.

There seems little rationality in the arguments we are seeing presented.

The extreme polarised thinking it takes to equate 'a problem for a sane society' to 'genocide' is rather worrisome.

The very fact that by doing this, it shows just how much of a problem it is for a society who is trying to make decisions that allow all impacted groups to have their needs met, is rather lost on many of those who seem to have outsourced their critical thinking to self-proclaimed social media influencers.

It is glaringly obvious how the reaction actually proved the truth of the statement.

Quite. It proves the point.

twitter.com/tullipr/status/1536422533230206976?s=21&t=Ye_g2NjhlIVg7OrYv4DgtA

This is a tweet thread from Tulip. He has now detransitioned after what seems to be a long transition. I am not sure it will last on twitter, because it is so raw that I am sure someone will try to have it deleted.

In it Tulip describes the neo vagina operation that was considered a success.

Including the fact that the stub of the penis can not be removed in these operations so it twitches sporadically. Something he was not told.

And the fact his urethra is so destroyed he cannot toilet properly and leaks all the time.

We are led to believe forming neo / replicated vaginas have a high rate of success. What is the truth really? According to Tulip, there are so many lies around this operation and people who have it don’t necessarily publish the truth.

We know phalloplasty has appalling rates of success.

We have seen Yt videos of male transitioners complaining about their unsuccessful and painful larynx operations.

We KNOW the damage to female bodies of puberty blockers that may not come to light for a decade or more .

We KNOW the life limiting and potentially shortening damage to the female body that testosterone can cause. Including the potential for early ovary removal and the risk then of dementia by 40s.

We also know from detransitioners that any issues are either silenced or rarely discussed on fear of ostracisation from sometimes the only support they have left. (Partly from leaving behind their families and becoming isolated)

And yet, we seem to have some posters remonstrating us, monstering Helen Joyce, for saying that damage is caused to bodies.

Is it because they don’t know the side-effects of these drugs or operations? Is it because they have been told that the side effects never happen and have been wildly exaggerated? Is it because the trans people are simply not telling others about it?

Or will Tulip’s account of the damage to his body be dismissed as ‘weaponisation’ by the self proclaimed social media influencers who rely on the golden view of transition success to keep their own platform and success? And will posters quibbling about ‘language’, just double down and not own up to the truth of the situation?

From what I can see the quibbling is about use of words ‘damage’ and being ‘problems for sane society’.

I am going to flip this to any poster who has an issue with the language, convince us that what is happening is not damaging bodies and even exacerbating poor mental health, and is not presenting problems for society to address when considering males in female prisons and sports.

I think the narrative is switching from 'it doesn't happen (in my personal reality)'

to 'ok it happens, but it's kind to pretend it doesn't because it makes TQ+ people look bad'.

The batteries on that deflector shield have failed there too.

Demanding that everyone participates in gaslighting to their own disadvantage is not going to work on 99% of the population. It really isn't. No matter how much you shout 'be kind'.

And if there was the courage to LOOK at these issues, address them, find solutions that work for everyone...?

No one would be looking bad, or frantically trying to shut everyone else up all the time. And we could (for the love of Mike, please) go do something else with our time instead of trying to hurl womens rights, gay rights and child safeguarding back into the 19th century.