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.

Cut the crap and answer questions.

Yes please!

OP didn't come back. Looks like another attempt of those faux 'concerned GC' posters to come on and tell us all to behave. I used to be one of you but this is too far blah blah. How predictable.

Anyone who is familiar with this debate will know well that TRAs will use any and all dirty means to smear women who dare to talk openly and bluntly about this. It's the only tactic they have, as the truth is not on their side.

I watched the whole chat between the two Helen's a few days ago - before this blew up on twitter - and don't remember being outraged by anything she said. It's so obvious this just another attempt to discredit her.

I watched the whole video the day it came out and the hot take couldn't be further from my understanding of what the Helens were saying. I can only think people saying these things either can't have watched the whole thing, or have an axe to grind.

Personally I like that Helen J has become less inclined to pussy foot around or sugar coat her words. She is right. I have a chronic pain condition; if someone said the goal is to have fewer people with chronic pain, i wouldn't jump to the frankly ludicrous conclusion that she wants to erase/eradicate me. I would conclude that she understands that chronic pain is awful, and we should seek to cure people who suffer it. It's not rocket science, but if you (general you) want to make the least charitiable and most bad faith reading, I imagine it's quite easy.

This.

I haven't watched it yet.

From descriptions it sounds no different to what transwoman Rene jax says in this.

"We have to stop the dam. We have to stop kids accessing pbs. My body is decaying after 40 years on this stuff."

Is it less blunt if a TW says it?

www.google.co.uk/search?q=rene+jax+youtube&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:37ea102f,vid:lN0sT6bHjR8,st:0

That was 2017 btw.

Renee says the "epidemic is set to double every year."

Some stats are given at the end. Would be interesting to compare what renee predicted with now.

Also Renee mentions a statistic whereby 50% of transitioned people attempt suicide after transition.

Not social influence. Not transphobia "Biological. Because you're messing with biology" - Renee's words.

Rest if population Renee says is 0.6 %. Lost many transexual friends (again, Renee's words.)

I think what they are saying essentially is that transition is actually not a very good treatment for sex dysphoria, or anything else. Either not for anyone, or only for a tiny sliver of people.

It's not an idea that is outside of medical history, there have been other treatments that people thought were a ood idea at one time but in the end, actually left all of most people subject to them worse off.

For transition specifically, there is plenty of reason to think that it may well leave the majority of people who undergo it, certainly in recent years, with serious ongoing medical complications, without helping their real problems or even making them worse.

It's important to remember that "being trans" is not an expression of some inner essence. It is a medical treatment or pathway and if it's ineffective, or being used inappropriatly, there is nothing problematic or "going to far" about reccomending that it is supplanted by better treatments.

This! Thanks for putting it so well, Helleofabore

I wonder if there's enough data for this yet,

It would probably be based on the Cass Review. But, whatever systematic review or meta-analysis they produce as part of that, it's plausibly feasible for a health economist to make an indicative analysis based on that. A health economist could probably put together some vignettes that track different outcomes and do the analysis for those.

First post on MN. I predict there will be a lot of these “I’m concerned” threads. It will make a change from being about Posie Parker anyway.

I'm GC and am very concerned about other GC people endlessly coming onto GC forums to tell people they're GC and concerned about what other GC people are doing.

It's the invasion of the Dolores Umbridges - loads of them in recent weeks with their faux "concerns" hiding their deep rooted intolerance and disdain for women and women's rights.

This could rapidly become turtles all the way down but I share your meta-concern, @NecessaryScene and could readily add some additional seams of concern if this were a mine of meta-concerns about GC people.

I wonder how recently to the fray some of these newly arrived GC people are. The recent tranche seems unaware of the basics of the history of this board, the evolution of gender critical concerns, development of language and shift of policy-making up to and beyond the GRA 2004 and the more recent attempts to extend it, plus the disturbing details uncovered about the Webberley clinic's treatment of young people etc.

I mention this because in addition to the video being a short clip from a conversation that is more than an hour long, the conversation itself needs to be placed in the context of the wider background that is known to the 2 Helens.

You would know real concern from faux concern because people wouldn't jump up and down and one sentence or a couple of words, but would listen to the whole argument.

They never argue the arguments, but rather want to argue about the person making the arguments.

In my dealings with TRAs they always seek a gotcha moment. They're seeking one word or sentence just to invalidate an entire argument (or lifetime's worth of work). And with that attitude it's not surprising they've made software like Shinigami Eyes.

I am apparently classified as ‘GC’ too and I share your concern that GC people come to MN to announce they are GC while telling everyone how shocking it is that another person who they classify as GC has the gall to say something that could be construed as being too direct or too forthright and it is appalling to say the quiet bit out loud!

Fuck, how mean is that! To say it as it is and to stop giving a shit about sugar coating reality!

Outrageous that any GC woman has not run it past the GC approval panel of approved feminists first!!! Let alone not running it past the panel of approved right-thinkers!

Women making their own decisions and talking while drinking wine! What on earth will come next?

She is right. I have a chronic pain condition; if someone said the goal is to have fewer people with chronic pain, i wouldn't jump to the frankly ludicrous conclusion that she wants to erase/eradicate me.
Well no, because you presumably would want to be cured and not be in chronic pain anymore.

I would conclude that she understands that chronic pain is awful, and we should seek to cure people who suffer it.
That only works as a comparison if you think trans people can and should be "cured", that they're just suffering from an illness.

Treatment that can lead to someone in their 20s and 30s having spinal fractures as their bones disintegrate?
People in their 20s and 30s are ADULTS.
Grown adults.
All medication can come with side effects, surely?
Where do you stop with that line of thinking - stop 20 and 30 year olds from having treatment if you don't agree with them having it?
When people talk about "children" on here - people in their 20s and 30s (thirties, for crying out loud!) are not kids, they're adults.
Serious infantalising going on here.

That only works as a comparison if you think trans people can and should be "cured", that they're just suffering from an illness

OK, so it's not an illness.

All medication can come with side effects, surely?
Where do you stop with that line of thinking - stop 20 and 30 year olds from having treatment if you don't agree with them having it?

... so why does it need medication then?

so why does it need medication then?

oohhh. The mystical question. Or is it the Million Dollar question?

But the treatment proposed has a low evidence base for safety or effectiveness - it seems probable no one should be getting these treatments, regardless of age. It’s not infantilisation, it’s safeguarding.

That only works as a comparison if you think trans people can and should be "cured", that they're just suffering from an illness. Hmm

What's always confused me is that TRAs say trans isn't an illness, yet they require medical intervention, medications and surgeries. Human conditions that require all three above typically indicate a person has an illness or injury. The only exception I can think is childbirth, which is not injury or illness, but even that isn't a good comparison because many births do not need intervention, medication nor surgery, only those that are at risk or for women who choose to have some medication to ease what is the natural and expected pain of childbirth.

So if being trans isn't an illness, injury or disease, is it a mental health pathology? I've heard that people don't want it classified as that. But why is there a fear of suicide?

If there's no need for a cure, why is there a need for medical/mental health interventions?

"Eliminate" transpeople how exactly?

If there have been threats of violence then a report needs to be made to the police?

Oh dear pie, perhaps you should go to Helen Stanisland’s YouTube channel and listen to the first 30 minutes for yourself.

There's a lot of "She's being taken entirely out of context, but she's also entirely right" comments here so I think it would be fair to just post the transcript here:

"We can't win this by saying there's 60 million people in this country and we've got to persuade all of them or a great majority of them, we've got to get through to the decision makers. And in the meantime, while we're trying to get through to the decision makers, we have to try to limit the harm, and that means reducing or keeping down the number of people who transition.

And that's for two reasons: one of them is that every one of those people is a person who's been damaged, but the second one is every one of those people is, basically - you know, a huge problem to the sane world, if you've got people, whether they're transitioned whether they're happily transitioned, whether they're unhappily transitioned, whether they're detransitioned, if you've got these people who've dissociated from their sex in some way, every one of those people is someone who needs special accommodation in a sane world where we re-acknowledge the truth of sex.

The people who've been damaged by it, the children have been put through this, those people deserve every accommodation we can possibly make, but every one of them is a difficulty. And I know that sounds heartless, I'm trying to say exactly the opposite of sounding heartless, I'm saying every one of those people for 50, 60, 70 years, is going to need things that the rest of us just don't need, because the rest of us are just our sex. So the fewer of those people there are, the better in the sane world that I hope we will reach."

You're missing the point, Janet. They're "in their 20s and 30s having spinal fractures as their bones disintegrate" as a result of treatment they received before they were adults.