Place your bets now

[tabbycatstripy]

Sally Hines has tweeted to say, ‘Interrupting my holiday silence to say that Helen Joyce is an absolute disgrace. Anyone who does not condemn her recent tirade is complicit in eugenicism.’

Helen Joyce says SH needs to delete, retract and apologise or she will take legal action, no discussion.

Is Sally going to court?

I know I’ll help out with the crowdfunder just to see her try to explain how trying to resolve dysphoria is eugenics.

Of course it would be better if fewer people transitioned. One has a healthy body - that is a priviledge, so many people do not. Live your life as you want in that body. If society has to review its expectations of that body, then society should change. Not the healthy body. Good grief, but people deliberately read rubbish into what they want to read. How can surgery and chemical alteration with all its pain and dependency possibly be better than living as one wants in the meat suit into which one is born. I listend to the whole interview. With Helen and Helen 100%. Will garden if needed.

@dropthevipers no it really doesn't. I'm a sociologist and I'm not a TRA. I'm very much GC and I'm on the side of Helen Joyce. I just really don't appreciate having my discipline ridiculed.

Unfortunately @Helleofabore it won't be Ben as he's an employment lawyer rather than a civil/liable lawyer 😞

This largely comes down to the idea that transness is an essential charachteristic in some way, almost like a third sex. But that is very far from evident.

I apologise for that, it was over the top and I retract the statement.

Thank you @dropthevipers

Have to wonder if all this is strategic and SH just stepped into the web.

Libel isn't really his area though, is it? I should imagine The Economist can probably put her in touch with someone who's well up on libel law, although I don't know if they generally only specialise in defending or prosecuting such claims.

I was kidding about BC. But any reasonable barrister would be able to advocate the point of view that it isn’t eugenics and is therefore defamation.

Dont see anything "strategic" about making easily refuted libellous statements? More like the ill considered toy throwing half way down the second bottle of prosecco. (what with being on holiday, and that)

‘Dont see anything "strategic" about making easily refuted libellous statements? More like the ill considered toy throwing half way down the second bottle of prosecco. (what with being on holiday, and that)’

I mean strategic on HJ’s part. She has made controversial statements. Perhaps she wanted to see which high-profile idiot would go too far?

Eugenics?? Seriously?

Ah, I see. Think Helen has just had enough of the "be kind" bollocks and tells it how she sees it, straight. The TWAW tin foil hat bunch won't and don't look for anything but the worst possible complexion on anything anyway.

Anyone who does not condemn her recent tirade is complicit in eugenicism

Cripes, Sally.

Are you going to go round door-knocking and demanding people renounce Helen Joyce or you'll sic the Geneva Convention on them?

😞

Could BC’s support wren at least be a supporting act for the new QC?

The only eugenics I see is against lesbians, gay men, and young people w/ ADHD and Autism...as people in these groups tend to be overrepresented in ROGD, who, if affirmed the way TRAs hope for, will become infertile. How is that NOT eugenics?

Has she sobered up apologised yet?

No.

There's solid evidence that dysphoria in children resolves with puberty, if watchful waiting is undertaken, rather than affirmative care. Many will turn out to be gay.

‘There's solid evidence that dysphoria in children resolves with puberty, if watchful waiting is undertaken, rather than affirmative care. Many will turn out to be gay.’

Yes. Controversial doesn’t mean wrong.

Hm. It's going to be one of those things about 'feelings create reality, not facts' isn't it? Doesn't tend to stand up in court.

It is past time this extremist slander and hyperbole ran up against the reality of law and actual consequences, it's hurled around like confetti.

She’s obviously getting all the ‘what happened to free speech’ people posting about her as well.

Very few GC people (including Joyce) thinks free speech is absolute. They just think the reality of binary biological sex is a very ordinary view that doesn’t touch the high bar of denial of the right to free speech. But defamation does.

And 20% of them will turn out trans. What do we do with those people? Tell them the world would be better without them?

nd 20% of them will turn out trans. What do we do with those people? Tell them the world would be better without them?

This is just more extremely distorted thinking to enforce a political agenda.

I am disabled.

Would I if possible prefer to have a life that did not involve being permanently in pain, to be able to walk, to work full time, to not get pneumonia on a regular basis? Yes. In a shot. If it was possible to find a way to treat my condition in a way that removed this distress and prevented more people who are born into my family inheriting and suffering with this? I'd want it for them.

Do I interpret someone saying 'less people should grow up suffering your condition and consequences of it' as 'the world would be better without you?'

Well obviously not. Because it would be a bit of a paranoid misinterpretation of what was said, and would achieve nothing but shutting the conversation down.

Treat them, Field.

Unnecessarily treating 80% of children when the risk of iatrogenic harm is so high is not acceptable. Sacrificing the health of such a large number of children can't be done in the interests of 20% who will want (and can then go on to have) treatment post adolescence/puberty.

The arguments for having treatment so early just don't stack up. Marci Bowers and others have said that puberty blockers meant SRS was made far more difficult.

Being 'trans' will likely continue to be the rare anomaly that it used to be. But when the rates are so high, and the rates of regret and detransitioning are rising, we need to ask why and what is driving this sudden change.