Helen Joyce Essay

[Mollyollydolly]

Helen's made her essay free this week for obvious reasons. Thought it deserved it's own thread. Do read it, it's excellent.
www.thehelenjoyce.com/joyce-activated-issue-8/

'I didn't read it' isn't much of an argument is it?

I remember getting into some great ding dongs, back when the detractors were gender conforming men and so we were allowed to be rude to enter into robust debate with them.

<misty eyed>

Aw, I miss a good Friday afternoon dingdong, I do. Bit of back and forth went well with a cup of tea and a nice custard cream.

Do we fear they are not sending us their best?

Or are they, in fact, sending us their best, and that is the problem?

Nah, FWR has become irrelevant and no one's interested in what goes on in here (except TRAs harvesting screenshots).

And yet... here you are, posting...

I thought it was an interesting essay. I had two criticisms. Firstly, although in the hypothetical adult example the impact on wider society was considered, in the two child examples, no consideration was given as to how societal gender conformity affects children and young people- little boys and teenage girls are possibly the most under pressure to conform to stereotypes. If the societal pressure was toned down then perhaps gender dysphoria in these groups would reduce.

Helen also links to another excellent article in that blog piece: "Making Light of Detransition - by Dave Hewitt" voidifremoved.substack.com/p/making-light-of-detransition?s=r

I'm not sure how that's a criticism of this essay. I think that Joyce would absolutely agree with you societal pressure to conform to stereotypes should be reduced. She says: "I’m pretty sure that at least some would never have developed gender dysphoria if the world had treated their early, extreme gender non-conformity more kindly. But while we work towards that better world, there are people suffering now. And I don’t blame individuals for doing what they feel they must to cope with the one life they have." Which is exactly your point.

Secondly, I thought the idea that people with gender dysphoria would or could confine that to the private sphere was naive.
The comparison was with religious beliefs, but these regularly and sometimes controversially spill into the public sphere.
Therefore, I don't think this could be achieved without resorting to more draconian measures, and I think this out of step with my own views and the legal and cultural traditions of the UK, as well as my own views, so I couldn't agree with Helen on this point.

Do you think that Joyce meant that gender identity beliefs should forcibly be kept in the private sphere? Or more reasonably, that if you take them into the public sphere you should not expect everyone to agree with you and behave as if they hold the same beliefs?

Ok, yes I can see she has made that point then, I just didn't pick up on it. My mistake.

Neither if I'm honest. I read it that she was hoping for a society where they were kept in the private sphere by agreement or convention, but I didn't think she was saying it should be a legal or forceful intervention.
I think that's more what I was saying - I'm not sure it would stay in the private sphere without those measures.
I did think she wanted more than just a free pass for refuseniks though- so more than just 'it can be in the public sphere buy not everybody has to agree'.

I think her meaning is quite clear: I also think that if it became clear that while you could identify as whatever gender (or indeed anything else) you liked in your private life, your self-identification would make no difference to your rights in public places, fewer people would transition

If transitioning conferred no rights, then fewer people would transition. Remove that and the conflict of rights disappears. It is a belief and people are entitled to believe what they like but those beliefs shouldn't confer any rights.

'I didn't read it' isn't much of an argument is it?

It isn't. "I didn't read it because I'm not clever enough to understand it" is an even worse one.

I thought it was a fantastic essay. Really clear-sighted. Sets out the exact nature of the problem in plain language.

Yes. I think that's what I'm disagreeing with, in essence
Sure, you could repeal the GRA, remove existing GRCs. Fewer people might transition. But I don't agree that would be that, normal service restored.
There would still be people suffering from gender dysphoria, there would no doubt be campaigns to change it all back again.
It pre-supposes that a world exists that operates in the 'right' and 'sane' way, and I don't agree with that supposition- the world is chaotic and changing and solutions are usually gradual & messy and not neat & quick.
Does that makes sense?

Oh no. An essay full of rational thoughts.

Nah, FWR has become irrelevant and no one's interested in what goes on in here

Fan-bloody-tastic, that means women can get on with freely discussing hillwalking, books, and knitting patterns without interference, let or hindrance, then. About time.

The whole bloody point of this board is to make itself redundant.

@ScholesPanda , I took it as a transition moving from being a legal status to being something one did privately (ie personally, not ‘in hiding’)

Like being a Goth, or a sports fan.

A part of a person’s identity to themselves that didn’t impact society as a whole because it didn’t permit access to opposite sex’s spaces

Whether you agree with Helen Joyce or not (and I think most people do), there is no denying she is a good writer. Clear and concise, with logical progression, her writing is an easy read that keeps her audience engaged with the subject.

Yes that makes sense @ScholesPanda

No of course it wouldn't change things overnight. But the GRA has legitimised a belief system and enshrined it in law. A lot of TRAs hang everything on that, even if they don't have a GRC. It has directly led to the push for self ID.

Take away all the legal framework and what are you left with? Probably back to that tiny number of people who the GRA was originally intended to support.

@Mollyollydolly
Thank you so much for the link. I read the essay this morning, and found it very clear, and comprehensive.

I thought the reference to gender identity as a belief similar to religious beliefs means that others cannot be forced to become congregants, i.e., that is private in the same sense as religious beliefs and not something that can be used to create forced speech for everyone else or something where outsiders must use terminology from that belief system such as 'cis' about themselves.

This! It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't do religion" - with no comeback about being transphobes for departing from the (constantly changing) true beliefs.

In the spirit of debate, as a counterpoint, there's a reaction-thread on the bird app from a trans person.

"As a result of the backlash when Helen Joyce spewed eugenicist rhetoric, gleefully rejoicing in the cultural genocide of trans people, she is clearly feeling a bit twitchy and decided to do a blog post and defend herself"

twitter.com/joss_prior/status/1535010923542372358

Do you think, given the opening tweet, that this person is going to be reviewing the article in the spirit of debate, too?

Well that sounds like it's going to be worth reading. Where's my hyperbole hyperventilation cream?