Helen Joyce & Peter Boghossian - Reality vs Trans Ideology

[meowgender]

Helen Joyce in discussion with philosopher-skeptic Peter Boghossian on trans ideology:

Video description:

Helen Joyce is causing a lot of trouble. YouTube recently removed her conversation with Jordan Peterson (due to vague accusations of “hate speech” and “inciting violence”) and the BBC doesn’t invite her on air anymore. Among her heresies, she is guilty of believing there are two sexes and saying it out loud.

Helen, an Irish journalist, bestselling author, and director of advocacy at Sex Matters, spoke to Peter Boghossian about the differences between men and women. In many arenas, the differences don’t matter, but they are a matter of consequence regarding women’s privacy, vulnerability, and physical competition.

Peter and Helen discuss the definition of sex, why trans men should be allowed in women’s spaces, the tragedy of the commons, fa’afafine, evolution, the “thought-terminating cliché,” the tribal fear of rejection, the cultivation of mental illness, why institutions are losing their North Stars, and much more.

Chapters
0:00 Intro
1:00 Helen's views on transgenderism
7:45 "Transphobia"
9:45 Discussing the beliefs around "changing sex"
20:20 Trans women in women's sports
23:30 The cost of speaking out
28:00 Was the New Athiest movement wrong?
31:20 How people believe obviously wrong things
39:15 Society is encouraging mental health crises
42:35 Is trans a culture-bound syndrome?
47:13 Why people can't engage a simple claim
57:04 Helen and Peter react to a pro-trans clip
1:03:35 Conversation wrap up

I'm going to watch this shortly, could listen to Helen all day. Really enjoyed his chat with Andrew Doyle.

I thought it was brilliant.

So watchable. So clear, calm, sensible, informative. Just the kind of thing we need and will no doubt keep on needing.

The only thing I didn't like was that Helen kept interrupting Peter. I am sure it was enthusiasm but it was still annoying 🤔.

There is so much to say and so much to counteract with this movement that I hope people such as Helen and Peter keep on offering these open conversations.

I have just listened to this today, I do enjoy these calm measured conversations.

I think that Peter Boghossian is learning a great deal about the issues from a UK perspective.

He did seem a bit 'really???' about some of Helen's angles.

I hope he is enjoying his trip to TERF Island.

I'm listening to it at the moment. Very enjoyable.

I hope he is enjoying his trip to TERF Island.

Is that a place, or a state of mind..? 🤔

This interview is GOLD. On having a good vagina made, Peter: “well let’s just say that you could. Five years in the future vagina technology is unbelievable…”

She's so good. She just has such good answers to all the batshit questions and whataboutery. Thank god we have people like her on the side of reason. Thanks Helen. And Peter looks really like someone I know, but I can't put my finger on it. Argh!

Big Helen Joyce fan here
37 mins:
I. Can. Not. Stand. People. Talking. Bullshit

I watched this last night and it is an absolute cracker. I've said it before but Helen Joyce gets better every time she discusses this subject. I get the sense that she has given Peter a lot to think about and he is no slouch on this stuff. The interview with Andrew Doyle is also very good.

Oh my goodness – unbelievably good. Clarifies so many issues.

For me, one of the richest points (I wish they'd spent longer on it) is that New Atheists spoke in absolute terms about science, reason and scepticism – but most of them swallowed gender ideology whole, despite it being unfalsifiable, irrational and entirely feelings-based. So maybe it never was reason-based at all. Need to reflect more on that one.

So love listening to Helen. Her background is very similar to mine, started in academia then took a different path, it feels like she speaks my language. I so get what she's saying about the itch of utter illogic.

So much so that over one hundred humanist organisations, mainly in US, have disowned Dawkins

Do Helen and Peter say what they think is going on with the New Atheists here?

I used to be a massive fan of Ben Goldacre with his takedowns of medical malpractice and fake medicine. And yet he's all in on GI.

watching now

Helen is so smart

so clear. she's put so much thought into it

I also enjoy her dedication to mix and match prints

It’s worrying that PG is one of the biggest GC voices in the US, and yet so much of that seemed to be news to him.

the world needs to watch more of terf island, his channel will help that.

I have loved her key point for so long. If 1 = 0 then the whole of maths falls apart.

If men can be women, humanity falls apart.

I was just coming here to say basically that!

In the 90s and 00s as a student and early on in my career, I used to follow so many of these New Atheists. Then a couple of decades on, I find that these "atheists" are actually fervently religious after all - they just don't admit it to themselves.

He was a professor at Portland Uni so might well have been semi-indoctrinated before he left. He left because he asked a few questions about things and got the 'cancelled' treatment.

I wonder if a gender ideologist could bear to watch this?

That’s fair. And it’s hard to understand how little GC information there is in the US, and the distances (see also Canada and Australian) make it hard to meet up in a park or pub to tak about the latest WTAF.

He has a good reach. And he was thinking. Maybe he’ll chat to more Terf island natives.

I have always felt that there's a clear distinction between being philosophically atheist - not believing in god because reasons - and religiously atheist - believing there isn't a god. Atheism can be a religious position. A lot of atheists (mainly the angry ones) have a deep faith in their position.

Anyway, Helen Joyce is always a joy to listen to. And her final point is both chilling and, I think, going to be true. Thanks for posting.

'Helen is so smart

so clear. she's put so much thought into it'

She really is. She's a complete joy to listen to. She comes across as such a thoroughly good and decent person, and explains complex stuff in really accessible terms

"Atheism can be a religious position. A lot of atheists (mainly the angry ones) have a deep faith in their position."

I don't think this describes the sceptics/new atheists though, they prided themselves on their rationality, they were supposedly evidence based.

It just turns out a lot of them were not really thinking for themselves, they were doing the tribal thing that Joyce talks about in this discussion.

I think stealth's point above about this seeming new to him, I think that's his approach to get people to open up to him. The 'help me out here', the 'explain that again', the 'hang on while I get my head around this' while touching his brow and looking puzzled, I think this is a performance of being non-threatening and not understanding. I think it's deliberate to lull people into a false sense of security to really open up. And it works. The young people he talks to on campuses see him as a grandad who has no idea, and patronise him to educate him. He gets so many admissions by playing dumb.

One of his questions once his audience is reeled in is to ask 'what would it take to change your mind?' but in such a self effacing way that he is unchallenging. And it makes (some of) them think.

I think he's a clever bloke and knows full well the extent of this ideology.

To me he's also very easy on the eye, which always helps <shallow as a puddle>