Helen Joyce's unfailing wisdom

[RealityFan]

I am totally in awe of this woman, what an absolute straight shooter, her bullshit detector is hard to beat.

She's on a podcast with American comic Bridget Phetany, and she brought up two concepts that are so relevant and so deep.

One is that societal elites coopting of trans activism hasn't just blunted previously functional organisations ie made them somewhat less effective, it's literally broken their backs as they've become the opposite of their core historical function.

So, Stonewall that fought for gay rights is now as she so memorably terms it a "rapey homophobic" outfit now, foisting heteosexual men on lesbians.

The Liberal Democrats (nee Liberal Party), for all their faults, were always historically pro free speech, now believe absolutely in censorship. You can extend this to Liberty, the ACLU etc.

The Greens. Historically only concerned with the material reality of the living environment and man's custodianship of it, now denying biological reality, effectively science full stop.

Women's organisations that by definition cease to have relevance the moment a single man is admitted, happy to admit any number of men, WI, Fawcett Society, Women's Party.

The Census. Can only exist if data is precise and delineated, especially in the area of sex, happy to abandon all those organisations that depend on precise info here.

Refuges. That know women can only recover and prosper if their residents can be guaranteed isolation from men, happy to abuse women a second time around.

Scientists, doctors, ethicists, philosophers. The search for truth and prevention of harm, predicated on these people being truthful with themselves, and "first, do no harm", thus becoming anti science and anti therapeutic.

Sports. The ultimate binary of "feelings don't win trophies" is given over to "it's the taking part that counts, don't be a sore loser", pointed only at girls and women.

I'm sure there are many more.
And so with organisations turning themselves inside out as they break their backs to accommodate the new false religion, we now have a weakening and unravelling of civic society, that first disadvantages females, and then all of us as peoples in the West.

--

She mentioned two other things to Briget.
That back in the day, medics and nurses in mental institutions were told, no matter how stressful the ward was, to not give in to the fantasy. Never kowtow to the patient. Because if you do, you've lost the ward, and you'll struggle to get it back.

Well folks, those in charge gave into the fantasy, and they've lost society.

She also talked about someone working with females on parole, and how cuts in funding had led to inevitable bad outcomes and she couldn't turn things around very often.

She called this a "moral injury"...not being able to help these women injured her morally, leaving her hurt and helpless.

Right now, those of us absolutely at our wits end re our inability to break this reversion to pre scientific and pre humanist mindset we're being obligated to accept, is causing us all moral injuries, and it's bad for the victims (teens irreversibly maimed, women broken by loss of spaces) and even bad for the likes of me, as I lose faith in civic society and structures and people I used to trust automatically.

I know what you mean about losing trust. As soon as I see a headline from news institutions I used to respect that reads along lines of “Woman did X” I have to scan the story and accompanying picture for clues to see if it really was a woman who did those things.

Absolutely. Helen also makes the point about how quickly and seamlessly this has happened.

In reality, it's partly been happening since the late 60s civil rights period, helped along as society became more selfish in the 80s, entrenched in the 90s as the new gender studies and post modern woo spilt out from seminars and campuses into the mainstream, and human rights law expanded and codified, and crystallised as the whole grift of DEI and the professional managerial classes created their self sustaining industry, in the last two decades.

Helen also talks about the early days from 5-7 years ago where she would report the craziness to her line manager but he wouldn't believe it, and stuff didn't get published.

She proposes the twin theory that stuff was disbelieved in newsrooms for so many years, all the while the professional managerial classes were also nailing down the future modes of discourse and comms styles. Including stuff like "her penis".

This is even evident on ISIS mass murdering sprees, where the headline is "car mows down many pedestrians"...hey, I don't recall any Far Right sniper shooting Americans in a mall as "firearm kills shoppers".

In addition, in the early days of genderwoo stories being reported, news editors always put juniors on the story, and inexorable demands on their time and resources meant the line of least resistance was taken, and "woman with penis" stories became the norm.
The fear of upsetting people, including your colleagues in the newsroom obligated your words defying material reality.

Yep, you can't offend a trans ally media type, but you can offend women everywhere reading the story.

I think women are particularly good at looking at the big picture and putting things in context.

I think it’s because we have many roles so are always juggling, delegating and prioritising.

Everything gender identity ideology touches seems to turn to shit. A kind of complete opposite to the Midas Touch.

She's right. All the caring, supportive, fair, just and equality-seeking organisations have been captured and turned into hotbeds of activism campaigning for male supremacy and sexual rights.

All have all been turned on their heads, to disavow their initial goals.

Certainly, for charities, surely, that should be a reason to strip them of their charitable status?

HJ is very clear in thought and speech.

I'm trying very hard to think of a time when the logical outcomes of an ideology hasn't been harm.

I've a separate thread on this but this is coming up a lot on the difference between cultural competence and cultural humility.

Crudely, it's looking as if the managerial/professional types have persuaded themselves that their cultural competence in women's issues is complete. Cultural humility looks like it asks people to reflect on themselves and to accept others' identity and experience. However, it seems as if this has been stuck as humility to one group and not a broad range of groups. So, in this context, humility and acceptance of the lived experience/identity of people under a trans umbrella vs. rejection of the experience etc. of women who are interested in retaining women's rights.

She proposes the twin theory that stuff was disbelieved in newsrooms for so many years, all the while the professional managerial classes were also nailing down the future modes of discourse and comms styles. Including stuff like "her penis".

Many things have played out in similar ways to how JS hid. Befriended police, make sure theory is embedded in NHS etc. journalists not believed and shit down.

I've been meaning to read your thread.

The problem is when one group's culture is deemed more important than another. Cultural competence then reverts to judging, and cultural humility reverts to fawning.

No way should any group be judged as more deserving of respect or deference. No group should have different rules of engagement.

In these areas, culture is relative, just like skin colour is.

No connection of course to totally binary divisions. No matter how sad or victimised or peaceful or lovely or empathetic a transwomen is, he can never access a woman's space. Here the culture of male and female isn't relative, here the culturally competent response is that never the twain shall meet (in the same safe space), and it's the men only who need total cultural humility to prevent themselves transgressing.

If the professional managerial classes who are en masse pushing TWAW, they are not competent and certainly displaying zero humility.

I don't think gender ideology really stands alone, I think it is always a subset of a larger ideology. I sometimes think of it as id politics, but in truth, I suspect it's even a bit bigger than that.

I'd be interested in what HJ's thoughts about that might be, because personally I don't think it will be possible to really squash GI without addressing what's behind it.

And what's that? Surely ID politics is intersectionalism, and primarily the Left's need to create oppressed and oppressors beyond old fashioned class analysis.

GI together with Kendi anti racism, is the textbook example of Intersectional poison politics.

Unless you mean something else.