Webberly Vs Joyce

[CassOle]

https://nitter.poast.org/mollylguinness/status/1987891680964493390#m

'Join us for the Times Radio Gender Debate at 9pm on 20th November @HJoyceGender debates @HelenWebberley, presented by @Jo_Coburn live on @TimesRadio and on our YouTube channel.'

Hell of a pair of closing lines from the Helens. Sums up the strength of feeling and what's at stake.

I think she's stark raving bonkers. But she only says what the likes of Zac Polanski says and he's riding high politically, so never underestimate the power of stupid.

Sometimes I need to be reminded how horrific and ghoulish this is.

I’ve always struggled with the issue where a woman with serious gynaecological problems in her twenties has to go through arduous consultations to get a hysterectomy but an adolescent can be medically sterilised .

DH and I both listened and we agreed that we thought HJ chose poor, theoretical examples
(eg eunuchs), sounded defensive and failed to set the agenda, whereas HW sounded sympathetic, controlled the terms of the debate and pushed HJ onto the back foot. I wish it wasn’t so, because. I admire HJ tremendously, but I’m afraid it was.

She has no other option but to double down. There is never going to be a golden bridge for the likes of Webberley.

I was hoping this was going to be a bit more of a balanced debate but it's clear that the host is a TERF! And there was quite an confrontational tone/ approach. I think if you were unsure or leaning towards the other side of this you would feel sympathy for Webberly, especially if you don't know much about the topic. Same with the other interview with the guy on GB news I think it was?

Helen Joyce was fab as always and got her points across but the format of the debate was odd. I think it would have been better to be more even-handed to let the frankly insane Webberly really say what she is doing to kids. As it is, it will just be viewed as all those mean nasty terfs ganging up on nice HW who cares so much about trans people.

Do you think HW's gone home thinking "well, that was a good day of PR"?

Then tried to backtrack.

We saw ya, Webberley, you poxy quack.

We'll have to agree to differ on that. I've tried to take a step back and still think that Helen Webberly sounds stark raving bonkers.

I think that several years ago when people hadn't heard much about any of this, it was easy to vaguely hand-wave it away with a 'can't we be kind?' Those I've spoken to of late who have next to no interest in the subject now have a general impression that the whole thing is a bit mad. I think anyone who actual listens to something like this where the facts and detail is set out very clearly are much more likely to reach the 'bonkers' conclusion.

All for Operation Let Them Speak.

Well done for Helen for doing the debate, though.
I could have done with less of the moderator, she talked to much.
What a shame that the 100s of detransitioners didn't get a section of debate.

Think her feigned ignorance re J & the reliability of her research base, her actual howling ignorance re the law, her refs to Endocrine Society guidelines, her dismissal of every negative outcome, & her descent into peeping incoherence at multiple points will all come back to bite her on the arse.
As to how she looks to a disinterested audience, show that interview to any of my tradie mates & they could unerringly pick out the loon in the room.

If someone doesn't know about this issue and actually believes people can change sex, this debate won't change their mind.

If you haven't the ability to figure this one out using your own brain, a debate won't fix it. Sadly.

I do think though Webberly set it up for the poor me picked on narrative, I'm the expert, that's really not fair, that's just one example how can we judge based on one example. HW was largely what I've just written, I'm the expert, TWAW slogans no depth and lots of deflection. Precocious puberty is not the same as HW well knows. I do think HJ could have made some better choices for the eunuch, the physio one because they didn't land. The mediator did come across as a bit of a Terf but HW would have been very frustrating.

Jo Coburn did well there and took her headphones off with relief - I really wonder what the next few minutes in the studio were like.

I do get the posters that say it felt a bit 'mean girls' ganging up on the terribly nice and sincere Dr who just loves people and wants them to be happy.

HW's whose demeanour, facial expression were of sorrow and frustration that people just didn't understand - and she is a DOCTOR don't you know - and apparently a spokesperson too.

Whereas HJ looked thoroughly exasperated at HW's constant stream of 'chatting shit' and was left constantly trying to intervene to point out facts like 'Supreme court's judgment is actually law not guidance'

Did anyone else think HW's appearance makes her look as though she might be closely related to Suzie Izzard?

To me, the mention of the ‘eunuch identity’ stated in WPATH SoC, shows what a load of old arse it is, and that the organisation is stuffed with people who don’t know their arse from their elbow.

Yes, I thought that was alarming! She’s taken it very literally and thinks INFORMed consent simply means the person has been given INFORMation. There’s a huge difference between simply giving information to someone, and thoroughly checking that they have correctly and fully understood it, ie they are informed. But hey, I’m not a medic, what do I know? 😂

The trouble is, if you already know about those things (as we do) we can see through her, but most people have no idea about them. Most people will have to go on how credible they think a person sounds, and I'm afraid that if you didn't know anything you might well think the most credible person was HW. And you might certainly think she was more sympathetic and being attacked by both interviewer and responder.

TWAW is a slogan that makes the people saying it feel virtuous and on the RSOH.

The only counter to it is to say, er no TWAM.

This makes the TWAW crowd affronted. 'How could you possibly say that??!!'

It is very hard to argue against this ideology without looking like a 'mean girl', because whatever you say is an affront to the ideology.

They are mad, not stupid.

One drawback is that it sounds like mad conspiracy theory, and Webberley very effectively ignored it and slid onto the Endocrine Society.

@Waitingfordoggo

Even more than that - it's not just understanding the information. It's being able to retain it and relate to it.

A child cannot relate to adult experiences - they don't have the frame of reference.

They are unlikely to be able to make an informed decision on fertility or sexual function or do understand the possibility of lifelong physical damage.

Aren’t you, in fact - aha - a mathematician!?

Jo Coburn was doing what everyone who has ever interviewed Webberley and her ilk should have done all along - asked the hard questions based on a good understanding of the situation. This is exactly what the BBC should have done years ago.
Webberley didn’t cope well with it because she’s not been put under proper scrutiny before.

Mad, and noncey, lest we forget.

I’m still stunned that she turned up at all.