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.'

And on that note - I have just seen a tweet from Maya in which Mermaids are protesting about children being denied access to “life saving care”. For the sake of vulnerable children this must be challenged, surely?

https://x.com/mforstater/status/1992725034004304347?s=46&t=OD0tMok8rbGQj0XbFHZNfA

"HW had confirmed that she (and possibly other private providers) were going straight to cross sex hormones to get around the ban on puberty blockers."

I disagree. I think that it would be true to say that "HW had confirmed that she (and possibly other private providers) were using alternative interventions that do not fall within the UK legal definition of puberty blockers to inhibit responsiveness to hormones and prevent a proper puberty, before then going to cross sex hormones, to get around the ban on puberty blockers."

The hyperbole in this whole thing is extreme and key to the whole charade.

when you learn to see it, it is true evil. As Bindel said.

yes this has been my thought too.

she has a team of 5 and a PR and a “new marketing person.” (recently new)

from the hodge-cast substack account of organising the Bindel debate

this is why I feels she’s had specific training or intensive prep on how to answer every single GC argument.

she actually contradicted herself many times in order to use fallacy based defense strategies

I don’t know if this has already been mentioned but redditors are calling her company Gender ChatGPT, which is quite funny.
If they aren’t her fans, it’s hard to know who her fans would be.

Oh interesting!

i swear she’s used chat gtp to help her prep

From Andrew Gold's interview.

I've watched all 3 HW interviews now - Joyce, Bindle, Gold.

HW is irredeemably, dangerously, & thoroughly bonkers.

Its incredible she is allowed anywhere near children.

Essentially she is a trained former medical doctor, who denies sex matters to us as humans at all, and very very very much hates how feminists are nasty to all the "lovely lovely men" when they insist on talking about & naming MVAWG.

Nothing must stand in the way of her ridiculous ideology.

She clearly is no longer a doctor, doesn't care how she comes across in these interviews as long as she can reach & fleece families/children looking for PB's.

No idea who this man is (American), but i really cannot believe that this is real!!

https://x.com/robbystarbuck/status/1992974572493140353?t=MB2vJWxyoIvwTfl5H06L2w&s=19

Julie Bindel's view..

x.com/bindelj/status/1993016709368906003?t=ivrCAzyaqI0KwYIiM2k54w&s=19

I don't really think I agree with that.

It is important to understand the statistical basis of medical protocols.

But people are not just a disease, the human body is not something we understand as well as we'd like, and many things are not as well understood as we might like.

It's important to remember that in many cases, medical treatments have their origins in the observations of doctors dealing with real patients.

EBM is a great tool but it's not good when medicine becomes reduced to a number plugging exercise.

It is precisely because personal observation is inadequate that EBM is the better model.

Ben Goldacre has gone awfully quiet about EBM over the last few years.

(He's on my shitlist, along with Adam Rutherford)

Far from it, EBM is his dayjob. He's been working on the AllTrials project. I'll be very keen to see if the NHS GnRHa trial farrago is pre-registered.

And mine. Fearless proponent of scientific truth, until it turns out that 'truth' isn't what naice people who read the Guardian approve of.

Loved his books until I realised what a cowardly twat he was.

https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN69296987

Here?

Maybe but I don't enable Java so can't see it.

https://archive.ph/4ONnU

Jesus wept, those are flabby objectives.

Sorry, so shocked I forgot to quote you. Where are the physical effects being measured? Why aren't they assessing cognitive function?

That's the kind of soggy-minded dross I'd expect from affirming clinicians in the mid-2010s. In 2025 it's indefensible.