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.'

It’s interesting….several high profile transwomen have stated that media work has dried up for them. Webberley has more freedom to use being ‘mad as a box of frogs’ for engagement farming, because her agenda (I think) is money. The transwomen, in addition to making money, want to portray ‘there’s nothing to see here, I should be included in all spaces for women’.

I guess, if I thought they were less ego driven, and I was more conspiracy theory minded, I could entertain the idea that Webberley was sacrificing herself for the cause - so the high profile transwomen could highlight the transphobia in her that getting media coverage and access to female SSs yet they don’t.

Just watching the GB News interview. Ben Leo was fantastic!

I think she'll show and it will be fascinating. She either completely believes this stuff or is willing to pretend she does in order to make money from it. I don't know if even she knows the difference. But she's willing to go right to the end of the most mad claims.

This podcast from 2023 is very revealing. Her career is dotted with weird business ventures/ get-rich-quick schemes, and 'gender medicine' seems to be the one that paid off, both financially, and by feeding her ill-concealed Saviour complex.
Gender GP: inside the world of private trans healthcare | Tavistock Ep 7
(It's a tag-on to a series that Tortoise did on the Tavistock. Quite brave at the time, but I don't think it will have aged well.)

Have I got this right - a Julie Bindel prerecorded interview with HW is being aired at 6pm and the Helen Joyce interview with the same goes out at 9pm, both this Thursday? I'm not complaining at all, should be fun, but is it Helen Webberley day or something on Thursday?

I’m basically placemarking. I doubt I’ll be able to listen, but still want to know what’s occurring!

The video if you are brave enough...

https://x.com/GBNEWS/status/1990243838456156255?t=LZluT-OOsUCY9zZknXqZng&s=19

That was a remarkable interview. She comes across as someone deeply indoctrinated.

And she declares that a female who identifies as a man is male. She uses complete obfuscating language. And she then admonishes Ben for being disrespectful, cruel and unkind.

Fuck. It is like she is the leading light example for all those posters using those words respect and kindness to censure and educate people on FWR threads about respecting TWAW and people’s identities.

If you have doctors like Webberly saying a female person is ‘male’ now, where does the boundary around language stop. Where do those who say, I will use some female language for a male person but not others stop? At their personally defined boundary that still creates barriers for clear communication?

When everyone has their own boundaries around communication and it is not universally understood what is meant when and by whom, how do we expect to be able to protect the rights and needs of women and girls?

I agree, she’s an adept engagement farmer, if nothing else.

Her audience is not people who are never going to believe her. Her audience is the people who already believe her and want to get a supply of puberty blockers.

She is directly appealing to them. That whole ‘debate’ will has been styled to get new customers from
around the world. I am sure that there are many applauding her for mastery over a far right wing media presenter.

She stayed on target. The WPATH leak was made up, the ‘where’s the proof about lack of sexual function?’, the ‘puberty blockers lead to better sexual function because people feel better about themselves’, the whole bit about affirming children because they are just exploring and that is where adults with transgender identities develop from, the assertion that anorexia treatment is nothing like that for gender, the best time to start puberty blockers is when puberty is starting even if that is 8 years old.

She repeated all the points that extreme transgender activists believe. And she got to do it on international platforms. All while not storming out, or looking anything but relatively calmly righteous.

She just used the right terminology all the way through to put Ben into the ‘you are unkind’ position that her audience already believes he is. While looking like she was being attacked and called ‘evil’ for standing up for those whole need her.

She even pointed out that such discussion ‘made trans people vulnerable’ with the implication that Ben has made people vulnerable now.

I reckon that interview on GB News will be considered a significant ‘win’ by her and her team. She has just been sold as a saviour for supply of gender affirming hormones.

I’d wondered why she was starting to engage more. Now I get it. New fields.

And such a motherly figure folding up clothes and all.

God she was annoying in that clip.

She is either completely unhinged or a total sleazebag grifter with no moral compass.

And as deranged as she comes across I don't believe she's unhinged.

A new venture in the US - Interesting 🤨😬

Sarah Phillimore posted this this morning which made me laugh:

"It’s all so odd isn’t it. Webberley claims that children are ‘trans’ at conception and it’s ’cruel’ to deny them lifesaving treatment but I don’t see her teaming up with MSF to make life saving drops of testosterone to struggling Sudanese trans kids. It’s almost as if only the white Europeans whose parents can stump up the cash, who get saved. What a puzzle this all is."

She really is batshit and I'm beginning to think it won't be such an easy win for HJ,. How do you debate someone like that?

As for Dr Webberlys motivation, I wanted to link to a podcast that Susie Green did with What the Trans (episode 110) after the brief period she was employed at GenderGP but I've just found that it's been deleted/removed.

From memory even Susie Green didn't have anything positive to say about Dr W and GenderGP. She said that Helen Webberley was not coming from a position of care or compassion but that her motivation was the £££s to finance Mediterranean villas.

It looks like they got bored with Singapore and didn't bother to fill their forms in - maybe the pull of a potentially lucrative US market. 🤔

Just had an image of Christine Hamilton ( as in Neil and Christine Hamlton ) pop up in my head. Someone for whom the ends justify the means, and for whom that end is totally self serving.

Also brings to mind Robert Jenrick's wife....who comes across as a total Lady Macbeth; encouraging her husband to say whatever he has to say to get elected to leadership office.

She really is batshit and I'm beginning to think it won't be such an easy win for HJ,. How do you debate someone like that?

Yes, because it's not a debate, is it? It's just one massive, long, sales pitch.

She's not going to argue about the morality of what she's doing.

I should imagine it's relatively easy to talk at somebody, if you constantly hold the line that transgender people are born because of some quirk of nature, and therefore, everything you give them is treatment.

You can have an answer for every question. But they're two! But they never will have babies! Fertility, sterility, orgasms!

None of it matters, because it's all just side effects of life enhancing, or even life saving, treatment.

Helen Joyce, of course, has a lot of statistics at her fingertips. And I hope she is seeing from these interviews, exactly which stats she should be digging up.

One of Webberley's tactics, it would appear, is to just deny everything that's inconvenient. So, cast iron refutations will be required.

The other thing in Helen Joyce's favour is, of course, she doesn't get riled. Not like that chap. She can keep her sense of outrage under wraps.

But her normal debate style, where she views things like common sense, logic and rationality as pretty much a gimmee to any normal thinking person, won't be any good.

When you have a doctor saying that a juvenile, human male can eventually have babies because, as Helle says, there are no limitations to inaccurate language, it's impossible to debate.

All you can really do is let her bury herself with nonsense, but that's a skill that is far more easily acquired in hindsight.

I wonder how Julie B approached it. She would not have had this informative interview to pull together her strategy. I think Julie is good at debating and I really hope that she shows Webberley up, even to those who will just accept whether Webberley says because all Webberley is saying is what they have all heard before. Webberley is providing confirmation bias to get sales.

When you have a doctor saying that a juvenile, human male can eventually have babies because, as Helle says, there are no limitations to inaccurate language, it's impossible to debate.

Webberley is not a doctor. The correct description is "disgraced former doctor". As she is no longer on the medical register she doesn't deserve the honorific "Doctor"

Interested to see if our resident TRAs here will come in and defend Webberley? Do you stand by what she says, or do you have any areas of disagreement?

Thank you for sharing.

TBH I thought they both came off sounding as bonkers as each other by the end.

It's clear he doesn't really understand it as he didn't draw out the key issues at all. He read out some great starting points but it's obvious he didn't have any further depth of knowledge.

She handed him a great card to play when she told him that this kind of treatment was available from the age of 8... but instead he kept going back to "from the age of 9". It was just one of many examples where he wasn't coming back on her points, but instead was just talking at her.

Weirdly, and to anyone that doesn't really know what's going on, I think Webberley was the more compelling on this because of how ranty he got. At one point he effectively agreed that he would tell his child that he (the child) couldn't be Batman. No parent is going to burst a child's bubble like that but because he was ranting it out, he didn't bother qualifying the difference between "being" as harmless role play in a costume (where all the adults know what's real and what's not) and "being" where the child ends up on a pathway to body modification. Yes, it's bloody obvious with dressing up as batman, but not the way he handled it.

Hopefully Helen Joyce's very different style will help to draw out where the real cruelty is here, with some hard-hitting facts that stop Webberley having that kind of a stage.

An example of how the landscape has changed. Webberley on Victoria Derbyshire Live, this was when the BBC was publishing loads of affirmative content .. a lot of it on this show.

Here’s some comic relief:

x.com/intel_lady/status/1990448767691337742/

Amazing! 😂😂😂😂

Now that's how to show the world what this is all about. Obviously I don't expect a news anchorman to do this.... Shame though.

If only the Mash Report was still a thing, as it would be perfect as parody news... and if only Nish Kumar wasn't so in thrall to it all of course 🤦‍♀️ I still secretly hope that Rachel Parrish gets it. Haven't seen anything either way from her but this kind of sketch would suit her style brilliantly.

'Dr' Helen
She / Quack !

🤣🤣🤣