Webberley vs Gold

[RachelFanshawe]

Another interview where she comes across as an evil lunatic and it’s clear the interviewer is viscerally repulsed by her no doubt.

I haven’t watched it - not sure it’s available yet - but I usually find Andrew Gold a decent interviewer.

Personally, I feel Helen Joyce and Julie B did a better job.

But let's be honest Webberley is preaching to her choir for cash.

I have tired of Andrew, and the other male podcasters, but this was helpful. He did a good job of letting her be charmed by him.

I hope he had a shower after

God I think I actually feel sorry for her. I think she actually believes it. There’s no way you can talk so consistently about such nonsense without actually believing it. It’s either incredible levels of intelligence to be doing such mental gymnastics with every single sentence, or very low levels of mental capacity that all words just mean all words. I can’t work out which way it is but either way it’s very sad.

Her psychopathy is highly visible on this one. Her misogyny also comes more to the fore - it is clear that she likes talking to a male person much more and is even flirtatious. Her story about coming across a trans person for the first time ten years ago and setting up GenderGP to help them despite not knowing anything about trans issues is highly highly implausible. Furthermore, if it were true, it would be alarming given that a doctor should only practice within their level of competence. For a specialist area of medicine she should have referred that patient to a specialist and undertaken specialist training herself. The moment that really showed her psychopathy though was her response to Ritchie Heron. Any doctor should be interested in patients who have had poor outcomes. Instead she mocks him, which is what she accuses others doing on X. Seeing a doctor mock someone who has experienced such trauma at the hands of the healthcare system is truly chilling. All the while making jokes about willies and dangly bits.

I watched all 3 discussions (Joyce, Blindel & Gold). They were all different due to the slightly different formats and they revealed different things. Of the 3 I found the Gold one easiest to watch because he was able to put direct questions and attempt to pin her to an answer, whereas in the “debates” Webberly was even more slippery.

The part where she said someone could not identify as “Black” because “black is not white” (or similar phrase). I was desperate for Gold to ask why white and black are immutable while she thinks sex is not?!

Also why trans people should be listened to and helped, whereas Ritchie Herron and others were of no interest? Harsh on a humane level - not at all #BeKind - but shocking from a Doctor who should be interested in understanding outcomes to improve future practice.

in that vein - I had wanted Gold to ask what follow ups she’d done on the “thousands” of patients she’d treated? Especially given her limited/experimental treatment knowledge when she started out 10 years ago?

I would also like someone to really pin her down on exactly what she means when she asks “Do we believe that trans people really exist?”. Because regular people do agree that trans people exist - clearly they are present in the world - but the phrase clearly had a different/deeper meaning for her and seemed to be a foundational belief. I would like to get better insight into what she means by that - I suspect it will be unorthodox and useful for people to understand the language manipulation even further.

id love to know the real reason for her agreeing to these 3 discussions in close succession. That’s a big time investment so there’s got to be a benefit to her - others have suggested the timing coincides with the US launch of her clinics. Time will tell but while these shows may boost her client base, in the current climate I’m not sure whether it will be good long term for business to draw attention to her practice if private supply of cross sex hormones to minors…

I will watch this later, so thanks for the heads up. I find AG very softly softly as an interviewer. He had Carol McGiffin on a couple of weeks ago and didn't really challenge any of the crackpot stuff she came out with - the pandemic was a hoax, the moon landings were a hoax, the government are paying people to come over in small boats 🙄 he said he disagreed with her, but didn't even attempt to get her to explain her reasoning, which was really frustrating

Of course, the stakes were a lot lower - Carol isn't prescribing puberty blockers to children - but it's good to hear that he was more robust with Webberley

It makes me want to scream when she repeatedly says "so are you saying gender identity doesn't exist". Like it even matters! Who cares if gender identity exists. Sex definitely does exist and we segregate based on that so???

The most you can say is that some people describe their identity with reference to gender.

You could also talk about ‘class identity’ or star signs.

Gold's interview has been up for a quarter the time the others have and got twice as many views already, they all add up to show how mad this all is

I misread the title of this thread, and clicked on it thinking it was “Webberley vs God”.

I really need to book an eye examination…

100%. But not only that....

We cannot be certain that gender identity exists (all we can be certain of is that some people claim to have a gender identity, and that it is possible that some are being honest when they make that claim) and if it does it is all but meaningless.

Gender cannot really be defined other than sex based stereotypes, and the "identity" is based on aspiration ("I am a man who wants to be seen as a woman") not reality ("I am a Brit who wants to be seen as British").

If a trans person has a wrong-sex gender identity then surely all that means is they have a sex-based stereotype aspiration, and society really isn't interested in people's aspirations (I need to hire a mechanic, not some who want to become one) or the ways that they meet or don't meet stereotypes (especially the stereotypes we try to teach our kids to pay no heed to).

I think I might have just realized what trans means (no idea where thing came from)....

Trying Really 'Ard to Negate Sex

Andrew, is that you?

The Dark Triad cannot be excluded when wondering about Webberley.

I’ve watched all three interviews and thought this one made her run out of road / squirm most. Thanks to the format I think (and possibly because I was only listening and not watching as doing something else at the same time)

Outrageous and bare-faced lying in the segment on systematic reviews. Gold caught her out on the NICE angle but missed that WPATH suppressed the analysis it commissioned Johns Hopkins to carry out because it didn’t show what they needed it to show. They substituted some unsubstantiated fine words in the Standards of Care. It all came out to bite them, either via discovery in one of the challenges to State ban of child medicalisation or WPATH Files, I forget which

And now, a fourth interview - 20 mins in and this is the worst so far - she's raging -

Wow 😮
Mask off.
Something hasn’t gone to plan!

Bloody hell. Robby brings up the fact that brains don't fully mature until your twenties and Helen asked which medical source he got this from and said she'd never heard this before. According to her brains are fully developed at birth.

At approx 6 mins, Webberley behaves exactly like a narcissist. She corrects Starbuck on his terminology "identifies as transgender" and keeps talking over him when he pushes back. She clearly understands what he meant but just keeps on going, trying to make him use the term she prefers, "identifies as female". It's really USE MY WORDS! NO, MY WORDS, USE THEM!

She's hopelessly behind the curve on transracial and otherkin. She's delivering her patronising mini-lecture on why you can't identify as black or an animal because reasons (which apply equally to sex, obvs). I think you'll find all identities are valid, Helen 🙄

@Imbrocator I haven’t watched her interview yet with Andrew, (saw the one with HJ yesterday) the way you’ve described her talking about Ritchie is SO very HW. You’ve got her spot on. I cannot believe that anyone could be so involved in this issue and have NOT heard of Ritchie. Andrew has done an interview with him/her, well worth watching also.

@Soontobe60 I need to put money in Mr Mennos coffee pot thing a) because I love him and b) because you are right, his take down on these HW interviews is going to be excellent.

On detransitioners, I’d have liked andrew to compare her comment about “3%” who detransition to any other similarly experimental procedures achieving those odds.

In the RS interview he talks about a girl being raped in the school toilets (I think he's referring to Loudoun County) and Webberly laughs at him.

She is despicably callous at many points throughout that interview.
Zero conscience or empathy.
Looks like she burnt her forehead with straighteners. Which is really painful tbh.

She thinks WPATH are experts and wonderful, but she claims not to know who Marci Bowers is.

I thought it was a bit of a pity that by about half way through, Robby Starbuck had got fed up with her nonsense and changed tack from asking questions she had no answer to, to telling it like it is. The questioning approach was more effective. But he managed to get her to give herself away several times and I almost thought he got through her defences a couple of times. If she's not careful, she'll find herself peaking ...

... but then again, she has the next attacking move up her sleeve ready for when she realises she's losing. Desperation measures because she really has nothing.

She is despicably callous at many points. Rape victims? Pfft. If they don't like penises, they shouldn't look at them.

For someone trying to grab a share of the US market, she's displaying incredible ignorance of the fact they have different laws and systems. She tried to tell Starbuck that children don't have 'gender affirming' surgeries while he was describing a previous interviewee who'd had a mastectomy at 13. Her arrogance must be off the scale! I'm confidently armchair-diagnosing her with NPD.

"Let them speak" is going swimmingly, I feel 😂 Hope she's got a bunch more of these Helen Webberley Car Crash Shows lined up.

I am in the US and what scares me most is we Americans often associate high intelligence and education with a British accent like hers. Unless you're listening closely and have a background in the nonsense of gender ideology, she could easily come off as sympathetic and knowledgable. She's adept at using guilt by suggesting if you don't agree with her you're a mean bigot who hates children, and Americans fall for that all the time. We really want to be perceived as nice and kind and openminded. When she said she was so insulted on behalf of transwomen, I got a sick feeling in my stomach because I felt that very cultural reaction to protest, "no, no, no, no, no. I'm a good person who wants everyone to be happy and not to hurt their feelings."

I worry even writing this as Webberly could read it and be even more emboldened to put all her eggs in the American basket.

She's a very dangerous grifter. Curious if any Americans on this thread agree.