Helen Webberley v Robbie Starbuck . . . WOW!! 😂

[POWNewcastleEastWallsend]

I have watched all the recent Webberley interviews . . . this one is a doozy!!

Robby Starbuck Vs. Pro Trans Doctor: Debate On Child Transitions!

Robbie Starbuck cool as a cucumber and totally unfazed by Webberley's almost continuous unhinged ranting 😂🤣

In previous interviews I thought that she was feigning ignorance. I am not so sure now. Otherwise, she has really jumped the shark by claiming never to have heard of Marci Bowers, at the same time banging on about WPATH as the fount of all knowledge!

I think whether or not she is breaking the law depends on what services she provides and where they are carried out. I don't think the GMC would get involved in what she does outside the UK.

I still don't really understand why she wasn't permanently struck off for acting outside her area of competence. Maybe the technicalities meant that her husband took the hit?

Not renewing her licence means that she can no longer issue tick box prescriptions to sell drugs on line, but presumably she had already had to change her business model during the period she was suspended.

From her point of view, better to let her registration lapse than to be struck off.

I think in these discussions longer needs to be spent on language otherwise the discussion just becomes circular.

Does she agree there are 2 reproductive types of bodies which can be observed in 99% of cases?
What words does she use to refer to these types of bodies?

Does women refer to gender or sex?

Does she think sex is ever relevant in segregating people or meeting people's needs?

Expose her undermining of the ability to talk about sex.

Then even use her language to make it clear how absurd it is:

So people with penises who've raped people with vaginas and are bigger and stronger than 95% of the vagina people, should be locked up with people with vaginas?

Make it clear this becomes the only way to speak to describe what she's saying because she has obscured the language to talk about men and women.

It's disrespectful to call a woman - nay a female - a "penis-haver" just because she has a penis.

The only way incoherent TQ+ ideology makes sense is by using words to mean the opposite of what they have always meant

a - what is right wing these days exactly?
b - why not just watch it and post your opinions on the actual thing being discussed?

Honestly, we are all right wing if we don't want kids sterilised apparently so this 'ew they are right wing apparently' is just so fucking boring.

Absolutely, and completely unconnected to Webberly I believe that Harrop has also moved to the other side of the pond, into Canada. So we can be assured that there be gold in them hills...

He’s against all dei initiatives which is somewhat throwing the baby out with the bathwater…

As someone on the centre left I have no real interest in Robby or his wider set of opinions. All I care about is that he conducted an interview, where he appeared utterly reasonable throughout, and utterly destroyed a deeply weird and disturbing and dangerous woman who is pushing the most insane and cruel agenda.

What DEI initiatives do you support?

I am increasingly coming to the view that DEqualityI can in theory be wonderful, but only in theory. In theory positive action can be great, ensuring, for example, that people from lesser universities are positively encouraged to apply for good graduate jobs, as opposed to only advertising those good jobs at red brick unis. In theory it helps ensure we get the best - the really talented woman who only got BCC in her A levels due to her chaotic home life and dreadful school, but showed herself to be capable of an Oxbridge place based on her performance at her lesser uni.

In practice I think that the risks of DEqualityI slipping into DEquityI and anti-white, anti-men, anti-meritocracy ideas slipping in is too great, and that as a result we cannot have any type of DEI. Mainly because we need the best people to get the job, and it is incredibly cruel to force women and black people to go through their working lives being seen as the diversity hire who only got the job based on characteristics, not competence (which with DEquityI may be true).

She does use descriptive language: people who have testicle/ ovaries etc. Even she can't pretend there aren't body types.

Reveal her language insanity through questioning, then use her descriptive language to reveal the absurdity of it's application.

Her absurd arguments are obscured because it's not clear who she is talking about.

Every TRA interviewed should be asked what word do you use to describe the 50% of the population who have the types of bodies with the potential to gestate?

Reject it as dehumanising, offensive and in opposition to how humans use language throughout time.

But then use her language in presenting scenarios to reveal the absurdity of the arguments it obscures.

It avoids the opportunity for her to say but they are women and swing back round to feelings and being nice.

The ‘viciousness and hate’ comes from only one side… and it’s the side that hates women and uses a variety of means to control and dominate us. But yes, Weberly comes across as unhinged and keeps trying to bring in the "are you denying trans exist" tangent. She feels on safer ground there.

When she says a lion is an animal isn’t she being furryphobic?

How so? If something is good for a business then they will do it. If a dei initiative brought tonnes of actual business benefits on the bottom line, then nobody would be cancelling their dei initiatives.

Hiring someone because they tick a box on a diversity scheme to get the DEI person invited to buy a table on a champagne fuelled 'diversity awards night' is bad for them and for the business and for those from that 'ticked box' that come after that might actually be good at their jobs.

What IS a good idea is to increase the amount of people with access to the ability to train properly prior to getting the job. So initiatives that widen participation in a broader range of activities where people are given opportunities to improve on their skills and experience in order to do whatever jobs they do well, is find. I don't think Robbie is in any way against that, so maybe do some research on what the issue is before calling someone 'right wing' just because they oppose box ticking in business.

Only if you're not right wing or think it's a bad thing for people to have different political views.

Thank fuck for the right wing commentators who've pushed back on this I say.

As well as all the left women who led the charge.

But then I think it's essential for democracy that there are different views, they get heard and people who think differently aren't necessarily bad.

Grow up.

I'd bet my house that HW is a lefty who thinks right wing people are mean.

She'll justify supporting every left wing position with the same argument she uses here: they're people be nice, without any ability to recognise the other side is raising some reasonable rational points on a complex issue.

She might think of herself as left wing, but her business enterprises suggest otherwise.

Like many self declared compassionate left wingers...

"How do you know which puberty somebody will experience?"

"Why does it matter which puberty they experience if sex means nothing?"

I think that's part of it, and she's definitely not alone in that way of thinking.

I think another part is her privilege. She makes all the right noises (literally) about showing care and consideration to sexual assault victims, but I doubt has ever experienced anything close. Her attitudes of 'just don't look', or 'if you don't like it, move' expose that she's never properly thought about any of it at any level other than #BeKind. I can't remember which interview it was but there was also a rather odd comment made when the trans racial/black analogy was put to her. It came across to me as a sort of "those cultures" type of comment, where nice white people won't/don't have that.

Yes, I feel exactly the same.
I'd never heard of this guy before I watched the interview. I watched it with zero bias.
I thought his questions and interview manner were spot on for the majority of the interview. He gets right to the heart of the questions very quickly and gives her lots of time to speak. He is very clear in what he's asking, and he carefully reframes several questions to help her understand (!)
He brings his own opinions to the forefront only towards the end of the interview.
I'm sure he and I would disagree on many things, but that's what grown-ups do.

Similarly, I cannot stand Piers Morgan but I've seen him do some belting interviews!

Why do we need a word to "describe the 50% of the population who have the types of bodies with the potential to gestate?" Everyone should be treated as an individual, unless we are dividing by who is a man and who is a woman, and at that point genitals are irrelevant. Arbitrarily splitting women into two categories makes no sense and is cruel to trans'women'.

Utter nonsense. Gender ideology relies completely on misusing language and refusing to debate logically or honestly. It is a fools errand to try to make that change. All you can do is let them speak and hope that those listening have functioning brains and are not deep into an insane rabbit-hole of extremist ideology.

If you'd told me back in 2016 I would go on to have 1000 times more respect for Piers Morgan compared to James O'Brien I would not have believed you

I know, right? Andrew Neil is another one. Weird world we live in!

I genuinely thought that the same skills that would prompt somebody to ask 'hmm, have you thought about Northern Ireland?' 'would also prompt them to ask 'But you do know that people can't change sex don't you?'.

I was wrong.

His somewhat pointed remark about emotional regulation was on the nose, but I think it sailed over her head.

I found that that bit really interesting. There was some nifty visual editing to highlight HW's reaction to RS's comments about emotional dysregulation.

She gave a little mouth-twitch "smile" suggesting that she got the message:

[HW AND RS ARE BOTH ON SCREEN]

RS: But I think people are entitled to hear . . .

HW: But does it matter that that what, what you believe and what you say actually hurts people? It, transgender people . . .

RS: I don't believe that

HW: who are transgender who who may also have gender dysphoria um and who are trying to access care but are being blocked because people listen to your views because they're quite loud and they're quite they're spread widely. Do you care that that hurts people?

RS: I don't believe that it does hurt people, And here's the thing I would tell people . . .

HW: Oh it does

RS: I learned a long time ago that you need to be in control of your emotions . . .

HW: Oh it really does

[CUTS TO JUST RS ON SCREEN]

RS: I have I have emotional regulation. So I don't allow other people, I'm an adult, I don't allow other people to affect my emotions. If they do, it's because I've decided they are allowed to have that power. So, if somebody's saying I have the power to hurt them, they would really need to soul-search why they're allowing somebody that they don't know to have that kind of power because that's [CUTS TO HW] something that is really (HW's eyes and mouth twitch a "smile") a you problem. (HW closes eyes - possibly blinks) [CUTS BACK TO RS]
I, if that was happening in my life, I would soul-search myself and I'd figure out how I regain owning the problem.

HW: (Very animated) I think you understand what I mean. I think you understand that your, your views (continues rabbiting on frantically - but even more incoherently than before this little episode)

s

In that short time when the video cuts away to HW, while RS is saying, "something that is really a you problem", obviously I could be completely wrong, but it does not look like a meaningless twitch of the mouth and change around the eyes.

I am going to guess that at the start of that cut to her screen that she is properly attending to what RS has been saying about regulation of emotions. We see her starting to react as he says, "really" but she will have been primed by "because that's something that".

What did she think he was going to say? I wonder if it was something like: "because that's something that you need to work on".

It was actually much more direct if she took it to apply to her: "because that's something that is really a you problem."

Then BOOM! she is off jabbering away again on the same theme, ie. RS is harming people, but she is very much more incoherent than before.

Again I could be wrong, but I think that RS talking about self regulation, while demonstrating emotional self regulation, got under her skin.

Problems with external regulation have been noted as a bit of theme right back to 2018, when she was struck off from the list of doctors recognised as fit to practice as GPs by the NHS in Wales:

"Dr Webberley’s attitude is one of entrenched resistance to regulation and is highly coloured by her lack of integrity and candour."

Her Appeal against that decision was rejected in January 2019, though the Tribunal Panel thought it possible that she might change for the better within five years:

"Whilst it is clear from our decision that we were (and remain) wholly unimpressed by her lack of integrity and candour and her entrenched attitude to governance, it is not, in our view, fanciful to envisage that Dr Webberley might yet develop appropriate insight. Experience in regulation informs us that the possibility of future remediation or rehabilitation should not be lightly discarded: people do change. We bear in mind also that Dr Webberley is relatively young in terms of her professional life. In our view it is at least possible that Dr Webberley could develop appropriate insight in future and could provide evidence of remediation or rehabilitation at a review. In this context we do not consider it appropriate to effectively preclude the possibility of any review by the Tribunal before the end of a period of five years."

I wonder what they would make of her recent performances seven years on? Better, worse or just the same? 🤔

Primary Health List Tribunals Decisions
phl.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/

September 2018
PHL 3251 Dr Helen Webberley v NHS Wales - "Removal from the Performers list"

January 2019
PHL 3251 Dr Helen Webberley v NHS Wales – “National Disqualification”

Of course we need a word for the people with the types of bodies who gestate.
We have a word Women.

Cornering her to reveal she will not even recognise these type of people exist and need a definition and collective word to name them, reveals her absurdity.

Then using her dehumanising reference to genitals to describe people further illustrates her lunacy and avoids her huffy empty responses about language when asked about men in women's spaces.

The destruction of language is the basis of all of this and prevents discussion or debate.
So I just think an effective strategy would be to spend more time exposing this.