I can't get enough of Helen Joyce. I've listened to every interview of her that I can find and I bought her book (which is fantastic). She is a clear voice of reason and sanity during a time when it seems like the western world has collectively lost its mind on this issue.
Yes, I agree with all of you. She has become more hardline over the last couple of years about rebutting this madness. I especially admire how she consults the primary literature, dissects it, does her own meta-analyses, and converts that knowledge into easily digested explanations and deconstructions (pun intended) of the postmodern mindset. Erudite, unrelenting, unflappable, and very difficult to argue against because she presents such a coherent package. She has an impressive CV indeed, and applied to this intersectional queer nonsense, she is like a Rottweiler with a bone to guard at all costs. She's brilliant.
I agree, I listen to Helen Joyce at every opportunity. I think it's because of her scientific brain she just sees through all the utter nonsense to the plain facts.
I have listened to Helen Joyce speak on a number of occasions. She is so eloquent and forthright, an absolute pleasure listen to. Her book is pretty great too!
To preface my comments, I refer to people by their biology. I like how Helen Joyce points out that many people are understanding "TWAW" as a human rights statement, but in fact, it is a statement of a *belief system* ; And that if we can get people to understand that it is a *belief*, we can help them accept that people have a right to hold that belief, but that doesn't require the rest of us to believe it. Under the U.S. Constitution, everyone has the right to Freedom of Thought, and to Freedom of Speech, including those who say they're the opposite sex, and those who recognize it's not possible to be the opposite sex. We don't have to accept *their* beliefs, and speak *their* pronouns if we disagree, we have the right to choose our own words that express our own perspectives; nor must we accept men intruding on female's rights, boundaries, spaces, sports, affirmative action programs for females, etc.
Thanks for sharing this conversation. It has really brought sanity to a one sided conversation. As a lesbian in the States I had thought they were sincerely working for equality at the university level with women, queer, and racial studies. I had assumed, wrongly, they were all sorting out the math, science including social sciences to get to a better understanding of the workings for a balanced society. It turns out they were doing the farthest thing from creating a equal situation at any level. All that time wasted. Instead of figuring anything out for a better society we seemingly have a huge division rooted in hate and division and revenge. Keep posting, what you all are doing is so important for everyone, even those who are shouting you down.
Women and the LGBT community seem to be the hardest hit by all of this. Kids getting transed out of being gay is horrific. So many young lesbians and gay boys are shamed into transing and regret it. I'm appalled at the sacrifices made to this ideology
I really enjoy listening to Joyce and she speaks a huge amount of sense and articulates beautifully. I also admire her intelligence, sharp mind and her phenomenal ability to condense complex topics into easily understandable concepts. One thing though, I wish she would not casually undermine Brexiteers or Trump when she makes her points. I have heard her do it in a few interviews and it really puts up barriers unnecessarily. I know that in her circle it is taken as read that everyone sneers at Brexiteers or Trump, but over half the country voted for Brexit and many in the UK and the USA have a lot of admiration for Trump. But things like blaming Brexiteers for 'wrecking Northern Ireland' is just insane. The trans issues and women issues are too important to casually alienate potential support. So regardless of whether someone is a Brexiteer or a Trump supporter, we all want to protect the children. We are not all liberal lefties with the same atheist views, but that should not matter anyway, not in these circumstances. Protecting children and women rights goes beyond political stances, it goes beyond religious or secular beliefs, protecting children and women is fundamental to EVERYTHING. It actually goes against the laws of nature to not protect the most vulnerable amongst us. So political differences must be put aside for the greater good of protecting the children.
Thank you for such a brilliant and clear discussion. A friend of mine lent Helen's book to meet. It's not an easy read. Quite scary, actually. But it forced me to take a more active stance on this issue. I am talking about it with anyone who would dare to listen or debate, joining relavant campaigns, buying books to support public women that are under attack, like Kathleen Stock and Milli Hill, and of course Helen and JK Rowling, so they know that they are not alone. It's such a relief to realise that there are other people that see this ideology for what it is - a totalitarian cult and just as damaging.
The Lib Dems, Greens and Labour really need to come to grips with this. I'm on the left of the political spectrum and I really don't like voting for parties who have a #nodebate policy on this issue. I find it quite encouraging that problems with the self ID arguments are beginning to cut through to some members of political parties on the Left.
I hope to God you don't vote for any party with that policy!! Better to vote for a moderate conservative or right-leaning person who doesn't bow the knee to the trans demands ideology cult.
as a ROGD young woman, my identifying as trans really had to do with being in that culture, along with really idolizing men and being attracted to men and hating womanhood. i grew up a feminist because it was clear to me that we had different roles in movies, were treated differently, etc, and i always combated this. its not like i didnt know that girls could be whatever they wanted. i even remember myself saying "theres nothing wrong with being a masculine woman, im just not that!" and its because the desire was to be the people i idolized, men. there truly was an escapism from myself and my problems, and a looking back a lot of the rationalization was some gender stereotypes-- but i was also like "anyone can like these things". when it came down to it, i thought i just felt like a man, or thought like a man. because i was different from most other girls, and i always wanted to be in male friend groups instead, and be treated like a man instead. so it didnt matter how much i told myself i was focusing on stereotypes, when it came down to it, i thought i had a "male brain" which is also a sexist concept. i was able to find my way out because i am a skeptic but sadly not many are.
Yes, I agree with all of you. She has become more hardline over the last couple of years about rebutting this madness. I especially admire how she consults the primary literature, dissects it, does her own meta-analyses, and converts that knowledge into easily digested explanations and deconstructions (pun intended) of the postmodern mindset. Erudite, unrelenting, unflappable, and very difficult to argue against because she presents such a coherent package. She has an impressive CV indeed, and applied to this intersectional queer nonsense, she is like a Rottweiler with a bone to guard at all costs. She's brilliant.
Helen still retains an acceptance of “trans” people, using their preferred pronouns. I’ve carried on peaking and can barely tolerate their brainwashed gullibility.
Thank you so much for putting this online. You give me faith once again in the Lib Dem’s. I believe it would be an election winning formula to run on a ticket of being socially caring, compassionate capitalism, supportive of the downtrodden in society while being firm and socially conservative on the woke bollocks and trans ideology.
It’s possible to support providing free milk for primary school children (as an example) and youth centres to give underprivileged children something to do to stop them getting bored while simultaneously supporting innovation and light regulation to industry to help us lead the world in the areas of industry and commerce that the U.K. excels at. Both Labour and the Conservatives seems to completely forget this.
Fascinating: Helen Joyce cited progressive sexologist Richard Green(e)'s prospective study, in the 1970s, on boys who were sex-role non-conforming, to see if they grew up to identify as women. She says Greene found that boys whose fathers couldn't accept them as they were/are and who tried to toughen up their sons, those boys were the ones who grew up to identify as women. As Joyce described it, these were the boys who were convinced they weren't ok as they are, and therefore really must be girls or women. This has always been my impression of cross-sex identification: that it is a result of rigid sex-role socialization and beliefs, such that the only way one can be interested in stereotypically female interests and behaivors is to actually be "female," and vice versa, that females interested in stereotypical male interests and behaivors must be "male." Marlo Thomas was so right in the 1970s: let children be "Free to Be, You and Me," instead of forcing rigid sex-role thinking on them. So that they don't end up thinking they're the "wrong" sex and wanting to mutilate their bodies to physically be in sync with the stereotypes they've been taught!
@Donald Hysa cuz the trans propaganda is pushed on kids who don’t understand anything to transition for profit. those poor kids are going to grow up very suicidal. i hope they can afford to prosecute trans lobbies and the health sector when they’re older.
@@skullkid64mm I hope to God there are so many lawsuits that it bankrupts anyone involved in these crimes. I'd like to see people go to prison, too. I take this just as seriously as any right-wing corporate crime. Sue them into oblivion. However, my concern is that the statute of limitations will run out quickly, before the majority of people are ready to take such an action.
@@donaldhysa4836 Because we weren't paying attention. They operated stealthily, influencing policy very quickly, before people had time to find out what was going on, much less oppose it. And they piggyback on other groups, particularly the LGB community, but also groups like intersex people, to get their policies and legislation passed by riding unseen on more popular or reality-based human rights. All those stereotypes are coming back with this ideology. The whole idea of "non-binary" is just ridiculous. There are perfectly good terms,- like gender non-conforming or androgynous,- to describe people who don't identify with either Barbie or G.I. Joe (their idea of what women & men are like). But no, they can't be a man who likes some things that are considered "feminine" or a woman who likes some thing that are considered "masculine". They think they can't BE a man or woman if they don't fit the rigid stereotypes. Gender ideology is trying to do away with biological sex, sexual orientation, and personality & replace it all with some disembodied "gender identity", based on gender stereotypes, which is the "true identity" of every person.
@@DonnaBrooks No we were paying attention and we were loving it. Traditional gender roles was literally the first thing these people attacked i the 1980s. " Women are not born, they are made" said Simon De Bouvair, one of the most prominent feminists of all time, clearly implying the very concept of women is artificial. " Gender is just performance" said Judith Buttler in a very clear attempt to completly dissolve even the core concepts of man and woman. And now that they did that women do not know who they are men dont know who they are and everybody is being used as a lab rat to figure out just who we are now. And everybody applauded it all the way until very recently thinking it was gonna liberate women What we have instead is a nightmare not even The Handmaids take distopian writter could have ever imagined . This is a complete dissaster. Billions may suffer horribly before we can get back to normal. 😞
I agree so much with Helen, she's like a psychotherapist revealing the motivations behind this, makes so much sense. I agree I hate the way women don't look up to older women, I was slightly odd and always did, the old school feminism is nowhere now.
Excellent chat, thank you. The biggest difficulty with Joyce's argument is that this can be solved by focusing on interests and needs, rather than positions. If it was that simple we would have third spaces everywhere by now. The TRA are not interested in privacy, dignity, safety or fair competition. If you ask them about their needs and interests they will talk about respecting identities and treating people as the 'gender' they identify. There's no shared understanding of what is a need.
Actually, I am one American who did not vote for Biden or Trump. I always vote for every single other office, though, & voted for both Democrats & Republicans in the last few elections, depending on the candidate. I spend all day for 4 or 5 days before I vote looking at candidates' websites & FB pages. I also use several voting guides, including the LWV guide for Franklin County, the Columbus Dispatch online voter guide (which lets you do a side-by-side comparison of candidates' answers to their questions, the Judicial Votes Count website, & Ballotpedia. I've been doing this for the last 2-1/2 years since I hit peak trans & got disgusted with the Dem Party abandoning the working class in favor of identity politics. Between the Cult of Trump & the Trans Demands Cult, I weed out those who excuse authoritarianism in their own party. I look for people who have the courage to stand up against their own party & the groupthink & partisanshit (spelling intentional) that seems demanded of every candidate now.
If your politics is anything like here in the UK your "acceptable list" must be very short...well done for your due diligence...I really enjoyed reading your "thinking woman's" approach to the responsibility we all have to vote intelligently....
1:08:16 - Helen Joyce is spot on about political polarization in the US. I am so afraid of Republican policies that I will continue to vote for Democrats, despite the fact that the Democratic Party has been colonized by the gender ideologues and the queer theorists. 1:09:01 Chattel slavery in America was the awful birth defect of our country, and we have not yet recovered from it.
I can not find the book When Ideology Meets Reality. All I can find is Gender Identity and the new Battle for woman's rights. I want to buy the first one.
I'd say trans ideology claims we're men or women not because we say we are, as Helen claims, but that we're men or women because we feel we are. "Manness" and "womanness" are subjective feelings, according to this ideology. They're also concepts that elude it's ability to define.
They don't elude definition. Biological male, biological female. There are hard scientific definitions here that perfectly define what men and women are. If you are talking about gender expression sure there's a spectrum some women can be masculine and some men can be feminine that should be ok and enough
Agreed. Donald Trump is a great great man and was hands down the best president of modern times. Strong and thick skinned and anchored in his faith and love and appreciation for this great country ( USA).
It's a way to erase bisexuals, just as they are trying to erase L & G people, biological sex, sexual orientation (including heterosexuality) & women. For them it's "trans uber alles". Every person & every group must bow to their demands or face the consequences. So people say they are pansexual b/c it's the new, "Don't hurt me," sign. [Edited to add "as they" in the first sentence. Oops!]
uh...nope...religionists are speaking loudly in great numbers in the US and are not experiencing any silencing by anybody. They have giant communities of support, their own media, their churches, their music, etc., a whole separated free-standing American "christian" culture. These people feel no fear in speaking and voting. And they are backing reactionary, punitive laws that are gross over-corrections.
I know you're trolling but gender theory is basically saying that everybody and everything is a woman. It's what happens when you reduce the word woman to a identity
The basis of her critique in tne book is Blanchard Bailey & Lawrence - so it just another pathologising discourse; psychologising, reductionist, very limited, thin in its research, it’s poor understanding of bodies (as anything but brute nature) and lack of related deep feminist scholarship, and of gender as social process. And it lacks any insight from psychoanalytic viewpoints; the latter are actually enabling and depathologising (Gherovici, Elliot, and a lot of what Lemma says - the latter is a massive scholar). Joyce’s terms of debate do little to foster any attempt to empathise, or any serious compassionate engagement - with a group she sees as mad, & perverse; so her terms are disingenuous, and her claims full of contradictions - she pretends to be open and sympathetic but is hostile, sly, provocative in language. A writer with such a bitter taste in her mouth that her slight, feigned generosity of spirit cannot sweeten. It’s a re run of Janice Raymond, generating moral panic, telling us we are sick. Old battles are refought here - gender is not the issue but perversion, contamination by ‘maleness’; compare with the stigmatising medical discourse of Blanchard and a zillion others - Stoller, Person, Lukianowitz, Bancroft - even nastier. A book without an index without bibliography is suspect. Our opponent prefers we did not exist, and yet tells us we are silencing debate, and maybe suggests some sort of reeducation regime. Am so sick of hearing how ‘disordered’ we are. The momentum is driven by fundamentalists one ideology or another; Here we go again.
Do what you like, dude. Just stay out of women’s spaces, don’t promote your ideological beliefs to minors, and respect other people’s right to use sex based pronouns. Helen takes this position. In the book, she even uses the misnomer ‘transwomen’ rather than ‘trans identifying men’! It’s not hate, it’s respectful.
First of all, there's a very well presented bibliography in the book, from pages 319 to 327 of the English edition... Secondly, you are creating your own presupposition that there's no pathology linked to trans identity (although gender dysphoria very well exists) to then conclude that the book is bad and stigmatizing. You haven't argued for it, you just stated it. You can be tired about this, I can understand, but you can also be wrong. Wanting for it not to be a pathology is not the same as it not being (at least in part) a pathology. *Wanting* for everybody to have a very particular perception of these identities (and with it, everybody's) is not enough to make laws about it. You can quote all the academics you want, but these are not arguments. They may even be fallacies of authority... especially if you don't provide any arguments with it. "Gender is not the issue but perversion", what are your quotes to support this understanding of the book? I don't recall her talking about any "perversion" being the problem, and I've read it very thoroughly... But what resorts from it is rather that gender (sex expectations) is indeed the problem, and it should be abolish. To sum up: you haven't really critiqued or reviewed the book. What you did is say one thing: you didn't like it for personal reasons, not logical reasons. And it has its own kind of validity, if you ask me, but it's not enough to say that it's bad or incomplete. Incomplete doesn't mean "it doesn't integrate *my* understanding", incomplete is when a link in the logical chain is missing, because the conclusions don't hold. The thesis of the book seems complete. Maybe what you are saying is: it's wrong; but then you would need to prove it. Then you said it's generating "moral panic", what do you even mean by that? People being preoccupied by the material consequences of this ideology is "moral panic"? People not wanting their own understanding of their own bodies and experiences to be swiped off is "moral panic"? You are, in fact, silencing debate. You'd know if you read the book (or payed any attention to it). But even here in your "review", you are subtlety doing it, although probably not on purpose; because you are just saying "this is bad" without arguing why. You are making terrible assumptions and interpretations to, I imagine, discouraging people to engage with it. This is what this ideology is doing "trans women are women"; "trans rights are human rights"; "you don't debate transphobia"... all these mantras that they tell you you should respect no matter what, are there precisely to shut all dissenting or even just doubting voices. Plus, as I said earlier all the manipulating and harassment that is described sometimes in the book. Yes, all this is silencing.
I like how the ONE, SINGLE objectively-real, evidence-based term in this whole comment, (maleness) is put in scare-quotes. I can't even tell whether he was trying to gaslight US, or trying to gaslight HIMSELF. (but whichever it is, the desperation is palpable)
I can't get enough of Helen Joyce. I've listened to every interview of her that I can find and I bought her book (which is fantastic). She is a clear voice of reason and sanity during a time when it seems like the western world has collectively lost its mind on this issue.
The book is truly excellent.
I bought it too and am collecting it from an Amazon locker later today. I can't wait to read it.
Same for me - so smart, so logical, so articulate, and so damn RIGHT!
Yes, I agree with all of you. She has become more hardline over the last couple of years about rebutting this madness.
I especially admire how she consults the primary literature, dissects it, does her own meta-analyses, and converts that knowledge into easily digested explanations and deconstructions (pun intended) of the postmodern mindset.
Erudite, unrelenting, unflappable, and very difficult to argue against because she presents such a coherent package.
She has an impressive CV indeed, and applied to this intersectional queer nonsense, she is like a Rottweiler with a bone to guard at all costs. She's brilliant.
I agree, I listen to Helen Joyce at every opportunity. I think it's because of her scientific brain she just sees through all the utter nonsense to the plain facts.
i’ve been on a helen joyce binge this week. i can’t get enough of her!! thank you THANK YOU helen for everything you do!!
People who are interested in this topic, owe it to themselves to go over all Helen Joyce interviews, truly invaluable.
I have listened to Helen Joyce speak on a number of occasions. She is so eloquent and forthright, an absolute pleasure listen to. Her book is pretty great too!
To preface my comments, I refer to people by their biology.
I like how Helen Joyce points out that many people are understanding "TWAW" as a human rights statement, but in fact, it is a statement of a *belief system* ; And that if we can get people to understand that it is a *belief*, we can help them accept that people have a right to hold that belief, but that doesn't require the rest of us to believe it.
Under the U.S. Constitution, everyone has the right to Freedom of Thought, and to Freedom of Speech, including those who say they're the opposite sex, and those who recognize it's not possible to be the opposite sex.
We don't have to accept *their* beliefs, and speak *their* pronouns if we disagree, we have the right to choose our own words that express our own perspectives; nor must we accept men intruding on female's rights, boundaries, spaces, sports, affirmative action programs for females, etc.
Thanks for sharing this conversation. It has really brought sanity to a one sided conversation. As a lesbian in the States I had thought they were sincerely working for equality at the university level with women, queer, and racial studies. I had assumed, wrongly, they were all sorting out the math, science including social sciences to get to a better understanding of the workings for a balanced society. It turns out they were doing the farthest thing from creating a equal situation at any level. All that time wasted. Instead of figuring anything out for a better society we seemingly have a huge division rooted in hate and division and revenge. Keep posting, what you all are doing is so important for everyone, even those who are shouting you down.
Women and the LGBT community seem to be the hardest hit by all of this. Kids getting transed out of being gay is horrific. So many young lesbians and gay boys are shamed into transing and regret it. I'm appalled at the sacrifices made to this ideology
Love this lady. Super smart, perceptive and unafraid to tell it like it is.
I really enjoy listening to Joyce and she speaks a huge amount of sense and articulates beautifully. I also admire her intelligence, sharp mind and her phenomenal ability to condense complex topics into easily understandable concepts. One thing though, I wish she would not casually undermine Brexiteers or Trump when she makes her points. I have heard her do it in a few interviews and it really puts up barriers unnecessarily. I know that in her circle it is taken as read that everyone sneers at Brexiteers or Trump, but over half the country voted for Brexit and many in the UK and the USA have a lot of admiration for Trump. But things like blaming Brexiteers for 'wrecking Northern Ireland' is just insane.
The trans issues and women issues are too important to casually alienate potential support. So regardless of whether someone is a Brexiteer or a Trump supporter, we all want to protect the children. We are not all liberal lefties with the same atheist views, but that should not matter anyway, not in these circumstances. Protecting children and women rights goes beyond political stances, it goes beyond religious or secular beliefs, protecting children and women is fundamental to EVERYTHING. It actually goes against the laws of nature to not protect the most vulnerable amongst us. So political differences must be put aside for the greater good of protecting the children.
Thank you for such a brilliant and clear discussion. A friend of mine lent Helen's book to meet. It's not an easy read. Quite scary, actually. But it forced me to take a more active stance on this issue. I am talking about it with anyone who would dare to listen or debate, joining relavant campaigns, buying books to support public women that are under attack, like Kathleen Stock and Milli Hill, and of course Helen and JK Rowling, so they know that they are not alone. It's such a relief to realise that there are other people that see this ideology for what it is - a totalitarian cult and just as damaging.
The Lib Dems, Greens and Labour really need to come to grips with this. I'm on the left of the political spectrum and I really don't like voting for parties who have a #nodebate policy on this issue.
I find it quite encouraging that problems with the self ID arguments are beginning to cut through to some members of political parties on the Left.
I hope to God you don't vote for any party with that policy!! Better to vote for a moderate conservative or right-leaning person who doesn't bow the knee to the trans demands ideology cult.
as a ROGD young woman, my identifying as trans really had to do with being in that culture, along with really idolizing men and being attracted to men and hating womanhood. i grew up a feminist because it was clear to me that we had different roles in movies, were treated differently, etc, and i always combated this. its not like i didnt know that girls could be whatever they wanted. i even remember myself saying "theres nothing wrong with being a masculine woman, im just not that!" and its because the desire was to be the people i idolized, men. there truly was an escapism from myself and my problems, and a looking back a lot of the rationalization was some gender stereotypes-- but i was also like "anyone can like these things". when it came down to it, i thought i just felt like a man, or thought like a man. because i was different from most other girls, and i always wanted to be in male friend groups instead, and be treated like a man instead. so it didnt matter how much i told myself i was focusing on stereotypes, when it came down to it, i thought i had a "male brain" which is also a sexist concept. i was able to find my way out because i am a skeptic but sadly not many are.
Yes, I agree with all of you. She has become more hardline over the last couple of years about rebutting this madness.
I especially admire how she consults the primary literature, dissects it, does her own meta-analyses, and converts that knowledge into easily digested explanations and deconstructions (pun intended) of the postmodern mindset.
Erudite, unrelenting, unflappable, and very difficult to argue against because she presents such a coherent package.
She has an impressive CV indeed, and applied to this intersectional queer nonsense, she is like a Rottweiler with a bone to guard at all costs. She's brilliant.
Helen still retains an acceptance of “trans” people, using their preferred pronouns. I’ve carried on peaking and can barely tolerate their brainwashed gullibility.
Thank you so much for putting this online. You give me faith once again in the Lib Dem’s. I believe it would be an election winning formula to run on a ticket of being socially caring, compassionate capitalism, supportive of the downtrodden in society while being firm and socially conservative on the woke bollocks and trans ideology.
It’s possible to support providing free milk for primary school children (as an example) and youth centres to give underprivileged children something to do to stop them getting bored while simultaneously supporting innovation and light regulation to industry to help us lead the world in the areas of industry and commerce that the U.K. excels at. Both Labour and the Conservatives seems to completely forget this.
Fascinating: Helen Joyce cited progressive sexologist Richard Green(e)'s prospective study, in the 1970s, on boys who were sex-role non-conforming, to see if they grew up to identify as women. She says Greene found that boys whose fathers couldn't accept them as they were/are and who tried to toughen up their sons, those boys were the ones who grew up to identify as women. As Joyce described it, these were the boys who were convinced they weren't ok as they are, and therefore really must be girls or women.
This has always been my impression of cross-sex identification: that it is a result of rigid sex-role socialization and beliefs, such that the only way one can be interested in stereotypically female interests and behaivors is to actually be "female," and vice versa, that females interested in stereotypical male interests and behaivors must be "male."
Marlo Thomas was so right in the 1970s: let children be "Free to Be, You and Me," instead of forcing rigid sex-role thinking on them. So that they don't end up thinking they're the "wrong" sex and wanting to mutilate their bodies to physically be in sync with the stereotypes they've been taught!
Then why is it it is only now when gender roles are virtually gone that this trans cabal it is rising?
@Donald Hysa cuz the trans propaganda is pushed on kids who don’t understand anything to transition for profit. those poor kids are going to grow up very suicidal. i hope they can afford to prosecute trans lobbies and the health sector when they’re older.
@@skullkid64mm I hope to God there are so many lawsuits that it bankrupts anyone involved in these crimes. I'd like to see people go to prison, too. I take this just as seriously as any right-wing corporate crime. Sue them into oblivion. However, my concern is that the statute of limitations will run out quickly, before the majority of people are ready to take such an action.
@@donaldhysa4836 Because we weren't paying attention. They operated stealthily, influencing policy very quickly, before people had time to find out what was going on, much less oppose it. And they piggyback on other groups, particularly the LGB community, but also groups like intersex people, to get their policies and legislation passed by riding unseen on more popular or reality-based human rights. All those stereotypes are coming back with this ideology. The whole idea of "non-binary" is just ridiculous. There are perfectly good terms,- like gender non-conforming or androgynous,- to describe people who don't identify with either Barbie or G.I. Joe (their idea of what women & men are like). But no, they can't be a man who likes some things that are considered "feminine" or a woman who likes some thing that are considered "masculine". They think they can't BE a man or woman if they don't fit the rigid stereotypes. Gender ideology is trying to do away with biological sex, sexual orientation, and personality & replace it all with some disembodied "gender identity", based on gender stereotypes, which is the "true identity" of every person.
@@DonnaBrooks No we were paying attention and we were loving it. Traditional gender roles was literally the first thing these people attacked i the 1980s. " Women are not born, they are made" said Simon De Bouvair, one of the most prominent feminists of all time, clearly implying the very concept of women is artificial.
" Gender is just performance" said Judith Buttler in a very clear attempt to completly dissolve even the core concepts of man and woman. And now that they did that women do not know who they are men dont know who they are and everybody is being used as a lab rat to figure out just who we are now. And everybody applauded it all the way until very recently thinking it was gonna liberate women What we have instead is a nightmare not even The Handmaids take distopian writter could have ever imagined . This is a complete dissaster. Billions may suffer horribly before we can get back to normal. 😞
Helen is amazing. I've learned so much from her
Please consider having Abigail Shrier and Stephanie Davies - Arai on your show!
I love this channel.
So clear and logical
Thank you, Helen. What a comprehensive analysis.
I agree so much with Helen, she's like a psychotherapist revealing the motivations behind this, makes so much sense. I agree I hate the way women don't look up to older women, I was slightly odd and always did, the old school feminism is nowhere now.
Excellent chat, thank you. The biggest difficulty with Joyce's argument is that this can be solved by focusing on interests and needs, rather than positions. If it was that simple we would have third spaces everywhere by now. The TRA are not interested in privacy, dignity, safety or fair competition. If you ask them about their needs and interests they will talk about respecting identities and treating people as the 'gender' they identify. There's no shared understanding of what is a need.
I feel like a group of people who call themselves “inclusive” are trying to eliminate women just so a few can be “super women.”
Just wonderful. Thank you so much
This whole conversation is eloquent, from start to finish
It's always nice to hear from Helen Joyce!
tranbs ideology is still rampant here in Scotland
Great discussion, thank you💜
Actually, I am one American who did not vote for Biden or Trump. I always vote for every single other office, though, & voted for both Democrats & Republicans in the last few elections, depending on the candidate. I spend all day for 4 or 5 days before I vote looking at candidates' websites & FB pages. I also use several voting guides, including the LWV guide for Franklin County, the Columbus Dispatch online voter guide (which lets you do a side-by-side comparison of candidates' answers to their questions, the Judicial Votes Count website, & Ballotpedia. I've been doing this for the last 2-1/2 years since I hit peak trans & got disgusted with the Dem Party abandoning the working class in favor of identity politics. Between the Cult of Trump & the Trans Demands Cult, I weed out those who excuse authoritarianism in their own party. I look for people who have the courage to stand up against their own party & the groupthink & partisanshit (spelling intentional) that seems demanded of every candidate now.
If your politics is anything like here in the UK your "acceptable list" must be very short...well done for your due diligence...I really enjoyed reading your "thinking woman's" approach to the responsibility we all have to vote intelligently....
Great discussion!
1:08:16 - Helen Joyce is spot on about political polarization in the US. I am so afraid of Republican policies that I will continue to vote for Democrats, despite the fact that the Democratic Party has been colonized by the gender ideologues and the queer theorists.
1:09:01 Chattel slavery in America was the awful birth defect of our country, and we have not yet recovered from it.
Well aren't you just a prime example of why idiots shouldn't vote..
I appreciate this, jazakala khayran. It opened up a whole new perspective.
If Trans-women were women, we would call them women, not Trans-women
I have always voted Liberal, but I do feel I cannot vote Liberal based on their views on women's rights vs trans ideology.
Can there be a dating-app where men can find biological women who agree with Helen? #TeamHelenJoyce
❤️
I can not find the book When Ideology Meets Reality. All I can find is Gender Identity and the new Battle for woman's rights. I want to buy the first one.
It's called 'Trans, when ideology meets reality'
If you search 'Trans' and her name you'll find it
I would disagree on one point. We all don't have a "race."
Very true.
I'd say trans ideology claims we're men or women not because we say we are, as Helen claims, but that we're men or women because we feel we are. "Manness" and "womanness" are subjective feelings, according to this ideology. They're also concepts that elude it's ability to define.
She is speaking from a societal point of view. The legal requirement is merely to self-identify, ie. say so.
They don't elude definition. Biological male, biological female. There are hard scientific definitions here that perfectly define what men and women are. If you are talking about gender expression sure there's a spectrum some women can be masculine and some men can be feminine that should be ok and enough
actually, I am seeing some open mindedness regarding data.
Agreed. Donald Trump is a great great man and was hands down the best president of modern times. Strong and thick skinned and anchored in his faith and love and appreciation for this great country ( USA).
25:06 min
conversion therapy: body good, mind bad
gender affirming therapy: body bad, mind good
future (hopefully): body good, mind good
“The thought-terminating cliché TWAW.”
There’s nothing like this in the USA.
Pansexuality is just another way to say you’re biphobic
It's a way to erase bisexuals, just as they are trying to erase L & G people, biological sex, sexual orientation (including heterosexuality) & women. For them it's "trans uber alles". Every person & every group must bow to their demands or face the consequences. So people say they are pansexual b/c it's the new, "Don't hurt me," sign. [Edited to add "as they" in the first sentence. Oops!]
uh...nope...religionists are speaking loudly in great numbers in the US and are not experiencing any silencing by anybody. They have giant communities of support, their own media, their churches, their music, etc., a whole separated free-standing American "christian" culture. These people feel no fear in speaking and voting. And they are backing reactionary, punitive laws that are gross over-corrections.
How can people believe this nonsense 😵💫
Everybody is a Woman.
Only female ones.
I know you're trolling but gender theory is basically saying that everybody and everything is a woman. It's what happens when you reduce the word woman to a identity
The basis of her critique in tne book is Blanchard Bailey & Lawrence - so it just another pathologising discourse; psychologising, reductionist, very limited, thin in its research, it’s poor understanding of bodies (as anything but brute nature) and lack of related deep feminist scholarship, and of gender as social process. And it lacks any insight from psychoanalytic viewpoints; the latter are actually enabling and depathologising (Gherovici, Elliot, and a lot of what Lemma says - the latter is a massive scholar).
Joyce’s terms of debate do little to foster any attempt to empathise, or any serious compassionate engagement - with a group she sees as mad, & perverse; so her terms are disingenuous, and her claims full of contradictions - she pretends to be open and sympathetic but is hostile, sly, provocative in language. A writer with such a bitter taste in her mouth that her slight, feigned generosity of spirit cannot sweeten.
It’s a re run of Janice Raymond, generating moral panic, telling us we are sick. Old battles are refought here - gender is not the issue but perversion, contamination by ‘maleness’; compare with the stigmatising medical discourse of Blanchard and a zillion others - Stoller, Person, Lukianowitz, Bancroft - even nastier. A book without an index without bibliography is suspect.
Our opponent prefers we did not exist, and yet tells us we are silencing debate, and maybe suggests some sort of reeducation regime. Am so sick of hearing how ‘disordered’ we are. The momentum is driven by fundamentalists one ideology or another; Here we go again.
Do what you like, dude. Just stay out of women’s spaces, don’t promote your ideological beliefs to minors, and respect other people’s right to use sex based pronouns.
Helen takes this position. In the book, she even uses the misnomer ‘transwomen’ rather than ‘trans identifying men’! It’s not hate, it’s respectful.
First of all, there's a very well presented bibliography in the book, from pages 319 to 327 of the English edition...
Secondly, you are creating your own presupposition that there's no pathology linked to trans identity (although gender dysphoria very well exists) to then conclude that the book is bad and stigmatizing. You haven't argued for it, you just stated it. You can be tired about this, I can understand, but you can also be wrong. Wanting for it not to be a pathology is not the same as it not being (at least in part) a pathology. *Wanting* for everybody to have a very particular perception of these identities (and with it, everybody's) is not enough to make laws about it.
You can quote all the academics you want, but these are not arguments. They may even be fallacies of authority... especially if you don't provide any arguments with it.
"Gender is not the issue but perversion", what are your quotes to support this understanding of the book? I don't recall her talking about any "perversion" being the problem, and I've read it very thoroughly... But what resorts from it is rather that gender (sex expectations) is indeed the problem, and it should be abolish.
To sum up: you haven't really critiqued or reviewed the book. What you did is say one thing: you didn't like it for personal reasons, not logical reasons. And it has its own kind of validity, if you ask me, but it's not enough to say that it's bad or incomplete. Incomplete doesn't mean "it doesn't integrate *my* understanding", incomplete is when a link in the logical chain is missing, because the conclusions don't hold. The thesis of the book seems complete. Maybe what you are saying is: it's wrong; but then you would need to prove it. Then you said it's generating "moral panic", what do you even mean by that? People being preoccupied by the material consequences of this ideology is "moral panic"? People not wanting their own understanding of their own bodies and experiences to be swiped off is "moral panic"?
You are, in fact, silencing debate. You'd know if you read the book (or payed any attention to it). But even here in your "review", you are subtlety doing it, although probably not on purpose; because you are just saying "this is bad" without arguing why. You are making terrible assumptions and interpretations to, I imagine, discouraging people to engage with it. This is what this ideology is doing "trans women are women"; "trans rights are human rights"; "you don't debate transphobia"... all these mantras that they tell you you should respect no matter what, are there precisely to shut all dissenting or even just doubting voices. Plus, as I said earlier all the manipulating and harassment that is described sometimes in the book. Yes, all this is silencing.
I like how the ONE, SINGLE objectively-real, evidence-based term in this whole comment, (maleness) is put in scare-quotes.
I can't even tell whether he was trying to gaslight US, or trying to gaslight HIMSELF. (but whichever it is, the desperation is palpable)
Yawn.