Gender Clinics Are Not Practicing True Medicine But Rather Affirming Gender Identities - Helen Joyce
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 พ.ค. 2023
- Joyce’s 2021 book, Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality
provides a searing analysis of the transgender debate.
Helen Joyce recently left her position as executive editor
of The Economist to work for Sex Matters, and brings a
wealth of knowledge about gender issues on both sides
of the Irish Sea.
Audio Issues, please view here: iframe.dacast.com/vod/38316c3...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please subscribe, comment, like and share!
Support our work: genspect.org/donate/
Follow us on social Media:
Twitter: / genspect
Facebook: / genspect
Instagram: / genspectinternational
TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@realgenspect?...
TH-cam: / @genspect
Rumble: rumble.com/user/Genspect
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#GenspectBiggerPicture #TimesUpWPATH #BeyondWATH #BiggerPictureConference
![4BANG - NOT LIKE US (REMIX) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HO22cYkha1s/mqdefault.jpg)
If you are experiencing audio issues, please see the video description.
Perfect! Sounded good 👍🏻 thank you
says "broadcaster of this content has been blocked". Neither video nor audio will play. ??? TRAs at it again?
I didn't see the notice about audio problems until the talk was finished but was able to follow using the subtitles.
@@lewreed1871 ... and listening very carefully in a quiet room. I got "This media is offline." I didn't look to see if it could be downloaded.
More than one way to skin a cat. Pipe it to a t.v. Turn up your hearing aid... I've got that last option, too.
"This media is offline"
*I'm a simple person - I see a new Helen Joyce video... I click* Yet again, she hits it out of the park. Such clarity, reality, and dead-on facts. Coming from an intellectual powerhouse, who happens to be a warm, empathetic, caring human ... with not a hateful, bigoted, or biased bone in her body.
Saaaaame! Scrolled down the conference videos, clicked on Helen first because I know it’s gonna be gold
The clarity she provides is what we need now to cut through the nonsense and noise.
She is just the easiest person to listen to for me!! Her voice, her facts, and everything always blows my mind. I love watching every video she's in.
Respectfully disagree- if you're reading Helen joyce, you're NOT a simple person, you are intellectually motivated
It is a joy to witness Helen's mind at work as she continues to help us understand how we arrived here. Pioneering forensic ontology. I love that you keep thinking so deeply on this subject, Helen. Thank you.❤❤❤
Transgender.....I can't accept who I am, but demand that you accept who I'm not.
Brilliant.
That's perhaps one of the most simplest and straight to the point explanations of the ideology I've ever read, absolutely brilliant ⭐
Brilliant you have a firm grasp on human psychology!
Transgender people tend to quite openly accept that they are transgender mate 🤓
Well said
This woman is brilliant.
Brilliant, illuminating and unnervingly succint.
As usual.
Helen Joyce is the jewel in the crown.
I had sound but it was low had to use ear buds. As always Helen's logic continues to undescore the maddness of this ideology.
Yeah, they need someone to bring up the LUFS on it.
In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound.
@@browndoc In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound.
Ok so ignoring medical information is logic?
@@Phoneybeetlemaniacxs well that depends but I suspect bad faith from how general your question is.
Of course it could be logical to ignore medical information about your knees when treating asthma. But it is not logical to ignore the lung capacity when treating asthma.
Edit: typo
As brilliant as ever, Ive loved seeing Helen’s thinking evolve over the past few years on this issue, her enquiring mind is marvellous.
As an old-school transexual from 1980s. I fully get what you're saying. I have no desire to force myself into spaces I am not welcome. I've have altimate respect for the places I've been allowed into. I just want to live my life in peace, not to disturb the others around me. Please keep up the work you were doing. It does not represent what is happening today in the "transgender community." I now allow longer understand the present community. After 35 years, it's still an experiment. There is no settled science. I'm still educating my doctor's.
The "community " is a poly tickal fiction. I say this as a gay man. Here in Portland the supervening aesthetic is mid century modern circus freak. The bearded lady isn't a pleasing look im ho. 😕 but gender is so obviously a spectrum. Not sure why we have conform to traditional gender roles
@@davidsprouse151 I remember reading about this, back in the '80s, and a number of the buyer's remorse anecdotes. There truly are people who hate their own sex at an early age, even mutilating themselves. Many of the early transsexual surgeries were male to female because of transwomen mutilating themselves. Very rare. Very sad. But good doctors did what they could to restore some function.
Not at all like what they're doing, nowadays, where you're supposed to take the kid's word for it. And you never know how much is kid's feelings and how much it's the parent consciously or unconsciously conditioning a child to say all the right things to begin "gender-affirming care."
Thank you Helen and Genspect.
my sound was fine, just low. Thanks for all that you are doing Genspect.
I like the false equation analogy.
The one I have used in the past is rather more crude.
It's like someone pissing in your beer and then being told you can still drink the unaffected parts.
Hard to hear, but worth it!
In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound. Please check it out, the lecture is very much worth hearing!
starting at 22, absolutely spot on description of gender clinics.
As always HelJo has the best angle on this situation. I've been thinking the same but her articulation is chef's kiss
I really envy her ability to speak with such clarity.
@@meretriciousinsolent in recent interviews she's become exasperated with it all. I'm not surprised
This is awesome, and everyone needs to take notice. As thoughtful as can be.
Excellent! Very interesting! Keep speaking up, don't give up and don't give in!
Gorgeous articulation. For anyone, Ethan Watters "Crazy Like Us: The Globalization of the American Psyche" is superb. also, Robert Bellahs Habits of the Heart is a deep dive into some of this philosophical/sociological view. Helen's book was my OMFG wake up call but Kathleen Stocks Material Girls really also helped me articulate there are 4 separate ideologies that don't all agree with each other. I'm with Helen- I'm 5 months in, reading, listening, and there is a never-ending rabbit hole to go down! (Also two fiesty trans folks who disagree with most of this movement are Buck Angel and Blaire White.)
Thanks for the info. I have tried several times to post info for you but guess it's getting censored by YT.
The info is on YT, so not sure why they do that.
Very, very interesting! I love Helen so much. This makes a LOT of sense! And I think it also helps me understand why my peaking experience felt like such a crazy, dark political acid trip, that left me in "WTF even is ANYTHING, and I don't know WTF I stand for now" limbo, for like.. a good year, at LEAST. Because, A: I was on the EXTREME individualism side of that scale, for most of my life! And B: my "LGBTQ+" allyship was a MAJOR cornerstone of my worldview, and how I defined myself as a supposedly SUPER good / progressive / "more open-minded than thou" liberal. So.. the implications went WAY beyond just this one issue, because my whole worldview crashed. Through being confronted with: "if you take the individualism thing too far, everything goes completely batsh*t CRAZY! Oh no!"
Still not a conservative. But I do see the importance of there being a BALANCE, more so! And that yeah, you can have invention, creativity, progress, idealism, individualism, and all those lovely things.. But there have to ALSO be checks and balances in place! There has to be safeguarding! There have to be LIMITS! There have to be thoughts of: "what are the good things we need to PROTECT, and what are the RISKS of doing this new thing we're now considering"? Plus I also think: "you cannot ever negatively judge ANYTHING!" has become such a pernicious progressive MANTRA, almost on par with TWAW.. Except you can judge people for not going along with the woke programming, of course! That is okay. But any part of what floats WITH the current stream of things..? Better just shut up, and float with it, or ELSE! It also boggles my mind that liberalism used to be associated with free speech and thought, but it now seems like that has FLIPPED! Which confused me to the point of me legit wondering if I'd become a conservative, for a while.. Until I realized, no. I'm just an old school, pro free speech liberal, who never wanted THIS weird, oppressive f*cking current! And the more authoritarian the current gets..? The more BLATANTLY obvious it is that I didn't sign up for this sh*t! Which is why I sometimes feel allyship with conservatives now.. As, whatever this thing is, at least we're all NOT this!
Gonna stop rambling and listen to the rest of this now.
Thanks for the post. Have been reading about this issue for years now. Was recognizing this ideological cult before many peope were talking about it, and yeah, it was one conservative radio show host who was staying on top of it. I was so glad since I didn't have anyone to talk about it with, and felt a bit nutty.
Am similar to you. Not really a "conservative" but guess I am now by default since the bar has gone way over the left cliff.
I have had similar thoughts to yours, and will NOT be so open minded my brains fall out.
Preserving standards, boundaries to keep a society from falling off the cliff, and not chucking decency, and common sense out the window is pretty darn important.
From another liberal person here, i wholeheartedly agree with you and think that trans ideology is destroying the credibility and progress of the left.
Trans activism is the cutting edge of a wider activism, which is post-modernist social justice activism. It is the most crazy and extreme vanguard. But all of it is ideological and the ideology is a rejection of the Enlightenment. It goes much further than Rousseau. It rejects the use of reason.
It is therefore a mistake to style this as leftist. Liberalism and Marxism both uphold the use of reason and believe there is a reality that we can apprehend. Post-modernism chucks all that out of the window. It's like a third pole that is neither left nor right. The so called left that espouse it are mostly centrist if anything, like the Biden administration, though their pursuit of neo-liberal economic policies and crazy neo-con foreign policy are in fact highly reactionary and of course extremely dangerous
This intrigues me, as although I am left-leaning and have been since I could start to understand these issues, this is unfamiliar to me. My primary concern has always been ascertaining objective facts, as without a decent grasp of reality, even the best- intentioned can commit heinous atrocities. I have always been too much of an outsider to see myself as part of a group, as previous attempts resulted in being ousted for criticizing one sacred cow or another. Even being gay, I only agreed with gay marriage after analyzing the arguments logically, same for marriage generally and any political or philosophical position - if I haven't thoroughly investigated an issue searching for internal or external contradictions, my default position is "I don't know." It scared me in 2009 when I realized most of my peers only were for gay marriage because it was in fashion and not because it was the logical position they had carefully arrived at, because I realized that such "support" was fickle and those same people could as easily turn against me in a decade. And so they did.
When I grew up, if I didn't have time to investigate the pros and cons of all candidates for an office, I left that space blank. Were you raised in a dogmatic or politically single-minded home, where there was a "right way" among subjective beliefs, and non-believers are bad or stupid and just obviously, unquestionably wrong? My parents were mixed in liberal and conservative views, and while they shared their political and religious views, they never pushed them on us, exposed us to alternative ideas, discouraged disparaging people of opposite ideological persuasion, and engaged in open dialogue and debate where disagreement wasn't construed as personal attack. They were high school dropouts but taught us critical thinking better than k-12 and college combined.
Edit: hit comment too soon. Both sides of the political machine, not everyday people except inasmuch they become evangelists, are opportunistic hypocrites when it comes to free speech. Both have demonstrated that the second they have widespread institutional, cultural backing, they want to crack down on dissent. When they are the underdog, they cry for free speech, because these are not people acting on principles, they are people who will do whatever they can get away with to impose their worldviews and coerce people to behave accordingly.
If your use of "peaking" is the correct usage, and I assume that it is, (but I'm 46 - what the hell do I know?) then I finally "get" PEAKING as a new entry to the lexicon. Thank you.
I also had a sort of political identity crisis for a moment, that blew me away. Thank you for sharing your experience, I feel so seen.
Volume very low. Excellent analysis, thank you.
In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound.
I could hear. Sounds good. Thanks!
She is great. Reading her book now
Such a shame that the sound quality is so poor. I was so looking forward to hearing Helen speak.
I couldn’t hear at all 😕
Earbuds with sound all the way up works
Also, try turning on captioning.
In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound.
@@lpeacelovefaith9566 In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound.
Helen Joyce is a brilliant advocate for all this shite x
No she isn't.
@@Wandering.Homebody have you misunderstood me, I believe Helen is brilliant at articutaing how the trans idealogy is destroying kids, misguided adults, institutions, families etc
Do you agree?
@@rachelbassett4942 totally, wholeheartedly agree! But doesn't that make her an advocate of the antishite 😉? Was just being facetious, sorry.
@@Wandering.HomebodyI here you x
Thank you for link to improved audio. I thought I was me, lol, couldn't hear properly. Now perfect! Helen is just amazing to listen to, a powerhouse!
Even with headphones hard to hear volume
In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound.
Helen, I appreciate you bringing in "toxic positivity" type mesaaging as a building block of this worldview. I am now recognizing the effects this messaging has had on my own life.
As a female who was forced to strip in front of other females in a hospital setting, I hated their ideology that just because the workers were female I should be fine with it. Trans-identifying patients were allowed to choose the gender of the worker they had to strip in front of, and I envied that because there were certain female workers I was afraid of. There were certain male workers I'd genuinely have felt more comfortable being naked in front of. I'm also bisexual so gender definitely didn't have an impact on whether I felt violated or not, it's the person, not what their body looks like.
Helen is so incredibly eloquent ❤
So, this week in Bristol, we see the spectacle of a man convicted of rape. Nothing unusual with that, sadly... Bad enough, on the face of it, but when we read the court report, we note that the man, complete with his broad shoulders, stubbley chin and fully-functioning private parts (which formed an important part of the rape), has decided he is a woman. One equals zero indeed!
Misassigned at birth??
Clearly he's a victim of the patriarchy
Tik Tok is everyone being that one man show oddly enough.
Libs of tiktok worked that out ! Benjamin Boyce's Evergreen tapes too ! The selfie generation.
Helen, you are phenomenal as always.
I am telling people who are having trouble understanding this subject to listen to Helen Joyce.
I've got volume up full and it's still very quiet.
In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound. The uploader really should make if easier for people to find the good version.
Helen Joyce - the voice of reason.
The volume is too low, no matter how high I turned up everything - Love Helen, and all of her forums. ❤
I had to use earbuds.
In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound. Please check it out, the lecture is very much worth hearing!
I love her
Fabulous. Thank you. Gosh if you could boost the sound I believe this would go viral.
In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound. I agree the uploader should do a more direct fix, because many have complained here, and I think a lot of people just gave up on trying to listen. And it's so worth hearing!
thanks for the louder version! I had my speakers on highest and could not hear a damned thing! I love Helen Joyce and treasure the email she sent me because she actually bothered to check out the lies being spread about me and found out they weren't true. So many others just took others' word for it and have shunned me ever since even though I am 100% innocent.
From my reading the phrase sex assigned at birth came from John Money who worked with DSD patients, where the phrase "sex assigned at birth" made sense because a judgement call was made by a doctor as to whether a DSD person would be categorised as male or female. This phrase has come to be used to replace "sex observed at birth" by ideologues. Whether there's any conection to Rouseeian thinking here I couldn't say.
Surely that's quintessential Rousseau?
The Nobel savage.
The Fall.
This is where the great third positionist's have their genesis.
It's a social construction - therefore it is tainted with the values of the dominant hegemony - therefore it should be deconstructed to reveal what a "Socially Just (-ice)" relationship is.
Children are born perfect, we sully their souls with our corruption.
Yes, I heard the same about that phrase. However, the fact that the phrase got so popular amongst the gender identity crowd might have to do with the point she's making.
My answer to the Scooby Doo problem is that adults do not remember their childhood consciousness, they remember a very revised version of their teen years, and unless they study child developmental stages, they never challenge their own misremembered versions of their past. Hence adults declaring how much happier they would have been if this or that had been allowed during their teen years.
I kinda wish they'd bring back lobotomies. What do you think?
😅 This is brilliant. I am a philosopher, and I completely agree that here is the philosophical diagnosis of an extreme form of self reference and the denial of objectivity. You have clearly demonstrated how the tue ‘believers’ of this cultish collapse of objectivity and open discourse have enclosed themselves and their ever increasing circle of applauding narcissists into an echo chamber. I also believe that there is a clear class factor involved - an elite who have become increasingly frustrated with not always being right in a complex world, and a religious factor - blind belief and certainty will lead to salvation, a Manichaen vision of we, the good, the saved, and others who are the evil, the damned.
Helen provides much insight into the madness here.
"A repetitive practice that becomes meaningful just because it keeps being done"
Excellent!
Please please sort out audio - I’m desperate to share this with as many people as possible!
In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound. You could share that link directly with others. I agree, the uploaders should do a more direct fix here so people don't give up on trying to listen.
4h plus tard, 42ème mention j'aime, et le son me parait 👌
I would love to have this re-posted with better volume. I was able to hear it with the volume turned all the way up in my car, but even then only barely, and this is something that it is important to hear.
We have provided an alternative platform in the video description for those experiencing audio issues. Hope that helps.
@@Genspect can you not add a title onto this low--volume video, at the beginning, directing people to the link to the better-sound version? I see several comments here from people complaining about the sound, who evidently did not find the link to the better version. This is an excellent presentation and everyone should be able to hear it first try, or very quickly onto the second try!
A map is not the territory but refers to an actual territory. Declaring yourself to be a third, fourth or 50th gender is basically believing in a map that has no actual territory. Or, if you are "trans," believing in the wrong map.
Can you do something about the sound and re-release this please.
In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound. Please check it out, the lecture is very much worth hearing!
wow, I could keep listening to her. She is fantastic.
Extremely low volume. Whoever is in charge of producing this content needs to significantly bring up the clip gain and LUFS. Maybe even apply some compression. It's barely audible.
In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound. Please check it out, the lecture is very much worth hearing!
Wow. What a helpful explanation or lens to view this problem through. Thank you, Helen yet again!
Anything that can be done to enhance the audio?
In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound. Please check it out, the lecture is very much worth hearing!
OMG is that an original Bob Ross in the background? Me fave.
Good speech. Thank you, ma'am.
Always lovely to listen to Helen! (Can you turn the sound up a bitt?)
In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound. Please check it out, the lecture is very much worth hearing!
It's always great to listen to explanations like this to get a better understanding of what's happening, and to a certain degree why it's happening. However, I always keep coming back to the same two questions: what kind of mindset gravitates towards this (as clearly a certain kind of mindset does not) & what is this action being done to achieve, what is the end game? I appreciate these two questions can really only be answered in the context of a specific point and this video covers many points, but the true motivation for the behaviour, or 'the why' is what I'm trying to better understand.
This is what I find most difficult too.
I can see why it attracts autistic people who like simplistic black and white solutions or people who struggle socially and gravitate towards blind acceptance or people don't want to accept their body through trauma or find their emerging sexuality or changes through puberty disconcerting or, frankly, attention seekers. But I don't feel like these are particularly the groups pushing the ideas (although the pronoun stress seems to be heavily related to autistic thinking that misgendering is violence because your choice of words destroy their identity). Some of the less important details seem to be pushed by "allies", a virtue-signaling desire to be good/"on the right side of history" and honestly it feels like white saviour complex to me. Overcompensation in an attempt to get it right because we feel guilty about treatment of black ppl, gay ppl, women etc.
I sometimes think the autogynephilic adult males are at the top, manipulating and using the young gay boys and body dysmorphic teenage girls in the same way that they only reference intersex/dsd ppl to push their agenda and repurpose language (assigned gender at birth) but show zero empathy to the actual human beings. In that way I think the goal for agp men is to invade women's spaces and be treated as women because that is their paraphilia (sometimes with a dose of degrading or humiliating women or self-degradation). The collateral damage isn't really important to them. "Trans kids" are a means to an end although I also worry about a more sinister reason for drag queens to want to perform sexually suggestive acts in schools; I can find no benign explanation for it. You can talk to trans activists about crime or fairness in sport and they just don't care. The arguments always centre around women's spaces not men's. The same ppl who argue for trans women in female prisons or sport never ever mention trans men. Similarly I've never ever heard trans activists ask for their own specialist homeless/addiction/sex work refuge/rape centres. To me that would seem to be a logical goal if you truly believe they are vulnerable. So I think invading women's spaces and making everyone play along with a fantasy must play a role.
The other part I can't quite fit together is the pharmaceutical medical side. There's an economic interest but it seems overly simplistic to me to think they're happy to callously make money at the expense of children. I think there must be something behind the insistence that the "affirmative" model is the ONLY appropriate treatment. The fact they call exploratory therapy "conversion therapy" reminds me very much of the bolsheviks calling themselves the majority and the opposition the minority (mensheviks). It seems clear to me now that the affirmative model is converting gay kids into trans adults (are you an adult if you never go through puberty?) but I can't really reason that one out. How can the leaders of the Dutch protocol claim success and not see glaring red flags when only one of the 70 participants in the study was heterosexual? Are we more comfortable societally with a "straight" trans person than a gay one?
You could point to the attempt to say children can consent to adult decisions and the creation of a vulnerable group as a means to nefarious actions but I'm not sure that fits and it feels conspiratorial. It is strange how much this ideology has a stranglehold on technology, internet, social media etc. though as well a rise in porn use. I feel like there is some purpose to the affirmative model that I'm not seeing. Transhumanism? We've now got eunuchs in Wpath, is that part of the picture? Or is this all just side issues that distract while we sleepwalk into having adult men play out their fantasies in women's spaces and schools?
I like the analogy of 1=0 and that breaking all of math's
Please sort out the volume.
In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound. I agree, the uploader needs to make it easier for people to hear the good version. Judging by the comments, a lot of people gave up trying to listen, and this lecture is brilliant and needs to go viral!
pity about the sound, very low
In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound. Please check it out, the lecture is very much worth hearing!
I do love Helen’s way of writing and of speaking: like the best college lecturer you ever had, but one who is also a mum ( and of a gay kid to boot), so she has an extra layer of depth to her knowledge and her way of putting it across. ❤ NB. For those who couldn’t hear, you can get subtitles…
re the link to better audio - You Tube says the "broadcaster of this content has been blocked". WTF???
Great
Please repost with more volume...i really want to hear this important talk without struggling..thanks.
We have provided an alternative platform in the video description for those experiencing audio issues. Hope that helps.
@@Genspect many thanks, that's much better.
Brilliant again from Helen ....but the sound is so low I could barely hear her 😞
Something Scooby Doo about it! So true!
Great speech, although I did spend some time wondering if my speakers were OK.
The volume is too low
Thank you !
In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound. Please check it out, the lecture is very much worth hearing!
Please run this video through a sound mixer and increase the gain. Waaay too quiet to hear. C'mon guys....do better so that this kind of thing can be shared and digested more easily.
Production values are important!
Woah there, it's free, it's provided voluntarily, why do you think it's reasonable to complain?
in the show description there's a link to a version with better sound. I do think they could have put a title on at the beginning of the video to direct viewers to the link with better sound.
Can you upload it with louder sound? I have my sound on max on my TV and computer and I can't hear it so I am out.
In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound. Please check it out, the lecture is very much worth hearing!
@@buddyneher9359 Thank so much for taking the time to tell me! I definitely will. I think a lot of Helen!
@@Catherine-2008 you're welcome. This talk is so important, and so well-delivered, that I couldn't stand to think of anyone missing it because of the sound issue. I hope the uploaders put on a subtitle or pin a comment in the comment thread or something so that nobody misses out!
There is no sound
It's just very very quiet.
Earphones are the answer. The volume is very low.
@@dorasneddon774 That's all very well until you forget you've put the volume right up and the next video auto plays!
@@puddleglum3306 I did that too! Ouch!
In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound.
The audio was very faint even though I turned the volume all the way up on my iPad. The subtitles helped but it would help if the font was larger. I’m 72, and I have had cataract surgery so fine print is an issue.
I disagree with Helen when she says they could get away with it if it wasn't for those pesky kids.
Far from it, the pesky kids are at the vanguard, they produce tiktok videos and are embracing and demanding trans ideology and holding their mothers heartstrings to ransom with it.
Its women being raped in jails, the loss of women's sports and molestors staffing rape crisis centres that do not have a respectable cheer leader squad.
Sound is practically at zero!
In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound. Please check it out, the lecture is very much worth hearing!
The sound is very low. I had a very hard time hearing this excellent talk.Please RASIE the volume. Thank you.
Please raise volume and repost.
In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound. Please check it out, the lecture is very much worth hearing!
There is a distinct diference between English Common Law, and European Statutory Rights Law.
The Anglo Saxons established the principle that everyone was free, and that freedom could not be curtailed unless it tresspassed on another's freedom.
The only people who could resolve this conflict were a group of twelve of the plaintiff's peers.
The compromised, or curtailment of liberty resulting from a trial of the principles was recorded by a circuit judge. This is the act of forming judicial precedent.
Now, in the English system, the parliament of the Sovereign is at liberty to anticipate disputes and proclaim (for the direction of the jury) what the default stance is - ie if you drink more than this much alcohol you cannot drive a car.
The jury (despite what you may have heard) is not obliged to accept an Act of Parluament IF it jusges the Act to be in breach of lawful principles in the case at hand. If an Act of Parliament is unlawfully tresspassing on an idividuals sovereignty for instance, then a jury can declare that the Act cannot be used to prosecute a person as though they have breached that law.
The 1215 Baron's revolt was staged to prevent king John disregarding the Common Law principles. All Acts of parliament have been formed after the 1215 Magna Carta - therefore if the breach the Magna Carta they are unlawful, they have no authority under English Commin Law.
Now, in European Statutory Law, the state is at liberty to invent "rights" in the Acts the parliament passes.
This is totally at odds with English Common Law because there can be no rights that trump the assertions reiterated in the Magna Carta as established by Anglo Saxon Common Law.
The European law provides for the state to "award" (and remove) the peoples rights whether they conflict with existing judicial precedents or not.
Rights law is anathema to English Common Law.
Unfortunately with the creation of the United Nations, the British were required to accept "Human Rights" as though they were a kind of supreme British Act of parliament (which they aren't).
You will have noticed that numerous breaches of the Nürmberg Declaration on Human Rights 1949 were breached to a grievous extent during Covid.
Had English Commin Law not been defamed by the British government signing the Nürmberg treaty, the public would have been more aware of the superior position of the Common Law and Jury of peers to the various regulations the government bought in to contravene fundamental principles of liberty in the Uk.
Trans rights do not exist, and strictly speaking, nor do any rights created by any government.
These so called rights are not inalienable and fovernments breach them daily.
They are not worth the paper they are written on unless a sovereign state can use them to justify prosecuting the claims they contain in an international court.
The USA is not a signatory to the Internation Court of Justice further makung "rights" more of a toothless tiger.
Can't hear it.
In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound. Please check it out, the lecture is very much worth hearing!
would like to hear the talk but with volumes at MAX I could not hear anything
(20.10) and these sole overriding identities are walking along the path constructed by others, into a building constructed by others, eating the food grown, harvested, sold and cooked by others. These extreme individualists who consider that their own identity is more important than that of all others needs to consider these facts and try to explain them.
I couldn’t hear it 😔
I've long been of the view that identity politics (IdPol) - of which gender identity ideology (GII) is a part - is fundamentally not an ideology that sits comfortably with the old communitarian Left. Although it categorises people in often coercive ways, - as unarguably an authoritarian, communal Left traditionally has in many respects - the emphasis on self-identity within the ideology is individualistic, and more traditionally associated with the Right, with consumerism, and neo-liberalism, for example. IdPol has been called - I forget by whom - the left-wing of neo-liberalism. It's perhaps odd, then, that IdPol and GII has been taken up by people who 'identify' themselves as being Leftists, and that some people even argue that it derives from Marxism. Clearly, a lot of the old terms that we were comfortable with have been successfully 'queered', and some philosophies have been so bastardised that they now represent ideas 180 degrees from their roots. As someone approaching sixty who has been politically active and read widely in the history of political ideas over the last forty years, I am barely able to maintain a clear sense all of these fluid definitions and their developments. I dread to think how future historians and politicians - the latter never the sharpest tools in the box, or caring very much about truth, in any case - will navigate the categorical mess that our culture has become.
Children have always been their target.
Lesbians were the first target - as Helen Joyce says with ref to dating pool invasion by transwomen, aka the cotton ceiling problem.
Really poor sound, will have to save for a headphone session later
In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound. Please check it out, the lecture is very much worth hearing!
I disagree that liberalism is rights based. English Common Law assumes nobody has a right to tresspass on other peoples liberty.
Common Law uses judicial precedent to determine where a reasonable compromise, reconciliation or accomodation between competing interests lie.
European Liberalism is very different from English Liberalism.
It assumes "rights" can be awarded and denied via statute and resolution. A state can "create" a "right" to something AND by repealing an act deny that same "right".
Common law based jurisdictions (the USA and Commonwealth countries) have only adopted "rights" as a principle when it subscribes to an international (UN) resolution or foreign "rights" court as a place of arbitration.
A foolish thing to do, since it obscures the individual's sovereignty.
Validating "rights" establish by foreign jurisdictions is something the UK only started doing since the second world war.
Note how the articles of the Nürmberg Resolution on Human Rights (medication by coercion and without informed consent) was completely ignored eithout reprocussion when Covid arrived?
Common law holds that the so called "mandates" were and still are unlawful.
Audio levels 😮
Volume too low.
8:03 😢
Sound. Needs editing just too low 😑
Low volume !
VOLUME TOOO LOW. CANT HEAR THE VIDEO.
Looks Like Helen Joyce has stumbled upon the thesis of Thomas Sowell's 1987 book "A Conflict of Visions". Is there anything Sowell hasn't predicted?
Can hear a word of this video. Volume so bad
Audio is bad
In the description box there's a link to a version with decent sound. Please check it out, the lecture is very much worth hearing!
Misery loves company. If they get some kids, they are less alone.
What would happen when Russouians encounter Category Theory?
why go after anyone?
Great speaker! (but poor speakers...)
Was James Lindsay one of the philosophers?