What is it about Helen Joyce?

Catching up with Peter Boghossian’s interview with Helen Joyce on YouTube today, I learned that Jordan Peterson’s video of his own conversation with Helen had recently been removed by YouTube for supposedly being in breach of their rules against hate speech though, contrary to what Boghossian asserted, it only merited a warning, not a strike. I understand that YouTube’s policy is one strike means you won’t be able to do things like upload, post, or live-stream for a week – which is surely no great hardship to most YouTubers. But getting three strikes within a 90-day period results in a permanent ban.

Hearing that Peterson’s video has been removed reminded me that, of the dozens of videos I have posted since I started making them regularly three years ago, the one that YouTube removed without explanation or hope of getting the decision reversed, was also one about Helen Joyce I uploaded last year. It was removed for the same supposed reason.

Another of my videos, removed by YouTube after a bullying campaign against me by Class War activists because it supposedly breached some privacy rule, I was able to re-upload with minor amendments – specifically by disguising the identity of the bully-in-chief, Helen Parsons.

My more recently banned video – which was about Helen being defamed by the gender loonies – was removed back in April this year. The email notifying me says:

Having read their policy and reassuring myself that the video in question was no different from any other video I’ve posted and in none of them do I glorify or incite violence against anyone or encourage hatred based on anyone’s member of a protected group, I appealed.

Both the content and the speed of the response – literally a matter of minutes – made me laugh. It says:

YouTube is quite obviously not a safe place for all in the way that YouTube means it. Gender ideologues are allowed to publish videos lying about and abusing those of who challenge the dangerous misinformation that they also spread with impunity, while our videos are constantly targeted by members of their tribe. I’ve lost count of the number of comments that have appeared below my videos smugly telling me that they’ve reported my entire channel for “hate”, which is why I also keep a copy of the automated transcript of each video, in case I ever need it to challenge what is said about any video in the event of its removal.

What I did immediately after having my Helen video removed was get an Odysee account and upload it there. Now all of the videos I upload to YouTube are automatically backed up to Odysee.

I remain mystified as to why complaints about both Jordan Peterson’s and my own videos about Helen Joyce were successful when so many other complaints have failed. Helen is one of the high-profile feminists whose views on transgenderism I feel most aligned with. I really don’t recall a single thing she has said that I disagree with including, by the way, her recent outspoken condemnation of the “pronoun police”, which attracted much anger from other feminists. As I said in her defence on Twitter, she was not saying anyone has to use the pronouns trans-identifying people choose – she doesn’t do so herself! She was saying she hates people’s speech being policed in the rude and sanctimonious way people tend to do it. I have said myself elsewhere that I don’t think it’s a constructive way of carrying on because it gets up people’s noses and makes them dig their heels in.

Anyway, I think there are good reasons why the enemy recognise Helen as an exceptional foe, which is why they went completely nuts over her saying we need to see fewer people transitioning and why they seized upon that statement in order to misrepresent her in the nastiest way imaginable. That is what my video is about. It can be viewed on Odysee here. This is the transcript.

The vile defamation of Helen Joyce

One of the tactics of the gender nutters is to take what someone says – usually someone relatively high profile and whom the nutters consider to be a danger to them because of how they are successfully challenging their nonsense – and to lie about it.  To lie about what that person said in order to try to denigrate the character of the person and to attribute to them beliefs they don’t hold so that they can discourage people from wanting to hear what she or he has to say, stop people reading their articles, buying their book or whatever.

The latest victim of this tactic that I’m aware of is Helen Joyce. For those who don’t know her – and I’m assuming some of my newer subscribers from outside of the UK who haven’t been too immersed in this subject, might not have heard of her – Helen Joyce is the author of, Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality, which is one of the best books I’ve read on this topic and I’ve read a lot.

I don’t have to say much about Helen Joyce as a person. She is an Irish-born journalist of above-average education – she has a PhD in Maths, she has a Wikipedia page and her own website, where you can find out more about her, or you can take my word that she is a brilliant, accomplished woman with strong feminist views. And there is no evidence whatsoever that she subscribes to eugenics.  Yes, seriously. Eugenics… which, as I’m sure you know, refers to the theory that humankind can be improved mentally and physically through selective breeding – even selective infanticide.  It is not the same as genocide, though they are connected in that both are used for the same unethical objective of controlling human populations. Both were used by the Third Reich.

There is a lot wrong with the theory of eugenics scientifically as well – of course – as ethically but we don’t need to go there. Suffice it to say that advocating eugenics is a pretty vile thing to falsely accuse someone of doing and yet people are still doing it even two months after Helen made the “offending” remarks – by which I mean a few sentences that ostensibly hurt the fragile egos of the cultists but which was probably more a case of them rubbing their hands in glee as they saw an argument they could misrepresent and expect people not to notice.

I was aware of it when it happened but I only realised it was still going on when a video by that buffoon, Vaush, turned up in my feed. I watched a bit of his video and it’s like everything else he does, a load of crap that I couldn’t be bothered to take down but I did look elsewhere and what I saw has made me very angry so this is another unplanned reaction video.

Try entering Helen’s name and the word ‘eugenics’ into the Twitter search function. These are just a tiny fraction of the results.

So what exactly did Helen say? She made the remarks on Helen Staniland’s youtube show, ‘Wine with Women, episode 4. For context, Helen Joyce has just said that if we are to defeat gender ideology and the terrible effects it is having, we no longer need to raise awareness because enough people know about it. What we need to do is get through to the decision-makers and then she says this:

This sentence alone made the cultists apoplectic. I mean look at this idiot:

While this guy comes across as incredibly stupid, I think his comment gets to the heart of what we disagree over and by ‘we’ I mean gender cultists on the one hand – and they do not include all trans-identifying people, many of whom are perfectly honest and don’t go along with gender ideology – and, on the other hand, people who fall under the gender critical umbrella and believe people should be free to express themselves as they like without ascribing to regressive stereotypes and without expecting to access the rights of the other sex.

Anyway, by using the phrase ‘natural, human diversity’ this man is trying to present transgenderism as something like homosexuality, as something natural and innate, rather than as a symptom of a mental health problem or a psychological disorder, a paraphilia or a temporary trend spread by social contagion.

It is the same desperation that has made them cling to the false idea of transgender brains and misreport various studies that have been carried out. They want to be recognised as a marginalised group on a par with gay men and lesbians, people with disabilities, ethnic and religious minorities.

And it is important to challenge this view because it is false. Homosexuals, black and brown people living in majority-white countries, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc, and atheists living in majority-Christian countries, never asked anyone to pretend that they are anything other than what they are, never demanded that we redefine the meanings of everyday words, never tried to access the sex-based rights and protections of the other sex. All marginalised groups want is access to the same rights as anyone else and not to be discriminated against because of what they are.

Legally, in the UK we all now have the same rights as everyone else. That doesn’t mean that prejudice has been eliminated, that there isn’t still racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, sexism and disregard for people with special needs. Having the legislation – for all its faults – in place, it can still be hard to combat individual prejudice and get people to modify their views and behaviour but, by god, the trans lobby try harder than anyone else and apparently feel no compunction about impinging on other people’s rights in the process.

It is perfectly possible to show compassion to people who suffer from distress about their sex and want to present as the other sex – or as neither sex – without going along with a harmful falsehood.

Do I really need to give examples of the kinds of harm being caused? I won’t in this video because I have done so in numerous others and have a whole website at peaktrans.org full of examples. Please do not post comments asking me to be specific until you’ve done some research using the resources I have helpfully provided.

OK to go back to Helen’s comment. Remember: eugenics is about improving the gene pool. She said, “we have to try to limit the harm and that means reducing or keeping down the number of people who transition.”

In other words, keep down the number of people who take a particular course of action, which has nothing to do with genes and some of whom will live to regret their action and do what they can to reverse it. Transgenderism is not an inherited condition, so it is a very blatant misuse of the word ‘eugenics’ to suggest that trying to stop people from taking steps that are – to a considerable degree – irreversible, is akin to eugenics.

It’s more like saying we have to try to limit the number of children who become obese, the number of people who become anorexic or bulimic, who suffer from depression or anxiety, people who get addicted to tranquilisers or any other drugs.  Because of the harm caused to themselves and others, we want fewer drug addicts. That doesn’t mean we want to kill them and the cultists damn well know it.

In the next bit, Helen gives her reasons for wanting fewer people to transition, so we’ll listen to the whole lot now.

So she gives two reasons why we must strive to reduce the number of people who go down the route of transitioning. The first one is that every one of them has been damaged. This sounds harsh but if you are objective and truthful, how can you see it any other way?

Physically healthy people – some of them very young – have turned themselves or, in the cases of the very young, been turned into medical patients for the rest of their lives. And the second reason is that this will impact lots of other people in their lives – again see my website for details – as well as being a drain on healthcare resources that should be spent on people who are sick and disabled through no fault of their own and that includes people who feel they can’t come to terms with their sex.

In most cases, I believe, they need mental health services, not hormones, not surgery.

Talking of disabled, look at this idiot selectively quoting Helen and saying,

She’s literally advocating eugenics, is she? Dear god, indeed. How can you live with yourself being such an unashamed liar and ignoramus? Look up the word ‘eugenics’, you muppet! It gets worse:

Eugenics speech?? What? Oh, this is just unconscionable. Note that she is going that much further by introducing the idea that Helen could have said the same thing about disabled people. But she didn’t, did she? This is a deliberate attempt to manipulate people’s thinking.

It would, of course, be a perfectly reasonable thing to say that we need to reduce the number of people who become disabled through accidents and misfortune. In fact, people have been saying that for a very long time. That is why we have health and safety regulations, building regulations, seat-belt laws, safety standards on equipment, etc.

The goes same for mental illnesses. We need to reduce the number of mental health patients. How do we stop people from becoming mentally ill in the first place? It’s a huge area of ongoing research and, of course, nobody suggests that wanting to reduce the number of people suffering in this way has anything to do with eugenics or genocide.

Right. I know that King Critical did a video on this very same subject just after it blew up and it’s great. I recommend it. He uses a really good analogy with religion. I think of belief in gender identity as similar to belief in religion or horoscopes or something. Beliefs are not genetic. Michael (aka King Critical) is a Christian and he said that if, say, Richard Dawkins had said people who hold Christian beliefs are a problem for a sane world, he would certainly disagree with that statement and he would probably think that Dawkins is misrepresenting Christianity and being unfair to it but:

Thank you, Michael. Of course, the reason Michael says this is because he is very much part of the sane world while the gender nutters making these wild accusations aren’t.

The worst comment of all, in my opinion, came from Sally Hines, partly because of who she is – a university professor. She said:

How did this moron get to be a university professor?  People get banned from Twitter for correctly sexing people but someone of considerable influence within the gender cult can get away with defaming someone. It’s disgusting.

Basically, all of these detractors are saying that it’s disgraceful to want there to be fewer children on potentially very harmful drugs and having surgeries that will cause infertility and a range of problems in the future. These are the same people who call therapeutic approaches aimed at making people feel comfortable with their sexed bodies, ‘conversion therapy’.’

It is so twisted and sinister and I despair. But…that’s trans activism. That’s all. Thanks for watching. Bye

Published 05.07.23

To receive email notifications of future blogs at Peakers Corner, please subscribe. See top of right-hand column.

Follow me on Twitter @MPMacLachlan

Subscribe to my YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/c/PeakTrans