The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 379. Sex Matters | Helen Joyce

Episode Date: August 10, 2023

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and Helen Joyce discuss the takedown of their last interview on youtube, the true tradition of women’s rights, and the harsh reality of what women stand to lose today. Helen Joyce is an Irish novelist and journalist, acting as the executive editor for events and business at the Economist in London. Before this, she trained as a mathematician, graduating from the Trinity College in Dublin, before attending Cambridge. She then acquired a PhD in geometric measure theory at the University College London. She has held many roles as a journalist, working for PLUS Magazine and Significance Magazine, both of which have an emphasis on communicating complex math and statistics to the everyday reader. Later, she would spend three years as the Economist’s foreign correspondent to Brazil, living in São Paulo. In 2018, Joyce curated a series of articles on transgender identity, which led her to author the Sunday Times bestselling book, “Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality.” - Links - For Helen Joyce: On Twitter @HJoyceGender https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender Newsletter https://www.thehelenjoyce.com/ Help support Sex Matters https://sex-matters.org/ Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality (Book) https://www.amazon.com/Trans-When-Ideology-Meets-Reality/dp/0861540492 

Hello everyone, watching and listening. Today, I'm speaking once again, despite the best efforts of YouTube's sensors to to author journalist and biological women's rights advocate, Helen Joyce, we discuss the much delayed censorship of our last interview on this channel, our joint efforts at resisting the ideology that motivates such silencing, the genuine UK tradition of natural rights, and the harsh reality of what women and men both stand to lose on the tyranny and falsehood front today. And we do more than touch on the great adventure of the truth. Well, it's good to see you again. And it's interesting that we get to talk here once again for whatever the hell good that's going to do just after YouTube pulled our last discussion, which was

actually quite shocking to me, because YouTube has left me alone until now. But they've taken down three of my podcasts in the last month, Matt Walsh on the Transfront, because I talked to him about what is a woman, Robert F. Kennedy, which actually shocked the hell out of me because he's running an active presidential campaign, and the fact that a bunch of backroom half-wit trans radical activists or their equivalent would dare to interfere with an ongoing presidential campaign, especially given that he's a lead Democrat contender, just beggars my imagination.

I can't believe we're in that situation. And then they took down my conversation with you. And you know, you're completely reprehensible. You know, you were just an economist, journalist, for years, and that is hardly anything respectable about that. And so if this is the situation we're in, it's a pretty bloody

sorry state of affairs. That's for sure. And YouTube is particularly terrifying entity in some ways because it is the world's number one broadcast network and it's transnational. And so it's beholden to no master except whatever idiot ideology happens to grip the imagination of the half-witch censors operating behind the scenes. So anyways, what do you think about the YouTube cancellation? It was like a year after we had our conversation, too, or more. Exactly. I mean, people had listened to it already.

Many, many of them. I wonder why the complaints had suddenly appeared at that point. And I understand they didn't say exactly what we had said was hateful, but I'm guessing that it was to do with referring to Ellen Slashelia Page as a woman and she, her. So I think that shows how the creeping idea of hate speech and hate is a free standing floating signifier as opposed to being an aggravator to something

that is already a crime, is colliding with the idea that referring to people's sex is a hateful thing to do if they don't want you to. And suddenly we're in a situation where making totally straightforward factual statements is something that can get you censored and possibly even convicted for a crime. Yeah, well, let's walk, let's down walk down that, that delightful route. So I've been watching to the degree that is possible. The events unfolding in Ireland, I mean, this is wonderful to see this happening in the UK. That's really, that's really something to, to be terrified of. And so back in 2016, I burst onto the political scene, so to speak, as a

consequence of objecting to this bill, C-16 in Canada, which was the first bill that I could see in a English common law derived society that mandated the content of private speech, right? You could do that to some degree on the commercial front. And this was despite the fact that the American Supreme Court in 1942, I think it was 1942, made it unconstitutional to do so in the U.S. I thought, well, there's no way I'm letting, especially the Trudeau Liberals, have control over my tongue, and I don't give a bloody god damn what the reason is. Because it's always some faux compassionate, we're caring for the oppressed lie to accrue power to the tyrants. And the legal experts, I debated at that point, said, oh, well, you know, it'll never come to jail or prison, and this won't go any farther, and you're just being impolite, and all that complete nonsense, and here we are.

So what's happening in Ireland? We're trying to pass a law that creates a stand-alone offensive hate. Hate is undefined in it. It is anything that is regarded as offensive, I mean, as far as we can tell, offensive by people who have certain protected characteristics, and it's added gender identity to the list of protected characteristics, which it defines circularly, your gender identity as your gender identity padded out of it. And then it does a bunch of other really terrifying things like, you have to just possess the

material. If you possess the material, the assumption is that you want to spread it. And it's up to you to show that you don't intend to spread it. Right, so just have something on your computer. The assumption of guilt. Yeah, yeah, so it's up to you to say, but I mean, if you're writing a book, obviously the intention is to spread it. And there's a carve out for works of,

I forget the exact wording, but it's basically legitimate artistic or scientific merit. Oh yeah, and who's going to decide that? Exactly, exactly. I mean, the same people who don't want me saying that Ellen Page is a woman are the same people who say that saying that as Nazism. So they're hardly going to say that it's

legitimate scientific or artistic merit to say that. And then there's a bunch of other bad things about it, like it specifically says that having it on servers could be cool. And Ireland is this major offshore sort of center for a bunch of the world's social media companies. I mean, lots of places are headquartered there or keep their servers there for tax reasons. And then when you say something like, well, what about just misgendering? Could that be hateful? They'll say, oh, no, no, don't be silly. That know, that won't be. But I mean, it is on the face of it, something that people can complain about.

And when we're both not... No, we'll complain about absolutely one hundred. Absolutely. Well, the activist types know perfectly well how to weaponize investigative boards. I mean, the Canadian college or Ontario College of Psychologists has gone after me in Ontario, trying to strip me of my license because half-wit activist narcissists types all around the world have used their email or their online system to complain about me doing such things as poking fun in a relatively, you know, what would you say? Aggressive manner at Trudeau and his former chief of staff and an Ontario City counselor. at Trudeau and his former chief of staff and an Ontario City Councilor. And in terms of specifying exactly what the nature of the offense is,

you mentioned that on YouTube. No one does that. One of the bloody complainants submitted the entire transcript of my three-hour discussion with Joe Rogan as evidence for my, I think, on that particular, I was complaining about these idiot climate models that equally idiot economists then build shaky forecasts on top of. And I was pointing out the absolute bloody genocidal stupidity of that. And apparently that's also a crime against my profession, which I am apparently bringing into disgrace. So that's all unfolding in Canada at the moment.

So they don't seem to understand anything about the chilling effect. Like, so they're like, don't worry, that won't be covered. But how can you not worry? You know, okay, I'm now all in. I've decided that this is what I've talked and write about, and that's the decision I made. But most people are not in that situation. Most people are getting on with a different job.

They're teachers or their nurses, or, you know, they go into an office every day. And they can't afford to take the risk of saying something that just might be reported to a whole point. Yeah. And then get a message that they don't understand. They don't. It isn't that they don't understand the chilling effect.

It's bloody well 100% that the chilling effect is the point. Exactly. Look, there is a burgeoning literature. There's 10 studies now, 10 studies on the structure of left-wing authoritarianism. Yeah, psychological studies. So the first finding which is finding my lab generated in 2016 was that there was a coherent set of beliefs that look progressive on the political front, but that are allied with the willingness to use fear, compulsion, and force to impose them. And that's left-wing authoritarianism,

as opposed to just your standard left-wing political belief. And then we looked at what predicted that from a psychological perspective. Okay, so the biggest predictor was low verbal intelligence. And it was a walloping correlate, right? So when you say, well, how can people be foolish enough to stupid enough, let's say to buy these ideas? The answer is, well, you know, if you're not that bright and someone hands you a one-size-fits-all and explains everything explanation, it's all power. Well, then, first of all, that's very attractive

because it's simple, but also you don't have the critical faculties to think it through. The next best predictor was being female. The next best predictor was having a female temperament over and above being female. And since then, there's been accruing studies. And the most terrifying of which was published in the last year, showing that you can predict left-wing authoritarian beliefs using dark tetrad personality traits, psychopathy, macchi-evalianism, narcissism, and they had to add sadism to it because the first three weren't enough. And the correlation between those traits and that left-wing authoritarianism is so high that they're almost indistinguishable on the measurement front.

So this isn't a political issue. This is an attempt by narcissistic psychopaths to use compassion to mask their all-out grip on power. It's really what it is. And they're enabled by social media. It's really not good. Yeah, so when I went to Ireland a couple of weeks ago, and I addressed a meeting called at the Shanners, the Center for the Upper House, and about four or five senators came and various journalists and I addressed a meeting called at the Shanners, the Centre for the Upper House.

And about four or five Senators came and various journalists and so on. And one of the Senators who came, a woman called Eileen Flynn, she had to leave halfway through, but she was there afterwards. And she talked to me and she said, I haven't read your book, but I've heard that, you know, it's well written and I must have a look at it. And then she went into the session of the Shanners that evening and said that she'd had to walk out because so much hate was being spewed in this meeting. It was me and a barrister, an Irish barrister and an Irish woman who is doing a lot of campaigning,

John Esbert and Lorcan Price. And so I don't know which bit she thought was so hateful, but I did take the opportunity to say I'm going to say some things that I think are now going to be criminalised, for example, that there are already two sexes and that you can't change sex. So I thought it was extraordinary that somebody would then straight away afterwards, in a meeting that was dominated by the Justice Minister, Helen McIntee, saying, we are not going to criminalise saying these things. That this woman then stood up and said, I was at a meeting where somebody said these things and I felt I had to leave because there was so much hate.

Like it kind of gives it away, doesn't it? And then, you know, there's been remarkably little commentary, remarkably little commentary in Ireland. The Irish Times, they've only done an op-ed on it, and this op-ed was Great Law. You could just add a definition of hate, and that would make it perfect. Say, well, why would journalists stand up for free speech? I mean, that used to be the scenic one, none of the profession. It really used to be, but this was actually written by an academic, this op-ed, but it

was pathetic. It was absolutely pathetic. And he came to this meeting and just sat there and listened to me saying, look, these are the things that I will be reported for. And by the way, this is all constitutional. Why shouldn't why shouldn't view of this program? I mean, we know I'm already beyond redemption. So there's no sense focusing on me.

But why should someone who's watching or listening to this video not assume that you are precisely the sort of hateful, you know, bigot that these well-meaning people in Ireland are only trying to protect the oppressed from. You know, like, if I'm, I might as well push you because we might as well establish this. It's like, what makes your position on this credible? And like, why aren't, why aren't you the sort of person who could be criticized by the leftists in the following manner? It's like, well, you're white, you're privileged.

You've got a posh accent, although I wouldn't know that because every accent, British accent, sounds posh to like, what we call it. To Irish people, I sound really posh. I think it's a posh. Yes, exactly, exactly. So I picked up, I picked up a lot of English. You're using your freedom of speech, which really doesn't exist, just the buttress of your

position, the power hierarchy, and you don't mind tromping around oppressing people, especially those who are truly on the margin, like those confused about their sexual identity, or even worse trapped in the wrong body. And so why aren't you exactly the sort of hateful bigot whose views should be suppressed, given your pension for what the UN now calls symbolic violence? I mean, it's a great question because that's, I mean, you've perfectly laid out their argument for doing it, that there are people who are oppressed or who are minorized in the jargon and that if we allow people to say

what they like about those people, then those people will be harmed. So I mean, I basically I'm never interviewed in Ireland and mentioned, I mean, I am Irish, I'm from Dublin, although I know I sound quite English, I've lived in England for a long time. And normally Irish girl goes a broad rights book that does well, gets on, you know, Sunday Times bestseller list, they interview you, like in Ireland, like you're a big cheese then. So it's really strange that I haven't been on the national broadcaster or in the Irish Times. Anyway, I got invited on a community radio station last week and the interviewer said to me, you know, we've got a lot of immigration now, we've

really large amounts of numbers of people coming from Ukraine, you know, from the Middle East, you know, Ireland is still East, you know, are they're still open to immigration from all over the EU and there's a lot of tensions. So, isn't it really important that we stop people from being insulting about these people? And, you know, I've just lived through Brexit and I've seen what happens when you stop people from saying what they think about political developments for a significant amount of time and it isn't that they come around to being right thinkers, according to the people who are stopping them. It's that it

builds up and then it breaks out. So I actually think it's even more important that Irish people are allowed to say what they think about large amounts of immigration. I mean, it's a limit democracy for a start, but also you need to be able to say what you think in order that the country can stay together, rather than have people feeling resentful and silenced and then taking it out by voting for people who I genuinely would think are extreme. So that's one art. Well, you also need to let people say what they... First of all, you need to let people say what they think so they can think because most people think by talking and

all of us think by listening because then we get exposed to what other people think and have more than one brain to rely on and So it isn't that free speech is just another hedonic right It's actually the process by which we transform our adaptation and renew the state And so it's actually the lynch pin of transform our adaptation and renew the state. And so it's actually the linchpin of any healthy, psyche and polity. So it's not merely a matter of, you know, people having, well, what would you say, the right to go to hell in whatever hand basket they choose and to mouth off, but it's also the case, you know, that you want everyone to be allowed to speak freely so you can see

what the hell they're up to, because if you drive, let's say, people whose views are somewhat warped underground, all that happens is that those views fester and spread and deteriorate into a bitter kind of resentment and then explode into violence, which is what the bloody leftist radicals want anyways, because they thrive in that environment. bloody leftist radicals want anyways because they thrive in that environment. Yeah, and you also, it shows a profound lack of confidence in your own ability to state your case. You know, if the Irish government is so sure that the levels of immigration are right, and this and I'm not taking a position on that, I don't tend to comment on things that are outside

of my area of expertise. I really don't know whether what they're doing is the right policy, but they should be able to defend it. They should be able to tell voters this is why we're doing it. This is why we think it's good. These are the things we wade up against each other. These are the downsides. These are why we think the upsides are more important. If they can't do that, it shouldn't be their policy. And so, yeah, the thinking allowed thing is very important. Like, when you think allowed, like when thinking is allowed, you have to think allowed. Like, I can't just do it by writing. I have to have discussions with people. Then what I said when I talked to the senators was that there's a bunch of things that I very urgently need to say,

especially in Ireland, where gender self-ID has been the law since 2015, and where we're seeing extraordinary capture of education, so that children are really going from having them brought up in quite a small sea conservative system where you know change was slow like when I was smaller we looked at England and saw oh they're bringing in you know radical changes to the way they teach and we didn't do that in Ireland we just went slower and we were very much better for it. But now in Ireland they're teaching children like the most radical version of gender ideology. You know, real, full-blown sexist spectrum.

You see, you know, it's bigger tree to say there are boys and girls type stuff. And they're thinking of making that much more of the case. And that's what we know causes gender dysphoria. We know it makes children distressed. We know that it leads them to transition. And we know that if they medically transition young, they will be medicalized for life, they will be sterile. They will have their sexuality destroyed, anal gas mix.

These are incredibly important things to say because actually we're looking at an unfolding medical scandal. So I say, you know, in not to be sterilized, enforced sterilization, by the way, is a crime against humanity by the organization definition, right? Yeah. Yeah. That's where I think we're out, you know. And I wrote a telegraph article about this about eight months ago, something like that, calling for the imprisonment of the butchers who are performing this surgery. But I failed to see altogether how this doesn't qualify as a crime against humanity.

Because if it's miners who are being subjected to this, I cannot in the least see how it is that that isn't being enforced. Because if you're a miner, you are under the dominion of your idiot lying therapists, all of whom who if qualified know that every single bit of the gender affirming nonsense is not only a lie, but a truly unethical lie. You know, as a psychologist, you are a duty bound by the ethical codes of your profession, not to rely on simple self-report as a diagnostic marker.

You are bound to use multiple measures to specify diagnosis, and you can be called for professional misconduct if you don't do so. And the American Psychological Association has not rescinded those guidelines and simultaneously now insists that you have to abide by self-description. Now, obviously you can't do that because an anorexic is going to describe herself as too thin and how the hell you're supposed to make the distinction between an invalid claim of self-identity and a valid claim of self identity. Well, the answer to that from the radicals is see in court, buddy, and make sure you don't fall prey of our idiot

regulations, idiot internally inconsistent, reprehensible, and self aggrandizing regulations. It's all sitting in his barely to enter the fray. And it's also linguistic. I think, you know, it's not by coincidence that the same people want to push self ID and want to police people's speech. Because when you look at what it means to identify as something, it is a linguistic thing. Like they've stripped out even the things that the old style transexuals would have done, which involved surgery or dress clothing,

when we had more rules about how people dressed, there's nothing left now except the simple statement that you are a member of the opposite sex. And it's regarded as gender policing, if you say it should be anything more than that. So if a person is able to say, I am a man, I am non-binary, and that brings that state into being,

just by the linguistic utterance. It's essential to shut up everybody else because when they speak, they create a reality, like if you're in this, in this place where words create reality. And it's like a parasite that's come in and taken over an older idea of what human rights are about, which is a more about coexistence and rights can collide and sometimes you know one person's right to privacy impacts on another person's right to speech and we have to think about it and weigh them

up and everybody try and work out what the best way forward is but this has snuck in because there is no way of comparing you know my right to say I am immortal I am an animal you know I am a man with of comparing my right to say, I am immortal, I am an animal, I am a man with somebody else's right to say, well, that's not what I see, and that's not the sort of species that humans are. And those claims are not the sort of claims that have any evidence behind them. The things are in commensurate, and one side just has to shut the other up. Carl Jung back and just after the Second World War, I think, said that the logical conclusion

of the Protestant revolution would be that everyone was their own church. And we see this abetted by the humanists, I would say, particularly on the psychological side, that the self, the self-determining self now is the omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent onlooker. And the trans activist types, the ones who proclaim self-identity say exactly the same thing to everyone that God said to Moses, which is, I am that I am. I'm the thing that defines itself. And so we're seeing a quasi, we're seeing a religious transformation with the elevation

of the self to the highest position. And then this accompanying insistence that you pointed out that no one has allowed to challenge that, because of course that's a challenge to this central, what this central spirit of predominance, that's exactly what it is. You know, and what's appalling about this from a psychological

perspective, and this is also why I'm appalled at my, at the infinite legions of cowardly therapists, especially psychologists who are betting this, is that every bloody psychologist worth his salt knows that from at the transition from the age of two to the age of three. You move from subjective self-identification, which is like the rampaging two-year-olds proclamation that what he or she wants right now is what's going to happen or else, to the state of negotiated identity, which is the state of play,

where if you wanna make a friend, you have to decide to meet in the reciprocal middle. And children who are incapable of that become alienated and miserable for the rest of their life and tend to drift off into anti-social behavior and it's accompanying tantrums. And all the lying psychologists who are abetting this self-identification frenzy are foregoing their elementary knowledge of developmental psychology and insisting that subjective self identification is actually what an appropriate social tactic and as well as an unhearing diagnostic marker.

I am so embarrassed for my profession. The only thing that could possibly be worse for me as far as I'm concerned in terms of shame is being a former faculty member or potentially a member of the surgical college, because the therapists are lying, but the sadistic surgeons are butchering, and that's actually even worse. And by the way, among surgeons, psychopaths and sadists are overrepresented. That's a nice little fact just to throw into the fray. And you know, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out because if you tend to be particularly empathetic, let's say you're going to end up as a family doctor or a psychiatrist, not as a someone who is willing to draw blood.

And I'm certainly not saying that every surgeon falls into that category, but I'm saying that if you do fall into that category, surgery, beckons, just the same way, be in a boy scout leader, beckons to the pedophiles. Yes, yes. And the other thing that happens in the medical front is that there's a distributed chain of responsibility. And when everybody's responsible, nobody's responsible. Like, you know, in comes a kid who's unhappy and the gender, the GP, the family doctor,

that person doesn't sterilize this kid, they just refer. And the gender clinic looks and they diagnose gender dysphoria, but they don't sterilize, they refer to an endocrinologist. Well, the endocrinologist doesn't create the definition of gender dysphoria. You know, the gender, the endocrinologist just checks that you have got diabetes and your weight isn't a normal level or whatever, and they prescribe you maybe puberty blockers across six hormones, but they didn't diagnose you. They were told that you were the right person for this, and then they refer to a surgeon. And the surgeon is at the end of that chain, and I agree with you, anyone who cuts off a child's genitals or who cuts off the genitals of somebody who

was gender distressed during their childhood and has now arrived at adulthood, that person is doing a really truly terrible thing. The only thing that I can see that there's any mitigation is they didn't make that decision. There were at least three or four other people before them who were meant to have said that this is the right child, so nobody sterilized the child, but now the child is sterile. You've put your finger on the underground rationale for the collectivization of responsibility, because if you distribute it as, and this is a well-known social psychological phenomena, if you distribute responsibility in that fashion, everybody steps away from the plate.

And so if you're particularly manipulative, you figure that out and you can use it to further your own dark agenda. Now you did a pretty good job of defending free speech. I would say when I pushed you on the question, but I don't think you did a very good job of defending yourself as a credible, say, commentator. So why don't you just walk people through a little bit about your history and why it is that you shouldn't be regarded as what would we say a right-wing conspiratorial, anti-oppressed person bigot. I mean, I'd take two parts to that, and one is that I think that

that there's two, we jump too easily to saying this person's speech is suspect because they're right-wing or they're religious. Now obviously there's far right and there's crank religious, but loads of people are right-wing and loads of people are religious and they've every bit as much right to say what they think as other people do. So I'm not willing to just answer as saying that as it happens I'm not right-wing, I'm not, I'm pretty centrist, I'm also not religious, those things are true. But I don't think that somebody who's sitting here in front of you is saying, you know, I'm right-wing and I'm evangelical and this is what I think.

They've got everybody as much right as I do to speak. So that's the first thing. But the second thing is, I'm just a very establishment person who's saying a very ordinary thing. You know, I'm saying what most parents would say, which is that children don't know their own minds and need to be protected by the people who know and love them until their adults. And sometimes that will involve saying to the child, no, I don't agree with you. I think you've got to wait. I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. I think that you're being over influenced by your friends. I mean, my mother would have said, if

everyone else is going to run off the cliff or you're going to run off the cliff. Like, no, no, no, no, you protect your children. You wait. Most people feel like that. And then also the things that I'm saying, like, God, I could have so much more out their opinions than that there are two sexes and that you can't change sex and that in some circumstances you have to pay attention to what sex people are when you make decisions about your own life. Like when I go into a space that's meant to be female only and there's a male person in there, this impacts on me.

It doesn't just impact on him, it impacts on me. And what is the impact exactly? I mean, this is a relatively difficult thing for men to understand, obviously. I mean, if I went into a change room and there was a woman there, you know, I'd wonder what the hell she was doing there. And there'd be a certain degree of perplexity. I'd probably ask her what the held she was doing there. I'd be my guest, but I wouldn't care, you know, but you might be embarrassed. You might be embarrassed. Well, I would be because look at me after all. Yeah, but it's like, suppose, like one of the things that women don't remember about these sort of situations is lots of men are genuinely worried about being put in a situation where there might be false allegations made

against them in fact. Oh, well, yes, well, that's that's definitely well, look on that front, you know, before I left the University of Toronto, my colleagues were advising me that if I ever had an undergraduate female in my office or a female of any sort for that matter, that I was to keep my door open, that that seems to protect me. Yeah, well, that seems a very reasonable thing to do. Well, I mean, it did that much just a reasonable thing to do in this, nobody in the situation, the situation where we are, you know,

but the same girl, if she says she's a boy and she comes into the changing room with the men and she strips off because she's a boy, because there are people that deluded. Like everybody else is in an impossible position. Like I do your meant to pretend that this girl is a boy or you're being put in the position of being a voyeur. It's just bizarre. Funnily enough, and I want to reclaim this word, which is intersectional. Obviously, intersectional is one of those

words that's a big claxon alert idiotic thing is about to be said. But the idea of saying intersectional in the first place was that you would try to think about lots of different sorts of people. So now think about an orthodox Jewish person, an observant Muslim person, a woman who's a survivor of rape or child abuse, a very shy person, somebody who's had the experience of having unjust allegations made against them. There's just a lot of different sorts of people who have also have rights, also have interests, and on occasion we'll want to be in a single sex base when they're vulnerable, when they're sleeping, when they're undressed, when they want to talk about experiences

that are specific to one sex or the other. If you've got a group in an array crisis center where people are talking about their experiences of childhood abuse. Those experiences are very different for boys and girls. You will probably want to have single sex groups. So what under what circumstances do you think that same sex gatherings, let's say, should be permitted or required? Because this is actually a very tricky issue, right? Because my wife and I have talked about this a lot, and she's actually a little harsher on this front than me.

And she thinks that women invaded men's spaces so badly that this is part of the backlash. But underneath that, there's a real complexity, right? Because I might say, well, is it okay for rich men in London to have a men's only private club? Because that's a good question, right? That's a border issue here. And it begs a more sophisticated question bearing on what you described, which is, all right, when is it necessary for the sexist to have their own spaces?

And what are your thoughts about that? Where should we draw the line? Because part of this argument, Culture War, is about where we draw the eternal line. Bathroom seemed at least until recently as what, what, an unquestionable bastion of same sex privacy. But we've obviously blown way past that and made it almost mandatory for that to disappear. Change rooms as well. Riley Gaines, this swimmer, was thrown with all of her compatriots into a change room,

which the bloody NCAA deemed unisex moments before the swim meet in question. They were thrown in there with this six foot two narcissist who claims to be a woman and then were Hillary by the officials and then the university that they came from for being prejudice against poor William. And it's William, by the way, not Leah, because I'm done with that nonsense. So, where do we draw the line as far as you're concerned? I mean, when should the sexes have their own space? So freedom of association is an important right. And if people want single sex faces, like if somebody wants to set up a man-only book group or a woman-only book group, I don't think they should have to explain themselves. I can see the issue with, you know,

dining clubs and so on, where a lot of politics happens and where a lot of power play happens and so on. If you keep women out of those spaces or you were to keep black people out of those spaces, you would be hoarding power. And I genuinely think that's a difficult question in law because it's hard to say of one space, you know, that's where the backroom brokering happens and of another space well, you know, that's harmless. That's just people who have interests in common. And then when it comes to spaces like toilets, I mean, it's amazing how fast people

forget things, but when women started to do factory work during the industrial revolution, there were no single sex toilets. So women had to use the same facilities that men did, which were not exactly sanitary or nice or private. And those became spaces for women experienced a lot of violence, a lot of sexual violence. So women factory girls would go to the toilet in groups and protect each other and watch each other or indeed go out on the street and just rely on the fact that they had big skirts. So that's why women go to the toilet in groups, of course, that's why, because it's not only why, because it's in decent ones, but in decent separate toilets, no, you just go to gossip. But yeah, women would not drink water during the day,

so they didn't have to go to the toilet. So there was actually a decades-long fight to get women's toilets and women's facilities, and in most countries, labor laws will still say that you must have women's toilets in workplaces where they're a woman. And then in sport, it's obvious why you separate the sexes, but actually you can separate the sexes a little bit differently in sport. You can do it as female only and open open because if a woman is, you know, unusually larger, strong or something and she can compete maybe at the lower ranks of the men's divisions, why shouldn't she? It's not a problem for anyone. So you just, you close, you protect one category. It's the same as, you know, 17-year-olds. It's a problem for men. I remember when I was a kid. So there was this girl who fell into the category that you just described.

She was a pretty husky, tough, farm girl. And she was genuinely tough. There were definitely boys that were afraid of her. And I would say that was all boys. And there was a reason for that. The first was, well, she was actually pretty tough. And so if you were playing shini hockey on the street and she gave you a check, you pretty much noticed. And but it was, but there was an additional

complication, which was if she took you out, well, then you were pretty damn pathetic, because you'd been flattened by a girl. But if you fought back, you were even more pathetic because then you fought back with a girl. And so, fought back, you were even more pathetic because then you fought back with a girl. And so, you know, you might promote the open category, but that puts men in a terrible conundrum because there's a real rule for good men. There's a real rule. And the real rule is do not pick on women. Like that's number one rule of good men, right?

And under any circumstances whatsoever, at the cost of your reputation. And so in anything that's got physical violence involved in it, of any sort, that would include rugby, say, or American football and that. You count of the sexist compete because it's not just about strength. It's about things like the way the neck is made,

the thickness of the skull. Women are really not evolved to protect themselves against punches the same way that men are. But in sport more generally, so I actually come from a very sporty family. I have a bunch of very good cricketers as brothers and sisters, and my sisters would play on the boys' team when they were little because there weren't girls' teams. So the girls had to jump from 11 to 15, and there was no under 13s. And I mean, when they were 11, they were teeny tiny. They couldn't be playing with the 15-year-olds.

So they went on to the boys under 13s. And the thing is, the boys then did complain. This is a good, long time ago. They complained because my sisters were so good. And indeed, the girls were taken off. But I mean, this is crickish. There's no genuine complaint. They're, it's just not wanting to lose. So I think you can conceptualize it in like 90-something percent of the cases that the female category is like the under 18 category. A 17-year-old is allowed to compete as an adult, a 19-year-old is not allowed to compete as an adult. Right, right. Yeah, well, it seems like a tentative solution, at least. On the freedom of association front, so what if I said something, you know, rather radical,

let the bigoted half-wits hang out with whoever the hell they want. If people want to set up a man's only corporation, for example, well, have that. You've just cut yourself off from 50% of the talent pool, which probably isn't the wisest move in the world. Maybe even if you want to do that with prejudice in mind on the racial front, you should be allowed to do that too, in the hopes that such behavior would be immediately revealed as self-defeating and eradicate itself from the public commons. Because the alternative, that's the freedom of association argument in some sense, right? You get to hang around

with whoever you want. And the ultimate expression of that, by the way, is sexual Congress, right? Because the most discriminating form of behavior that any of us, every indulgent is on the sexual front, where we discriminate madly on every grounds you can possibly imagine, constantly and in principle to our own advantage with no care whatsoever for the disadvantaged general press, right? And we regard that as a cardinal right. I don't have to sleep with anyone I don't want to or don't want to. It isn't even need. You know, when Huxley's brave new world that went by the wayside and it was a sign of immorality to say no to anyone who asked you

who offered a sexual invitation. Well, we're heading that direction. I mean, there's even a book called The Right to Sex. I mean, there are arguments now about how, say, an ugly or a fat or a disabled or an elderly or a poor man. You know, he's not going to get anyone to sleep without paying. So we have to prostitutes for those men, and well, what if he's poor? Well, then the state has to pay for them. I mean, these arguments are seriously being made in some corners of academia.

And it's easy to brush them off because it's corners of academia, but we have seen what happens when you take casually. I think women- Absolutely. Women should just be required to make themselves available at a moment's notice to everyone who you know. This is the end of that. The end of that.

The end of that. Yeah, it's the end. I think the partial answer to what you're asking might be to think along the lines of Adam Smith who had saw two different spheres and in in the wealth of nations he talked about the invisible hand which governs the market But then he also talked about theory of moral sentiments Which was the the realms where the market didn't go and at the time that was larger than now because it included market didn't go. And at the time that was larger than now, because it included the formation of families. And now with dating apps, you can apply economic arguments to how people

make decisions on dating apps. Like it's a lot more marketised than it was. But there is a realm where the market does not go. And traditionally, we have thought that everything that happens behind your front door is that. Right, right. You don't do care. Yeah, but also with care, like the reason that a child cares for their aging parents isn't because the parents cared for them when they were small. It's not a market exchange. But of course, the market is coming in there.

It's coming into childcare. It's coming into elderly care. And as soon as you do that, the government has opinions about how it's done. Like if the government is providing any of the care, well, the taxpayer has opinions on whether you're a good enough carer or not. So I think we're in a state of flux where we're marketizing a bunch of things that used to live in the theory of moral sentiments realm. And that is part of what we are seeing happening. And I think it's part of the answer to your question,

you know, if something is freedom of association, it's in the non-marketised part. But if what you're talking about is say, how an entirely government-funded operation like the BBC hires, I think that's in the public domain and that might be somewhere that you would have rules that say, this isn't about freedom of association, this is about transparency that you're doing things in the fair and open way, you're advertising all your jobs, that sort of thing. But inside your house, and certainly inside the bedroom, and when it comes to care, those aren't the rules that we play. Yeah, the market exchange, the market, direct market exchange, arguments an interesting one. So if there's direct exchange of money for service, let's say, or goods, then the standard non-pred judicial

rules should apply. Otherwise, it's in the private domain and you can go to hell in a hand basket, whatever you manner you choose. But the exact purpose of rich men having a club that's only for rich men, when we all know that is where the next candidates are going to be chosen for election, and it is where, you know, quiet words will be heard about who's to be the next governor general of the BBC or whatever. That's the genuinely difficult, the edge case, is that theory of moral sentiments or is that wealth of nations? And I don't have a strong, I don't have a guiding principle to say where exactly that border lies just to say that those are difficult questions. But the question of whether you want to undress in front of somebody is not difficult in the same way.

Like women do not have single sex changing rooms in order that we stitch up the world inside that changing room behind that closed door. That is not why we have it. We have it because nearly all of us are in the same way. I know you're in the same way. I'm in those doors. They talk about it as privilege.

Like I've seen white women described as the equivalent of the white women who would have kept black women out when these white women are saying, I'm just keeping men out. Like that's what the standard argument in America that women are arguing for single sex toilets and changing rooms, unlike the bigger-to-d women during Jim Crow who would have kept black women out. Whereas, you know, I don't think women's desire to keep men out of private spaces has anything in common with white people's desire under Jim Crow to keep black people out. It's safety, it's privacy, it's dignity.

But I mean, they will make these arguments explicitly, they will literally compare you to racists. So I think, I mean, the obvious ones for women are privacy, safety, dignity, consent. Like we used to think that consent was a thing. I thought we thought that until about a half a second ago, and a woman who says, you know, I only consent to having say a historyoscopy, which is an operation that does require you to address from the waist down, and does require, you know, more than one person sticking

things up you, and it's, you know, pretty undignified and painful. A woman who says, I will only undergo this with other women, is making a statement about her bodily autonomy and integrity. And a man who says, well, I'm a woman, and therefore I'm entitled to do this, is a man who's overstepping consent in an incredibly rapy way. So it's amazing to me that that man is something to be. Oh, that'll definitely get us kicked off YouTube. Now you've gone and done it.

Yeah, well, I think you're just going to have to put your videos up somewhere else now, aren't you? Yeah. Well, luckily, that is a possibility with Twitter and with Spotify. So far, although YouTube, problem with YouTube is it's the market monster. If you like it, it kills us. They're really trying to kill me. I think they're probably the plan of the radicals who are pushing are pushing this is probably to see if they can take me out. And they're definitely

doing that with everybody who's involved on the daily wear front. I mean, it's to make you an object lesson. It's so that other people, yeah, and just don't even go there. It's the same with JK Rowling, like, you know, she's big enough to defend herself and she has done brilliantly. And so it's own. Yeah. So, no, I think she will really be able to do it because she has, like the Beatles equivalent of Bigger than God, you know? Like she is the author. Yeah, well, there are ways of taking people out

that aren't verbal, you know. That are both, I think, in the final. Yes. But even if we just look at the verbal thing, what they're doing is they're making it so incredibly painful and difficult for her and taking up all her time that anybody who is not at the JK Rowling level thinks, I can't do this.

Which is everyone else in the world, exactly even the Queen of England, let's say I know. Exactly. Yeah, so it's to make everybody else think this, you know, just don't go there. Like I said, I'm always here, I always hear people people saying like, you're very brave to do what you do. I can't do it. And, well, I can see why.

Yeah, well, okay, but let's tell, they're doing the same thing to me in the Canadian front, by the way, with regards to the College of Psychologists. Because the College of Physicians weighed in on the side of the College of Psychologists this week, trying to insist that they had the same ability to regulate their physicians, all of whom are terrified to open their mouth about anything contentious now, by the way, because I've talked to dozens of them, hoping they can make of me an object lesson, which luckily isn't going to be as easy as they first hoped it would be. They've been threatening to take me in front of a disciplinary board for months, and according to their own idiot regulations, we're supposed to do that in 150 days. And so far, they've shied away

from that opportunity because they actually make those public. And I'll put that on my damn YouTube channel in a second. And we'll see what happens at a face-to-face disciplinary board, where they're arguing that these bloody butchers should have free access to children. So especially now that what its seven European countries have backtracked on that front with with a fair degree of amazing rapidity, including the Netherlands, which is where all this ADSC started to begin with. So we can see who's on the wrong, the men, the Joseph Mengalli side of history, let's say, you'd think the bloody Democrats in the US would wake up to that, but they're not

known for their consciousness. So we'll see how that plays out. Yeah. So what's it like being Helen Joyce at the moment? There's a couple of things. First of all, you said you understand why people remain silent, but you don't. So like, I'm getting increasingly tired of being sympathetic to people who remain silent when they have something to say. Like, I do understand that I've met 200 people who've had their lives

flipped upside down by being canceled. It's not pleasant. But inviting the woke mob to dominate the world, that's not all that pleasant either. So it looks like a choice between various forms of hell. Now, you wrote this book. So tell me what we haven't talked for like a year and a half, something like that. What's it been like for you to have published that book? And what's what's life like for you in the practical sense at the moment? So I mean, I'm having a ball. I think that the big difference, the big question on this, whether people are having, are living a nightmare or actually enjoying themselves, it's not so much about whether they've been cancelled because you will be, you will be, like it's just going to be, you know, they go after you. It's whether it's inside your house or not.

So there are quite a lot of women who, or, and also men, by the way, who talk to me, who are living absolute nightmares because of things that are happening to their children in particular. Or women whose husbands have transitioned and who have spent all the family money and gone through these weird surgeries and now say they're wives or lesbians. And if the wife doesn't think of herself as a lesbian, you know, she's a bigot. And so people go through these horrific, horrific nightmares and those people typically can't speak because there's typically people whose privacy they must protect their own children. And I'm never more sorry for anyone than when I meet one of these people. I meet

them all the time where I get them on my inbox. And they're living a nightmare not just because of what's happening inside their house, but because the whole of society is gaslighting them. So the child's school will be saying, congratulations, you've now got a daughter, you know, this sort of thing. They'll get told they get referred to social services. If they go to their family doctor, that doesn't person doesn't help. Their own friends say they're bigger, if they don't go along with something they can see is really harmful for their child. And then there are some of us who have come into it in other ways, for example, we were just trying to do decent journalism. And we've now got quite a lot of support from each other. And I mean, I now work for an organization called Sex Matters, where there's several of us and we can,

you know, we have a great time when we feel we're getting some traction with the UK government. And for us, this is an important civil rights movement, really. Like I know that our opponents think that we're trying to reverse equality and civil rights, but no, we see ourselves very much as in the grand tradition of the suffragettes and in the grand tradition of the civil rights activists, we're fighting for human rights, in fact.

So we're having a great time. But every day day I have to remember that there are people who agree with me on everything are silenced and are having the absolutely most miserable time because it's inside their house. And that's the distinction I'd make. It's not really about how bad the activists come after you because, you know, I know I didn't go back to the economists by the way. The last time we talked I was on a year's leave of absence and they were very supportive, more very happy to have me back. But actually, I just felt I was doing something more important really than editing some

pages of the world's best weekly news magazine, but I just had something else to be doing. So I'm having fun and um, so why do you get very interesting? Well, okay. So, yeah, exactly. Well, this is the critical issue. You're not JK rolling, right? Yeah. And there are other people who have decided to speak. I talked to Andrew Doyle yesterday

and he's a good example of that, right? There are people who've decided to not to remain silent and who aren't, haven't been taken out of the fray entirely on the personal or the social fronts and you're definitely one of them. So why are you lucky or what did you do right, do you think? So on the not taken out, it was very much

because the economist didn't fold. And it's about the imploreical. So I wasn't facing destitution. What I said, my friend Maya Forstata, who founded Sex Matters, she and I talked about these things around the same time, 2017, 2018. I had started to think about this, it's something to write about, not just in the economist, and actually in the end, not in the economist elsewhere. And I met her. She was still working at the Center for Global Development, which is an American Washington-based think tank,

which has a European arm, and that's where she was working. And she wanted to write things like, when you're thinking about global development, it's important to remember that there are two sexes. And that used to be a truism. Like everybody understood that. You had to think about mothers,

you had to think about child mortality, you had to think about child mortality, you had to think about maternal mortality. It used to be obvious that if you gave money to the mother rather than the father, like it would get spent on the children, there were all these sex-based issues. Violence is very, very sexed as well. And she was just saying these very ordinary things

and she was told by the Washington office to stay quiet. But she and I would talk a bit, like not often, but we met a few times and we were both saying the same things. And when the when the people in the Washington office complained about her at CGD, she ended up losing her job and had to go to employment tribunal and still four years later, just finishing off that process, whereas when they came to the economist, the editor said, we fully stand by, Helen Joyce, she's an excellent journalist. And they went away. You do not have to stand up to the bullies They can only take you out one at a time. Yes, and they're like sharks. They can smell the blood in the water

So if there's no blood in the water, they just go and find someone else to go after So it wasn't even as if the economist had to put much effort into this it was just the most basic Business of saying no, we're not bound to bullies and it wasn't even that the editor agreed with me. She didn't even as if the economist had to put much effort into this, it was just the most basic business of saying, no, we're not bound to bullies. And it wasn't even that the editors were agreed with me. She didn't disagree with me either. She just hadn't got any opinion on it. She just said, I don't like bullies and I do like free speech. And it was that simple. Just saying, I don't like bullies. So it was her speech. So it was really her, because I'm curious about why the economist did support you. I mean, for a long time, although I think the economist has become, what would you say?

Reprehensibly quasi woke from time to time in recent years. And that's really being lost as far as I'm concerned, because it was one of the world's great magazines. And maybe the world's greatest magazine, I think you could make a case for that in some ways. But despite the fact that they have tilted in the climate hysteria direction, let's say, and so forth, at least on some occasions, they did stand behind you. Now, why was that? What was it about the economist in particular that made that possible? Because especially at the time when this blew up around you, in some ways it would have been easier for them to hang you out to dry, right? Plus, they could have claimed moral virtue while doing so, and we know how delightful that is, especially when you don't earn it. I mean, really, it is because the editor

has a backbone. And, you know, it sounds so simple, but you know, I don't think she agrees with me I don't think she thought the topic was interesting She just reflexively wasn't going to let people push her around and if only there were more people like that And also the economist is a place. I mean, I would never speak ill of them anywhere I would you know because I wouldn't speak ill of an ex-employee, but actually I had 17 very happy years working at the economist. It's a place with a wonderful ethos and a very strong collegiality, and somewhere where our editorial meetings, it is not just accepted, it is expected that you put forward

on popular opinions if you have them. And so I have stood up and I have seen other people do that in those editorial meetings and stood up and argued against. So for example, the economist really had a strong line in favor of having a second referendum on Brexit. And I really opposed that. I thought it was a terrible, terrible mistake and a terrible judgment. And although I was very anti-Brexit, like as far as I was concerned, it was anti-democratic, like once to try to have a second referendum. And I stood up and gave it my best shot over about a three hour editorial meeting

that we really shouldn't go for this. And the deputy editor came by my office several times over the next two days and said, you know, what about this, what about this, what about this? You know, they really regarded it as a valuable contribution and then wrote the editorial saying the opposite. So, right, right. So you guys were actually opposite. So, you know, that culture has a lot of history. Thinking and believing in the

Socratic method as well that you're challenging each other, that the person who says the opposite to what everybody else is saying is the person who's helping you most. And not just doing it in a reflexive sort of, you know, knee-jerk, contrarian way. But I mean, I think that, you know, that's a problem in journalism in general is as it's become a graduate profession, and it's not just like I have a PhD in mathematics, so I'm a rather unusual graduate to have gone into journalism, but it's mostly people who will have studied like, you know, great subjects like English or history or the economist, lots of economists, obviously. But then also sort of the studies type things,

like lots of people who have done social studies or media studies or journalism itself. And so they become more homogenous, more distant from what the population is like. Like you used to come into journalism by going into the local press, you probably weren't a graduate. You spent your years door stepping

the families of murder victims, going and reporting on cancel meetings. You learned through shoe leather, and if you were good, you worked your way up through the ranks, and you might arrive at a very senior position in one of the great newspapers of the world, not having a degree and having an awful lot of common sense and experience. And now that's just not there because local journalism is dead. So people go straight into those institutions that pay as much worse from the universe of people. Yeah, so it tends to have to be people who have some money behind them because the pay is so bad and you need to live in the capital city. Yeah, you've just got a very homogenous graduate, like liberal in the American sense, not the 19th century British

sense, hyper liberal actually. You've got papers like the New York Times that say that they actually have to really try to get anybody who's right wing to work for them. And then when they do that, they get barriwisers somebody, she ends up having to leave because it's so unbelievably unpleasant as a workplace. Right. Yes, and it's a pretty damn weird world where we think Barry Weiss is right winged. Exactly. Exactly.

I mean, it's just beyond comprehension. Yeah. So, yeah. Yeah. So, okay, so let's delve into this. Let's delve into this little further. So, you know, we were commiserating with those who wish to remain silent because of the miseries that might be visited upon them.

And those are real enough. Jay Bada Cheria, who's a physician at Stanford, he was taken to task by his erstwhile compatriots when he did nothing but stand up bravely and tell the truth. And he lost 35 pounds in three months. And I've talked to plenty of other people who are basically hounded into a silence by the woke mob. And those are strong people. And this is not fun.

But you did this. Now you even transferred careers. So what the hell are you doing now? Like what are you up to exactly? You're not working for the economist anymore. And what's your goal? Why do you think it's a valid goal? And then even more, why are you managing not only to make this successful instead of

an absolute bloody hell, but something that you know, you seem fully on board with and actually pursuing to what would you say to some degree of success? How are you managing all that? So I work part time for Sex Matters, which is now an organization that has, it's funded almost exclusively by people paying five to ten pound a month to support us in attempting to shore up the existence of sex, binary sex in law and life. It's that simple. We're standing up for sex-based rights, right? The human rights that involve recognizing that there are two sex matters. That's sex matters. Yes. And that's what people find out more about that. Sex-matters.org. It's that simple.

I mean, we publish an awful lot of material. I would say that it's very focused on law and regulation. And that's part of why it works is because in the UK, the laws and regulations are actually pretty good. Like the practice is appalling. But we still have, we haven't wandered off into Bill C-16 and into American title 9 covers gender identity instead of sex. We still have pretty decent laws. It's just that practice has wandered away from them. So the idea is to drag,

practice back to where the law is, if we need to take legal challenges or judicial reviews we will, but also we can engage politically, we can do mass actions and so on. That's part of what I spend my time doing. It's not well paid because this is going to become a charity and charities are not highly paid where it places. That's fine. I write a newsletter, that's doing okay. So if people want to find me, that's the hell and joys.com. And I also do writing tuition, which was something that I used to do anyway, and I make some money from that. So it's not what it used to be, money wise, but it's fine.

My children are nearly good. Hey, my son and I developed this app, you might be interested in. It's called essay. essay.app. Yeah, and it teaches people how to write while they use it to write. It's a word processor that has production and editing tools built into it. And it tells you, making people like me obsolete then. No, no, no, it'd be something that people like you could use to their great advantage

because it would take some of the busy work element out of what you're teaching. It, because it runs people through the elements. So, for example, it has tools that help people understand that when you write a paragraph, you should think about reorganizing the sentences, and that when you write a sentence, you should think about writing variants of the sentence and picking the best sentence. And you should think about reordering your paragraphs, and that's tools for all of that. So anyway, we have a lot of subscribers. Yeah, essay.app, it's a very, very good program.

And for the typical bad writer, it'll improve the quality of their writing by 50% if they use it once. Just because it helps people understand what editing means. So essay.app. There's my little ad for today. So and you're both, by the way. Yes, I support Fio career, you know? I mean, that's the answer.

Right, right. Port Fio career. Oh, I also have a column in the critic. So yeah, it's fine. I'm answer. Right, right. It portfolio, oh, I also have a column in the critic. So yeah, it's fine. I'm fine. Right. Okay, okay. So you're distributed widely enough so that it's not easy to take you out.

And you're competent enough as an entrepreneur and as a practitioner to make all those things work. And you have any, well, apparently, do you have any financial security in the fundamental sense? My God, and I'm not, I'm not privately wealthy, unfortunately, do you have any financial security in the fundamental sense? My God, no, I'm not, I'm not privately wealthy, unfortunately, no. I guess, do you know what? I have to be honest, and I have to say that I was already so far in that it was too late to go back before I knew I was taking a big risk. I had already written about quite controversial things, so I was a foreign correspondent in controversial things. So I was a foreign

correspondent in Brazil and while I was there, I wrote about political corruption, I wrote some quite scary things. And then I also always liked controversial topics. So I wrote a piece about what pedophilia is and how you might deal with pedophiles. I wrote about pornography and the effect on children. I always liked those hot topics and try, I like hot topics that you can try and treat in a cool way. And I don't mean cool trendy. I mean cool low temperature. I, one of the great bits of device I got from my editor

when I was writing my book and then when I was reading the audio book is she said, the hotter the topic, the cooler your tone. Yeah, yeah, that is good. That is good advice. It is good advice. And it was very good advice when reading it. She said, when you get to the bits where you're talking about, you know, this child's life is going to be destroyed. She said, take a deep breath, slow down and just let your voice sink. And so I've always been like that as a writer, you know,

specifically, but I thought, I thought journalists were meant to be like this. I've always liked the bits where you find the most controversy and the most, you know, most heat and least light. That's where you think you can do the most useful journalism, I thought. So I had found this topic. I got interested in it. I wrote about it. I got a level of pushback I did not at all predict.

And by then, it's too late. Right. Well, it's too late. It's very interesting that you describe it that way because you know what I saw on the faculty front was. So undergraduates will write what they think their professors want to hear because they're just undergraduates and they have no power. And then graduate students do the same for the journals and the professors

that they're working under. And then assistant professors are terrified because they don't have tenure, and then newly tenured professors are terrified because they're not full professors. And so everybody in the whole chain thinks, well, once I get to a position of security, I'll be brave, but after you've sold your soul for 15 years, there's nothing left of you that's brave. And the idea that you become brave because you have security, it indicates nothing but a profound misunderstanding of what constitutes bravery. And, you know, what you tell me indicates to me that you're just doing now what you've always done essentially, like you're on different fronts. But, you know, you actually wanted to be a journalist

and go investigate difficult things and think and dig around in the mock and try to find some light. and you're just continuing to do that. And that is relatively rare. One of the things I've really learned since 2016 is how rare that genuine faith and courage truly is. It's like one person in a hundred possesses it. And I've always wondered, for example, how 30% of Germans, East Germans could end up as

government informers. But after watching what happened in the lockdown in Toronto, I realized very rapidly that we were still exactly like that. And that 30% of people in Canada would wear a mask happily for the rest of their life if they could come to inform other neighbors as a consequence. And so that cowardly, what would you say, alignment with the powers that be for personally self-aggrandizing purposes, that's the norm and that courage to dig around and to speak the truth, especially on uncomfortable topics. I was reading the story of Abraham today.

There's a real cool passage in that. Abraham goes with two angels to saw them, to sort out the city, which is like a fairly daunting task. And before he does that, he has a little discussion with God, and God has basically said that he's going to destroy the city because of its iniquity. And Abraham says, well, how about if I find 40 people there that are good? And God says, well, if you can find 40, I won't destroy the city. And Abraham bargains back and forth until he gets down to 10, which is very interesting story, because it proclaims that you can strike a covenantal contract with reality itself that you can bargain, which is a very interesting idea.

But more importantly, that if even 10 people in a doomed city are still willing to speak that the entire thing won't come tumbling down, you know, and I do think that's eternally true is that freedom itself, the absence of totalitarian hell depends on the willingness of a very small minority of people to lift their heads above the turrets and to say what they believe to be true. And it's a very tiny percentage of people. It's like the thing that economists say the prices are set at the margins. Like, I think this about free speech as well. And it's why sometimes in some of the women that I talk to a lot,

who would be, you know, atheist feminist, I mean, again, I am an atheist. This is not me trying to position myself on a religious spectrum here. They don't like working with religious people on anything, on anything at all, not even on very narrow things like free speech. But the thing is that if you're not that if you're an atheist, if you're not religious, like you have to be a bit mad to think that it's worth the personal grief in the one life that you get when you're going

to be nothing after you die, to stand up against what is obviously a mad issue, but nearly everyone agrees with you, but like always somebody else could do it. Like most teachers know very well that you shouldn't be teaching children that sex suspect from, like really most of them know that. So why do most of them not stand up? Well, because there's other people, it's like the bystander effect, other people could do it. Why should they do it? The only people who are going to stand up on this, by and large, are the

people who think their immortal soul is on the line. And so I think that they are the people who set the boundaries of free speech, is people who have what are quite unusual opinions. That puts you in an even more mysterious category than doesn't it? But here's a little twist on that, you know, that I think is relevant given your details of your biography. So here's one thing I've come to realize about truth. So if you enter a conversation, like I could have come on to this conversation and thought,

well, you know, what do I want to extract from Helen to make my YouTube channel more popular? And if I had thought that way, I probably wouldn't have talked to you at all because the probability that we're going to be canceled and that that'll be a risk to my YouTube channel is very high. And so I'm not thinking instrumental thoughts when I talk to people. I'm thinking something completely different, which is I'm going to say what comes to mind in the clearest manner I possibly can. Based on the presupposition, two presuppositions, number one is that whatever happens if you

tell the truth is the best possible thing that could have happened, even if that isn't obvious to you in the moment, right? So that's an axiom of faith, right? That the truth is. That's faith. Yeah. You bet. Truth sets you free and brings the habitable order that is good into being, right? Yeah. Despite the evidence. Okay. But there's another thing that's very cool too. And I think this is something that also appeals to JK Rowling, you know, and to you, you know, you tell me what you think about this. So if you just say what you think, you don't know what the hell is going to happen. You have to let go of the outcome, right? Because there's no instrumental manipulation associated with it. And you might think, well,

that's a hell of a risk because maybe the mobile come to you, but, but I can tell you what's very interesting about that, which is that it's a hell of an adventure, because you don't know what's going to happen next. Now, you know, you seem quite pleased by the fact that you're able to see what you think and all these weird things are happening around you. And, you know, you're sailing your ship out on the high seas with plenty of storm, but, you know, imagine you would remain silent. You wouldn't be the person that you are and you wouldn't be having the adventures that you're having.

So I think that truth is adventure. That's what the story of Abraham is about, by the way, the notion that truth itself is an adventure. It's an adventure that justifies life. That's really interesting. And I think that the two things that that immediately makes me think are one, then this is just a personal characteristic thing. It's neither good nor bad. I'm a very unangushious person. I'm not someone who feels nervous about things.

I'm not someone who finds giving talks, scary or anything like that. I don't ruminate, I didn't lose any sleep over the idea that I might lose my job or anything like that. And so I think that's maybe unusual, especially unusual for women. And I don't know why it's the case, but it just is the case. So I just never worried. I always had faith that I would be able to find something else to do. And also my biography, I've changed my job a lot of times, like I trained as a dancer,

I went into study mathematics, I became a journalist, and now I'm a campaigner. It always worked out, I was always able to make it work out. So that's one of the two things that I thought listening to what you were saying, and the other thought that immediately came to mind is that I really find cognitive dissonance almost unbearable. So the idea of having to pay some sort of lip service to not just idiotic, but an internally contradictory belief system really bothered me, like bothered that I lost sleep about. Like I would stay up late at night, I would lie in bed thinking like, but how can they think that sex is self-identified? How can they think that it's right to tell children that you aren't just a boy or a girl and don't attach too much meaning to that?

It's just a fact. And so, so I think that's why did that? Why did that? Okay, so that's very interesting. So let's elaborate on that. So I'll tell you something else I learned well delving into the biblical corpus most recently. So there's a prophet, Elijah, And Elijah is a major league prophet when Christ is transfigured on the top of the mountain. It's Moses and Elijah that appear with him.

And it's pretty obvious why it's Moses, but it's not so obvious that it's Elijah, right? Because he's nowhere near as major a figure as Moses. But I'll tell you what Elijah figured out. This is a revolutionary realization. Elijah set himself up against this God named Baal, and Baal was a nature God. And so you can imagine in the Middle East at that time, there was plenty of speculation that the central divine spirit of the cosmos made itself manifest in the storm and in the thunder and in the lightning and in the hurricane and in the earthquake, right? These massive natural occurrences that are awe-inspiring, right? And what inspires awe is divine, and so nature is divine.

Now Elijah wasn't very fond of that idea. And he's the person who, to whom the still small voice first came. And he's the person who realized that whatever the God of the Old Testament was, the God of Israel, was not a nature God per se, but something that made itself manifest inside that was a kin to the voice of conscience. So I want to ask you, you know, people abide or they don't by the dictates of their conscience. Now you said you're not a nervous person by by temperament, but that you were kept awake by by what? A sense of internal incoherence or discontinuity like, and is that is that conscience? And if so, like what do you

make of that exactly? Like what's calling to you to sort things out and separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak? And why did you decide to abide by that instead of taking the easy route? I mean, for me, it didn't feel like the easy route. It was that thing of like, I could do no other, you know? And I didn't think of it as conscience. I have to think more about that.

What I thought about it is the same thing that made me interested in pure mathematics. You know, I like proves. Well, that's logic, you know, it's, yeah, it's logic. It's consistency. It's consistency. Right. Well, but that's part of logos, right? That's part of logos. You know what I mean?

Technically speaking, it's part of the notion that there's an internal coherency and transparency and comprehensibility to the cosmos itself, right? And that that's something we're called to put ourselves in alignment with. And if you're a mathematician, obviously, that calls to you on the aesthetic and intellectual front in a very, very profound way. So it's illogic for you and in coherence. But I would, like, I understand that aligning that with the voice of conscience is not a self-evident proposition, but it's worth contemplating, right? Because there's something about that in coherence that, why

does it great on you, do you think? Why can't you just swallow it? I've asked myself this many times, like, what are the differences between people who can swallow this and people who can't? And I don't think there's any one rule. But all I can tell you is just having said that I'm not an anxious person, I am feeling my throat close up at the idea of stating something that I know to be a direct falsehood. And not just a direct falsehood, like, you know, I mean, if I look over at something in this room,

and I say that something that I can see is blue, and then I say it's actually red, like that's not giving me the sense of anxiety, because it doesn't impact on anything else. It's just a meaningless falsehood. But the thing that you say in mathematics is, you know, like, what does an equals mean? The equal sign is something beautiful and special.

And if two things are equal, then, you know, like what does an equals mean? The equal sign is something beautiful and special. And if two things are equal, then, you know, that's got a unity and a perfection to it that's unchanging. And then you can do, you can do the same thing on both sides of an equation and it's still a true equation. And true is true is such a beautiful word. So if you've got two things that are equal

and you multiply them both by two, or you add 10 onto both of them, you've still got an equation. And then you could say, like if you didn't know anything about how all mathematics is internally coherent and it's all connected with everything else inside mathematics, you could say, well, take one little tiny equation just over in the corner of your eye, not an important one, like not a theorem that we need for building bridges or running super computers, just a tiny little equation over here.

We'll break that equation. What's the problem? What would the harm be? The harm is you've broken all of mathematics. It's all connected. Because if you've got a force equation, you can add that to any other equation and straight away you've got a foreshad. Anything can be equal to anything. That's chaos. Now I'm feeling anxious because now you've got like the equal sign, but it's not equal. It's a now. Well, that is extremely interesting. Okay. So the case you made is that first of all that your your mathematical sensibility is aligned in some manner with your reverence for what's true and beautiful, right? Yes. So there's an aesthetic element to it. Completely. And all pure mathematicians, all pure mathematicians will right? Yes. So there's an aesthetic element to it. Completely.

And all pure mathematicians, all pure mathematicians will tell you that. Now, it's a long time since I've done any pure mathematics. But that people will say, I knew that this was, this theorem, this proof was going in the right direction when they've proved something, because they can feel that it's beautiful. Yeah.

And a lot of mathematicians will talk about, you know, that's an ugly proof. Like, it's a shame that it's such an ugly proof. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Can we find a more beautiful one? And so what's beautiful? It's elegant, it's simple, it's minimal in the, in the machinery that it uses. And once, you know, if you've got all the requisite knowledge and the requisite concepts, once someone shows it to you, it's as if you always knew it, you think, like, how did I not see that before? You feel like you just looked around and noticed something that you hadn't noticed before and now you have that theorem,

rather than it being 90 million lines of code, you know? And I didn't have to work out all the ways that it broke everything, but it actually does break everything. When you introduce a falsehood, it breaks everything. Okay, so there's, here's something interesting about the Abraham story again. I hate to return to that, but it's in on my mind because I've been writing about it. So, when Abraham undergoes a name change from Abraham to Abraham, which is a transformation of identity, a profound transformation of identity, he goes from being the utmost father, which is what Abraham means to the father of multitudes, which is what Abraham means. So, there's a shift in status, and it appears to occur because he's been diligently pursuing a moral pathway,

and that produces, catalyzes an ethical transformation in him that's so deep that it's as if he becomes another person. It's like a rebirth phenomena. And he does that, and that happens to him, according to the Dex, because he's striving to be perfect, right? And there's a gospel phrase that Christ refers to much, much later that you should be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect. And part of the reason for that is that if you want to enter into the kingdom of paradise,

nothing perfect can come with you. Nothing imperfect can come with you. Now, you, you trod on that territory in your explanation of your affinity for coherence and beauty because you said, and this is very interesting, that if you take a system that's coherent logically and you allow yourself to falsify even one of the minor propositions, even one that you risk demolishing the whole damn edifice, right? And so, and there is a moral claim that's driving you, I think, that is associated with your fear of doing so, right?

That is associated with your interest on the aesthetic front with mathematical perfection. And that's your realization that if you voluntarily falsify anything that you see or communicate, that you risk contaminating the entire enterprise. And then, you know, you might say and tell me what you think of this. That enterprise has two elements. One would be that you contaminate your own psyche, because now you're, you render yourself unable to distinguish between truth and falsehood. But that's not as bad as it gets, because, and I've thought about this a lot on the totalitarian front, you know, it's, it's the individual willingness to swallow the lie that enables the totalitarian mob.

So if you allow yourself to ascent to something you know to be false, no matter how small, not only do you put your own soul in a mortal peril, you might say, but you also destabilize the entire polity by doing so. And that's on you. That's the right thing to be afraid of. It's no bloody wonder you feel anxious when you're apprehending that because it means that you can actually see reality for what it is as far as I can tell. Yeah. And you know what you're talking about when you talk about the coherence of everything

and everything being attached to everything else and speaking honestly and rightly, it's the opposite of queer theory because the point of queer theory is to destabilise categories and to have things interpenetrating to look at something like what is a child and what is an adult, and okay, there's a blurry categories and we introduce a hard line at 16 for some things 18 for others, so they're not like zero and one in mathematics, but equally, they're not like 0 and 1 in mathematics. But equally, they're not like nothing. It's not like a two-year-old can be an adult or a 60-year-old can be a child.

So just because, but these people are so obsessed with the fact that some categories are fuzzy, or that there might be a different cutoff for different things, or that it might depend on the use case, that they're, they just, they turn the whole thing upside down and they try and say that, you know, a child can be more knowledgeable about say their gender identity than an adult can be. Like, you hear this all the time from parents who have bought into this stuff. They say, my child leads me. I learn from my child. Oh, yeah, yeah. You know, well, there's one tiny grain of truth in that. You can learn. Yes, there's always a grain of truth. It's amazing. Yes, of course.

So the queer theoretic people make you find yourself saying yes, but and by that time you've already lost the the moral clarity or the clarity of explanation because once you have to say, well, I agree, okay, sometimes children are a wiser. Yes, okay. In some ways, they know themselves better. You know, you need to get to the point that that's not what they're saying. What they're saying is they want the child to be supreme and the adults to follow. They want the child to teach and the adults to learn. That's the wrong way.

No, they want their use of their child for the purposes of self-aggrandizement to be paramount. Completely. You know. Completely. There's an agenda. Here's a fun. Here's a fun statistic. 50% of mothers who have children with

gender dysphoria have borderline personality disorder or it's rough equivalent. Right. Right. 50%. Yeah. That's a lot given that the prevalence of borderline personality disorder in the population is under 1%. Right. And I watch these people sacrificing their children to the public proclamation of their own inclusiveness and tolerance. And I think there's, you'd have to go a long ways into, into the depths of hell to find a deeper abyss than that. Right. When you're willing to sacrifice your own bloody children and your and the progeny of your children to your own moral claims, you have committed the worst possible sin you can, you can manage as a mother. And if you're the kind of idiot father that's abetting that, you're doing exactly the same

thing. And you ask yourself, how could somebody do that? Because I don't think that they are speaking with clarity to themselves in which they say, you know, I am an evil person and I wish to do evil. Like, obviously, our capacity for self-deception is pretty much limitless. But what is it that they're thinking? And it has to be this reversal. Like a friend of mine, Eliza Mondegreen, is her pen name. She's in Canada, actually, she's in Quebec.

She's an American graduate student, and she recently said that these gender doctors and these parents and so on, they have given their allegiance to what she calls the trans-alter. Like it's not the real child that's in front of them, they're given their allegiance to this self-created being. And the thing is that once that's the person that you're looking at, you can perform any atrocity on the body in order to release that created or mythical person.

You sterilize the child in order to do the murdering their body in line. Exactly, exactly. And so once you start this business of calling things by not their right name and by saying that zero equals one or that, you know, any sort of break, everything becomes broken. And you find yourself not just doing atrocities, but doing like literally the exact opposite of the thing that you're meant to do. So if you're a child safeguarding organization, you find yourself deliberately and specifically putting children in danger. If you're an organization that's anti-sensorship, you find yourself deliberately

specifically and actively trying to silence people. And so on and so forth, you know, women's organizations in America now spend their days arguing for the rights of men to overstep women's boundaries. Like, you know, the sports women in the girls who were having to compete against trans athletes in America, they reached out to all the big women's organizations, including the law ones and national organization for women and all of them, saying, you know, we are women who are having men intrude upon our spaces in a way that is destroying our rights, but those organizations are now actively men's rights organizations. So it's this reversal that you see, it's absolutely extraordinary.

And that is the consequence of breaking one little bit of an interconnected logical system. But that's what queer theory wants you to do. It wants you to be unable to define everything, anything. In the biblical corpus, that's expressed symbolically as heaven turning to iron. Oh, right. And because heaven is obviously an aerial place, right?

And a light an aerial place. And when everything flips upside down, it turns to iron and everything turns upside down, right? That's permanent carnival, by the way, you know, the carnival has a symbolic expression. Was a time this happened in medieval times where for one day all the rules returned upside down. Right, what's the equivalent of the Pride month now? Accepted it. Or drag queen, like that's what drag is. Yeah. You know, drag is a

drag in its own place. I have no problem with it. I'm not interested, but it's not aimed at me. It was gay men in nightclubs. You know, I'm not a gay man, and I don't go to nightclubs. It's completely fine. It was just meant to be transgressive fun in the evening where people are drunk, you know, whatever. And then it leaks out and then you're like, why would those be the people that you're trying to get into libraries to read to three-year-olds? Like, specifically that. Like, and that's the one and only thing, the one and only thing. Well, they're trying to get in. And you think like... And then I do think, too, that that has something to do with the elevation of the narrow self to the highest place of worship.

And it's not even a selfishness, say, because if you're truly selfish in the highest sense, then you serve other people because there's a lot of other people. And if you serve them well, they will reciprocate. And that's what you do if you're mature and wise. But if you're immature and self centered in that immature way, then you will want gratification for what you want right at the moment, no matter what. And the insistence that the drag queen types

get to read to toddlers, let's say, is what, it's the logical extension of that claim of infinite short term subjective supremacy. I get to have exactly what I want, right bloody now, and damn the consequences for everyone else, including me tomorrow. And that's such a temper tantrum two-year-old way of looking at the world, that it brooks no interference whatsoever and has no limits.

You know, and if you watch a two year old, have a temper tantrum. You know, the world is exploding. Yeah. It's amazing. I've seen adults do that. And in my clinical practice, I've seen adults have a temper tantrum. And believe me, man, that is something that will put a chill on your heart. It is something to see that absolute chaotic rage

burst forward in an adult. But that is that that temper tantrum of a two-year-old is that's the central spirit that animates the subjective self-identity of the worst activist types. Nothing gets in the way of that. You know, a two-year-old will hold his breath till he turns blue, which is a hell of an accomplishment on the anger side. You just try that and see how much will it takes. Yeah. And the extraordinary thing is it's so tedious. Like, these people are

meant to be doing something that's entertaining. And I can't think of anything more boring. Like, you know, what any normal adult finds interesting or entertaining has some element of difficulty and continuity to it. You know, you become good at something and then that becomes enjoyable. You play an instrument and you don't just bash on the keyboard as you learn to play and then that becomes more enjoyable as you get better at it. Or you do, you know, you become a footballer, you want to get better at it. Look, whatever it is you're doing, it's got some project.

Drive to mastery. Drive to mastery. Drive to mastery. Yes, exactly. Playful. It's drive to mastery. But if what you're doing is just tearing things down, like it's not just that there's no skill to it, it's tedious. I often look at these people who are doing these

horrifically boring and stupid PhD thesis about, you know, the experience of pregnant men, are you women who are taking testosterone or something like that? And I think like, oh my God, you know, the experience of pregnant men, are you women who were taking testosterone or something like that? And I think like, oh my God, you know, we still have malaria, we still have cancer. Or you could just be making- Yeah, child sexual trafficking. Yes, or you could be making coffee for people, you know, a bunch of people want some coffee in the morning, you could just be making coffee for people and making the world a better place in your

own small way. And instead you're wasting your one and only life on total boring nonsense. And it's not just that it's nonsense. It's that it's boring. Well, there you go. So well, then you've circled back there to that notion of truth as adventure. So let's say you decide to admit a falsehood into the theater of your consciousness, right? That's like inviting the devil himself to come in and play. Well, your proposition as a mathematician is while you risk the integrity of everything by doing that. Okay, and that's utter chaos and terribly anxiety-provoking and your apprehension of that anxiety is enough

to make you anxious and you're not even anxious person. But then you put your finger on something else too. You let falsehood in to disrupt your proper aim, let's say, and that's what happens. Then you end up pursuing something that's so goddamn meaningless that it just puts you into a pit of despair, especially when trouble comes to visit. You know, like one of the things I was very ill for about three years, and one of the things that kept me going through that intense period of catastrophe because my wife was also mortally ill at that time and my daughter was extremely ill,

too, was the fact that I had something insanely exciting to do. I was writing a book, and I was trying to make it a truthful book, and I think I did that to the best of my ability. And I could get up and sit at the damn computer and write for a couple of hours, you know, despite being in so much pain that it's almost undescribable. And that was because it was worth doing. And the reason it was worth doing is because it was true, you know, and then you have the bloody adventure of your life instead of descending into the kind of resentful, bitter misery that wants you to take out the whole goddamn world. And solidism as well.

You know, like if you're, you suppose you're writing a thesis that's about, you know, the experience of clandmasculine parents, meaning women who are pregnant but call themselves men, right? Like there's no constraints to what you can write because it's just nonsense beginning to end. So you just, you just write nonsense.

There's no, there's no criterion for what will be a good thesis on that field. Like it's just stupid. So how do you get yourself up in the morning to do it? Like you know you've written the book. I've written the book. You know the hardest winnings I've ever done. When Kane extracts revenge on Abel, he pulls down his own ideal.

Because that's what happens. Kane is irritated and bitter because he isn't Abel. That's why. So he's what happens. Cain is irritated and bitter because he isn't able. That's why. So he's insanely jealous, and he shakes his fist at God, and then he kills able. And then he tells God, my punishment is more than I can bear.

It's a bit of a mysterious phrase, but what it seems to mean is something like this. What's left for you if you destroy your own ideal? How the hell do you get up in the morning? You've torn everything down. You can't put pen to paper because there's no criteria for quality. It doesn't matter whether you write or whether you don't write. And even if you do write, it doesn't matter what you write. So how can you be anything but hopeless in a situation like that? And how can that be anything other than the punishment so great you can't bear

it? Isn't it interesting? I mean, it looks easy, but then I mean, the fascination is with what's difficult, isn't it? So why would you not, why would you not want to try to do something that was hard and that you mastered it and you achieved? And I mean, I look at these people and they're churning out all this stuff.

And then it gets picked up in schools, it gets picked up in laws, unfortunately. And I mean, in laws or one place that you have to have some consistency and some logic and some meaning to them. There was this great thing we found recently at Sex Matters, which was a great English tourist, what Edward Cook is his name, it looks like Coke is C-OK, but it's pronounced Cook. And he was the guy who said the parliament was supreme, that parliament was where the authority flowed from, as opposed to say divine right

or from the monarchy. And he was trying to say where was the limit to what parliament could do? Because the parliament can't do anything, like laws can't do anything. And the example he chose was a cat-make men-women. Like, parliament could say men could be women, but men will still not be women.

And it's so funny to see you now in a place where I think you could argue and on psychological grounds, so from an evolutionary perspective. And this has to do with this axiomatic certainty that you were describing in the necessity for that. I think that the distinction between male and female is the most fundamental perceptual distinction. And that if it goes everything goes. I think it's more fundamental than dark and light because you can survive blind. Right. I think it's more fundamental than up and down because sex evolved really in an environment, in an aquatic environment where up and down we're fundamentally more or less irrelevant.

Like, I don't think there is a single equation more fundamental than man does not equal woman. I think you're right. So then if you swallow that, if you can force people to swallow that, they will swallow absolutely everything you try to force feed them. And so then the question is, well, what's the nature of the spirit that is trying to convince us to falsify our perceptions at that level? Because it's a real mystery, like what the hell's going on here? You know,

you said, well, why drag queens and toddlers? And the answer is something like that. Well, if you won't object to that, there's nothing we can, if you won't object to that, there's nothing we can do that you won't object to. And if we want to be able to do absolutely everything we want to you at any given moment, that's a good place to start. Yes, and even if people don't believe you, like one of the things that people say about propaganda,

is did people believe the ridiculous claims in Soviet Russia? Like a lot of the time, no, they didn't believe it, but the point is they didn't believe anything. The point wasn't to make them believe the lie, it was to make them believe nothing. And then why do you want people to believe nothing? It's because you want them to do nothing. So that's the chain of it, is force people to at least pay lip service to an obviously absurd proposition that nobody would have paid lip service to even 10 years ago, or else they're silent. And then either you've confused them so much that they do believe something really nonsensical, which means they're so confused, they're believe anything,

or at least they now don't believe anything. If we live in a world where formerly respected institutions like the BBC caniously use phrases like sex assigned at birth Conceriously take it as axiomatic That people are boys or girls depending on what they say and not depending on what they are Then why would I believe anything else they say and if I don't believe with anything the BBC says then why would I believe anything? And so now I've got to start constructing my own You know my own understanding of who's telling the truth and what is truth and so on from the ground up, which is not some right thought I was. I mean, I'm 54,

I'm nearly 55, so it's 50, to have suddenly discovered that institutions that were built up over in some cases centuries have been so eaten away by termites that we are in a place where just the most basic, the most axiomatic thing about our species, like I can only think like other things that are as obvious about our species don't distinguish between us. It's things like, you know, that we breathe air, not water, but we all breathe air, not water. So what's the thing to break, you know, we can't put us all in underwater and have us all

die and then claim that we can breathe water. Like, this is the only thing that we are split, that we are divided on, that is really fundamental, that we're divided into two sexes. So now you can claim that one sex is the other. There's nothing else you could do that with. You can't say we're immortal because the fact is we actually do die.

You know, the body is there, it's gone. The person no longer moves. And we're not there yet on not giving birth or not needing to have both sexes for reproduction. You know, these are the fundamental things about what it is to be a mammal. And here we are, and we're saying that like the most, one of the most fundamental things about what it is

to be a mammal that are obsessed with. Yeah, well, and you know, it's no wonder that that rates of anxiety and hopelessness are skyrocketing among young people because and this goes back to your observation about shaking the foundations. Yeah. You let a profound falsehood in and it takes out everything and when it takes out everything, there's no direction. And so that's anxiety virtually by definition because anxiety emerges in the midst of directionlessness and there's no hope and so not only do we

risk subjecting confused children to Medical atrocity and insist that that's the moral thing to do but we demoralize them with confusion as profoundly as we can possibly manage. You know, when I knew that was going to happen back in 2016, which is why I objected to that goddamn bill to begin with because I thought, for every trans kid you hypothetically save, and I mean hypothetically, you will confuse a thousand into hell. I knew it.

I knew the literature on psychogenic epidemics. And that's exactly what's happened. Well, we should stop this part of the conversation. I guess I'm gonna turn over to the daily wire side of the conversation now. For those of you who are watching and listening as we illustrated in this conversation, the daily wire crew, including me, are under a certain

degree of assault from YouTube at the moment, and that's not a good thing. And God only knows what the consequences of it will be, especially once we post this video, which I don't imagine will make them particularly happy. So if you're inclined to throw some support, the daily wire way, you know, this isn't a bad time to think about doing that. Because my, what would you say, alliance with them has been very productive and seems to be increasingly necessary. So anyways, I'm going to talk to Helen, maybe a little bit more on the optimism side on the Daily Wire Plus channel to see where we think we might head in the future. So you could join us over there.

Thanks for your time and attention, everyone. And for the film crew here in Toronto for facilitating this, the Daily Wire Plus for making it possible in Helen. Well, it's always a pleasure talking to you with your mathematical clarity and your love of the true and beautiful in your courage. So like good on you. Thank God.

You're one of those 10 people that's stopping sawdum from being annihilated by fire in brimstone, let's say so far. And we'll go over to the Dailywear Plus side and continue our conversation. Well, thank you very much. And to the film crew here too, by the way. Oh, yeah. And your book, just so everyone knows her book, which you shouldn't read unless you want

to be reprehensible. And then to have your phone confiscated, let's say, by the Irish authorities, if you ever happened to visit that fair green Emerald, let's see, maybe a test case. No kidding. No kidding. Trans, when ideology meets reality, and you can tell Helen is a reprehensible type because she actually believes that there's a distinction between ideology and Reality and is willing to express that sentiment whenever challenged, including in writing. So pick up the book, trans, when ideology meets reality. Yeah, and you can also wander over to her website, and that's what Helen, you said, HelenJoyce.

The HelenJoyce.com. There's some poor woman. HelenJoyce.com. Right, right. You have to go got that website first? Yeah, yeah. The hellenjoy's.com, right? She's good to follow on Twitter too, which is a place where you can still follow her. Thank you to Elon Musk. Okay, good.

After the daily wire we go. Thanks, Helen. Thank you. Music